Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Enclaves FEIS FINAL%.6)2/.-%.4!, )-0!#4 34!4%MENT THE ENCLAVES-PROPOSED HOTEL AND RESTAURANT 56655 MAIN ROAD, HAMLET OF SOUTHOLD TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Town Annex /First Floor 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 (631) 765-1809 P.W. Grosser Consulting, Inc. 630 Johnson Ave, Suite 7 Bohemia, NY 11716 (631) 589-6353 56655 Main Road c/o Jonathan Tibett 185 Willow Point Road, Southold, NY 11971 (516) 997-6190 April2020 Revised December 2020, April2021, May 2021, July 2021 FINAL%.6)2/.-%.4!, )-0!#4 34!4%-%.4 4(% %.#,!6%3-02/0/3%$ (/4%, !.$ 2%34!52!.4 ΔΕΕΔΔ -!). 2/!$Ǿ (!-,%4 /& 3/54(/,$ 4/7. /& 3/54(/,$Ǿ 35&&/,+ #/5.49Ǿ .9 0±¤¯ ±¤£ ¥®± ­£ 3´¡¬¨³³¤£ ³®Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals a² ,¤ £ !¦¤­¢¸:Town Annex /First Floor 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 (631) 765-1809 0±®¯¤±³¸ /¶­¤±  ­£ !¯¯«¨¢ ­³:56655 Main Road c/o Jonathan Tibett 185 Willow Point Road, Southold, NY11971 Attn: Andrew V. Giambertone, A.I.A, President (631) 367-0050 0±®©¤¢³ ,®¢ ³¨®­Ȁ 56655 Main Road Hamlet of Southold, Town of Southold District 1000-Section 63-Block 3-Lot 15 P±¤¯ ±¤£ ¡¸Ȁ P.W. Grosser Consulting, Inc. 630 Johnson Ave, Suite 7, Bohemia, NY11716 Attn: Kim Gennaro-Oancea, AICP CEP, Vice President (631) 589-6353 7¨³§ 4¤¢§­¨¢ « !²²¨²³ ­¢¤ &±®¬:Andrew V. Giambertone & Associates, Architects, P.C. 62 Elm Street, Huntington, NY11743 (631) 367-0050 (Project Design and Architecture) SoundSense, LLC 39 Industrial Road, Unit 6, PO Box 1360, Wainscott, NY11975 (631) 537-4220 (Acoustic Consultant) DunnEngineeringAssociates, P.C. 66 Main Street, Westhampton Beach, NY11978 631-288-2480 (Transportation Engineering Consultant) Land Use Ecological Services 570 Expressway Drive South, Suite 2F, Medford, NY11763 Attn: William P. Bowman, PhD (631) 727-2400 (Ecologist) $ ³¤ ®¥ 0±¤¯ ± ³¨®­Ȁ April2020 Revised December 2020, April2021, May 2021and July 2021 !µ ¨« ¡¨«¨³¸ ®¥ $®¢´¬¤­³Ȁ This document, together with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), is the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed application. Copies areavailable for public review and comment at the offices of the Lead Agency, at 54375 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, as well as at the Office of the Town Clerk, Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold (between 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM) and the Southold Free Library temporarily located at the Feather Hill Shopping Center, 53345 Main Road, Southold. The FEIS is also available for review on-line at: http://southoldtownny.gov/1298/Environmental-Impact-Statement. All comments on the FEIS should be submitted to theLead Agency for consideration in the Findings Statement. $ ³¤ ®¥ &¨«¨­¦Ȁ August 19, 2021 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4 ¡«¤ ®¥ #®­³¤­³² 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................................................... . 1 1.1 Purpose of this Document ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Format of the FEIS .............................................................................................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Changes to the Proposed Site Plan and Project Components ......................................................................................... 9 2.0 DEIS COMMENTS AND RESPONSES .....................................................................................................................................12 2.1 Comments in General Support of the Proposed Project ..................................................................................................12 2.2 Comments in General Opposition of the Proposed Project ............................................................................................12 2.3 Responses to Substantive Comments ......................................................................................................................................12 2.3.1 DEIS ..........................................................................................................................................................................................12 2.3.2 Plans .........................................................................................................................................................................................35 2.3.3 Noise ........................................................................................................................................................................................39 2.3.4 Traffic and Parking ............................................................................................................................................................48 2.3.5 Special Events ......................................................................................................................................................................63 2.3.6 Land Use and Zoning.........................................................................................................................................................66 2.3.7 Visual/Aesthetics, Community Character and Lighting ....................................................................................71 2.3.8 Groundwater, Stormwater and Water Supply/Usage ........................................................................................75 2.3.9 STP ............................................................................................................................................................................................8 1 2.3.10 Soils and Construction-Related Impacts ..................................................................................................................84 2.3.11 Ecology ....................................................................................................................................................................................86 2.3.12 Economics ..............................................................................................................................................................................90 2.3.13Alternatives...........................................................................................................................................................................93 2.3.14 Lack of Housing ...................................................................................................................................................................95 2.3.15 Restaurant Component ....................................................................................................................................................96 2.3.16 Hotel Component................................................................................................................................................................97 2.3.17 Historic-Related Impacts ................................................................................................................................................98 2.3.18 Solid Waste ............................................................................................................................................................................98 2.3.19 General Process ...................................................................................................................................................................98 2.3.20 General Comments ............................................................................................................................................................99 3.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................................................................... i Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ,)34 /& !00%.$)#%3 Appendix A - Public Hearing Transcript Appendix B - Written Correspondence (FEIS Comment Memorandum and DEIS Comment Letters and Email Correspondence) Appendix C - Site Development Plans Appendix D - Architectural Floor Plans, Renderings and Photo Simulations Appendix E - Supplemental Traffic Analyses and Correspondence from ZBA Traffic Consultant Appendix F - Revised Acoustic Report with Supporting Data Appendix G - Alternate STP Location (West Side of Property) Appendix H - Correspondence with Southold Police and Fire Departments Appendix I - Consistency Analysis with Special Exception Use Permit Criteria (§280-142 and §280-143) Appendix J - Revised BURBS Analysis Appendix K - SCWA Water Availability Letter -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ,)34 /& 4!",%3 Table 1 – Summary of Public Hearing Comments ............................................................................................................................ 3 Table 2 – Summary of Written Correspondence ............................................................................................................................... 6 Table 3 - Consistency with Bulk and Dimensional Requirements of the HB and RR Zoning Districts .................... 15 ii Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0 INTRODUCTION ΐȁΐ 0´±¯®²¤ ®¥ ³§¨² Document This document is a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed action consisting of a 44- unit hotel and sit-down restaurant to be located at 56655 Main Road (NYS Route 25) in the hamlet of Southold, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. The subject property is 6.75± acres and is currently developed with a two-story, residential structure, with accessory structures, including a one-story detached garage and two sheds, with the majority of the property (approximately 6.62± acres) undeveloped with land cover consisting of southern successional hardwood forests, successional old fields, and mowed lawns with trees. The subject property is located in the Hamlet Business (HB) Zoning District, thus requiring a special exception use permit from the Southold Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for the hotel component. Site plan approval for the overall project is also required from the Southold Planning Board. As explained in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), the proposed action includes the conversion of the existing residential structure (which was formerly a bed and breakfast and is currently used as a residence) to a 74-seat restaurant and the development of a two-story, 40-unit hotel with four detached cottages and associated amenities (e.g., swimming pool and lounge areas) on the undeveloped portion of the subject property. As part of the proposed conversion to a restaurant use, the applicant is proposing to connect the existing residential structure to one of the existing adjacent sheds by way of a 519±-square foot (SF) addition, for a total gross floor area (post-conversion and expansion) of 3,806± SF (excluding the cellar of 524 SF). The remaining shed will be removed, while the existing one-story detached garage will remain and be used for storage. Also proposed is possible enclosed space to the south of the hotel building to accommodating indoor events, such as weddings, fundraisers, etc. It is noted that the potential enclosed event room was added to the proposed site plan during preparation of this FEIS to address noise concerns associated with outdoor events, and the subject application was modified to eliminate outdoor events. The proposed action includes the construction of an on-site sewage treatment plant (STP) to the north of the hotel building to accommodate sanitary waste from both the restaurant and hotel. The proposed STP is designed with a 100% plant expansion area, and 100% leaching pool expansion area. The development of the STP is subject to the approval of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS). Access to the proposed development will be via an existing curb cut to the east of the existing single-family residence, with egress via a new separate driveway on the west side of the residential structure or proposed restaurant. Dedicated parking for each use will be provided on-site; however, due to an anticipation of events such as weddings, birthday parties, etc. on the subject property, additional parking over the required supply will be provided. Pursuant to §280-78 of the Town Zoning Code, the required parking for the proposed restaurant use is 38 spaces. The proposed design includes a surface parking area designed for 38 spaces (27 paved and 11 grass paved); including two (2) ADA spaces with an additional two (2) grass overflow spaces provided. §280-78 of the Town Zoning Code requires 56 spaces for the proposed hotel. The proposed design includes a dedicated 96-space parking area, including four ADA spaces with an additional 26 grass spaces provided as overflow parking. 1 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The proposed restaurant and hotel will operate year-round, with hours of operation consistent with such uses. The project sponsor anticipates hosting events, such as weddings, fundraising events or other small private gatherings, inside the proposed hotel or within an event room. It is envisioned that large events will be hosted in the event room adjacent to a proposed pond and smaller events will be held in the hotel lounge space. “Large events” at the proposed hotel are defined as events such as weddings, fundraising events or other private gatherings with a capacity of 100 guests to a maximum of 250 guests, held indoors, at the hotel. During preparation of this FEIS, the occurrence of large events has been limited by the Lead Agency to no more than 10 large events per year and no more than one large event per week. Additionally, large events require advanced notice to the Town and arrangement for traffic control personnel, as discussed in Sections 1.3 and 2.3.4 of this FEIS. It is noted that the large events proposed at the subject site do not meet the definition of “Special Events” pursuant to Chapter 205 (Public Entertainment and Special Events) of the Town Code and are not regulated as such. A DEIS was prepared to assess the impacts of the proposed development, which was deemed complete by the ZBA, as lead agency, on October 7, 2019. The Notice of Completion of DEIS was published in the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Environmental Notice Bulletin (http://www.dec.ny.gov/enb/20191016_not1.html) on October 16, 2019 providing a public comment period to November 18, 2019. The DEIS was also circulated to all involved and interested agencies. A public hearing on the DEIS was held on November 7, 2019 and at such hearing, the ZBA elected to extend the written comment period to December 9, 2019. This FEIS was prepared in response to comments received at public hearing on the DEIS held on November 7, 2019, as well as written comments that were received during the written comment period that expired on December 9, 2019. In accordance with the implementing regulations of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) at §617.8(b)(8), this FEIS incorporates the DEIS by reference, the public hearing transcript (Appendix A), all written correspondence (Appendix B), as well as all project-related plans and technical assessments prepared in response to select comments. After the filing of the FEIS, the ZBA as lead agency will afford a minimum 10-day public consideration period where written comments on the FEIS will be considered in the Findings Statement. The Findings Statement is the final step in the SEQRA process and would be issued within 30 days after acceptance by the ZBA and filing of the FEIS. ΐȁΑ &®±¬ ³ ®¥ ³§¤ &%)3 This FEIS responds to the comments received during the public hearing on November 7, 2019, as well as the comments contained within written correspondence received during the public comment period. As noted in Table 1, there were 15 commenters during the public hearing, with the ZBA members collectively grouped as one commenter. Each commenter at the hearing is assigned the letter “H” and number, followed by the comment number. For example, the ZBA is assigned as H14 and the comments are designated as H14-1, H14- 2, etc. The hearing transcript in Appendix A of this FEIS labels each of the comments. Table 2 includes a summary of the written correspondence received, including the name, address, number of comments and the topics raised. In total, 42 comment letters were received. Each commenter is assigned the letter “C” and number, followed by the comment number. For example, the ZBA’s consultant, Nelson, Pope & 2 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Voorhis, is assigned as commenter “C1” and the comments included within their correspondence are designated as C1-1, C1-2, etc. All comment assignments are noted in the written correspondence in Appendix B of this FEIS. The FEIS is organized to acknowledge the general comments in support of the proposed project (Section 2.1), general comments in opposition to the proposed project (Section 2.2), and responses to substantive comments (Section 2.3). Section 2.3 is organized by topic and the topic assignment is also included on the hearing transcript and written correspondence in Appendices A and B, respectively, to aid in determining the location of the response. 4 ¡«¤ 1 – 3´¬¬ ±¸ ®¥ 0´¡«¨¢ (¤ ±¨­¦ #®¬¬¤­³² # Commenter  ­£ !££±¤²² 4®¯¨¢ H1 !¡¨¦ ¨« &¨¤«£Ǿ ΕΚΘΕΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ CutchogueǾ .9 H1-1 General Comments H1-2 General Comments H1-3 LU&Z H1-4 Traffic H1-5 Noise H1-6 Special Events H1-7 Lack of Housing H1-8 Alternatives H2 #§ ±«¤² '´¤«¨Ǿ ΗΚΓ , ´±¤«¶®®£ $±¨µ¤ , ´±¤«Ǿ NY H2-1 Alternatives H3 !­­¤ -´±± ¸, ΖΓΓ 3®´³§¤±­ "«µ£Ǿ % ²³ - ±¨®­Ǿ .9 H3-1 LU&Z H3-2 LU&Z H3-3Traffic H3-4 Traffic H3-5 Traffic H3-6 Traffic H3-7 Traffic H3-8 GW H3-9 LU&Z H4 !­³§®­¸ &®±¦¨®­¤Ǿ 568ΙΖ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 H4-1 Aesthetics H4-2 STP H4-3 STP H4-4 Noise H4-5 Aesthetics 3 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ # Commenter  ­£ !££±¤²² 4®¯¨¢ H5 #®­­¨¤ ,®² ­£±® Ȩ®­ ¡¤§ «¥ ®¥ !­³§®­¸  ­£ " ±¡ ±  &®±¦¨®­¤ȩ H5-1 Economics H5-2 General Comments H5-3 Construction H5-4 STP H5-5 Hotel Components H5-6 Traffic H5-7 Aesthetics H5-8 DEIS H6 *®¸¢¤ " ±±¸Ǿ ΖΓΘ +¨­¦ 3³±¤¤³Ǿ .¤¶ 3´¥¥®«ªǾ .9 H6-1 LU&Z H6-2 Economics H6-3 Lack of Housing H6-4 Economics H7 , ´±¤­ " ±±¸Ǿ 56ΚΘΘ 2®´³¤ ΕΘǾ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 H7-1 Plans H7-2 STP H7-3 Ecology H7-4 Ecology H7-5 Soils/Construction H7-6 Special Events H7-7 Ecology H8 - ±¨«¸­ - ±·Ǿ ΘΗΖΓΓ 2³ȁ ΗΛǾ SoutholdǾ .9 H8-1Economics H8-2 Traffic H8-3 Lack of Housing H8-4 Alternatives H9 . ­¢¸ - ¹´±Ǿ ΔΓΙΘ " ¸ !µ¤­´¤Ǿ % ²³ - ±¨®­Ǿ .9 H9-1 General Support H10 7¨««¨ ¬ 7¨«²ª¨Ǿ ΘΖΕ , ´±¤« !µ¤­´¤Ǿ SoutholdǾ .9 H10-1 General H10-2 General H10-3 General H10-4 General H10-5 General H10-6 General H11 "±¨ ­ "± £¸Ǿ ΔΔΘ - ²³¤±² 2® £Ǿ LaurelǾ .9 4 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ # Commenter  ­£ !££±¤²² 4®¯¨¢ H11-1 General H12 ,¨­£  Carlson, ΔΙΓΓ 7 ³¤±µ¨¤¶ $±¨µ¤Ǿ SoutholdǾ .9 H12-1 General H13 ,¨­£  3¶¤¤­¤¸Ǿ ΜΘΓ 3³±®§²®­ 2® £Ǿ CutchogueǾ .9 H13-1 General Support H14 "® ±£ #®¬¬¤­³² H14-1 CP Weisman Special Events H14-2 CP Weisman Special Events H14-3CP WeismanNoise H14-4 CP Weisman Noise H14-5 CP Weisman Noise H14-6 CP Weisman Noise H14-7 CP Weisman Special Events H14-8 Member Acamora Noise H14-9 Member Acamora Noise H14-10 CP Weisman Special Events H14-11 CP Weisman Noise H14-12 CP Weisman Special Events H14-13 CP Weisman Traffic H14-14 CP Weisman Traffic H14-15 CP Weisman Traffic H14-16 CP Weisman Traffic H14-17 CP Weisman Traffic H14-18 CP Weisman Traffic H14-19 Member Planamento STP H14-20 CP Weisman Special Events H15 - ´±¤¤­ (®¸³Ǿ - ¯«¤ , ­¤Ǿ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 H15-1 General Comments 5 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4 ¡«¤ 2 – 3´¬¬ ±¸ ®¥ 7±¨³³¤­ #®±±¤²¯®­£¤­¢¤ C# Type Commenter Address Provided #®¬¬¤­³ .®²ȁ &%)3 4®¯¨¢² 1 Agency NP&V (on behalf of ZBA) 572 Walt Whitman Road, Melville, NY 1-1 through 1-28 Plans, DEIS, Traffic, Noise 11747 2 Agency RTP (on behalf of ZBA) 400 Post Avenue, Westbury, NY 115902-1 through 2-24 Noise, DEIS 3 Agency Suffolk County Water 4060 Sunrise Highway, Oakdale, NY 3-1 and 3-2 Water Use, STP Authority 11769-0901 4 Agency SCDHS Division of 360 Yaphank Avenue, Suite 2B, 4-1 and 4-2 STP, Plans Environmental Quality Yaphank, NY 1198Y 5 Public Eve McGrath 845 Town Harbor Terrace, PO Box 5-1 through 5-4 Traffic, Lack of Housing, GW 1141, Southold, NY 11971 (Water Supply) and LU&Z 6 Public New Suffolk Civic P.O. Box 642, New Suffolk, NY 11956 6-1 and 6-2 General Opposition, Traffic Association 7 Public Charles Gueli No Address Provided 7-1 through 7-8 Traffic, Community Character, GW, STP, Noise, Economic, LU&Z 8 Public Regina Ebel rebelgilson@gmail.com8-1 only General Opposition 9 Public S. Lester Albertsonalbertsonfamily1@msn.com 9-1 and 9-2 Restaurant Component (Project Details) 10 Public Ken Campanellikencampanelli@aol.com 10-1 through 10-3 General, LU&Z 11PublicAnita Albertsonbrownhouse22@verizon.net11-1 through 11-6Historic, General, Traffic, Economic, Alternatives 12 Public C.L. Hall No Address Provided 12-1 only General Opposition 13PublicMichael Sandemikesande@icloud.com13-1 through 13-3Traffic, GW, Alternatives 14 Public Nancy Butkusnancy.butkus@gmail.com 14-1 only General Process 15 Public Carole Donlin nimsuzani@gmail.com 15-1 and 15-2Traffic, Alternatives 16 Public Abigail C. Field, P.C. P.O. Box 262, Cutchogue, NY 11935 16-1 through 16-Soils, GW (Calculations, Nitrogen 10 Loading, Stormwater), Plans, Traffic, Noise 6 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C# Type Commenter Address Provided #®¬¬¤­³ .®²ȁ &%)3 4®¯¨¢² 17 Public Carolyn Bennett caroleee@gmail.com 17-1 through 17-5 General, Traffic, Economic, LU&Z 18 Public Anne Murray300 Southern Blvd, East Marion, NY 18-1 through 18-5 DEIS 11939 19 Public Torie Cande (with Resident 5080 New Suffolk Rd, New Suffolk, NY 19-1 and 19-2GW and General signatures on petition 11956 attached) 20 Public Robin Radich-Klotz bobshellr@gmail.com 20-1 and 20-2Traffic, General Opposition 21 Public Amy Failla Main Bayview Road, Southold, NY 21-1 only General Opposition 11971 22 Public Lauren Barry 56755 Route 25, Southold, NY 11971 22-1 through 22-DEIS, General Process, STP, GW, 18 Aesthetics/Comm Character, Soils/Construction, Noise, Special Events, Traffic, General 23PublicSusan Smithsjsmith4@optonline.net23-1 through 23-3Traffic, General 24 Public Daniel DeVito 565 S Harbor Road, Southold, NY 24-1 through 24-Alternatives, Economics, General, 11971 10 STP, Aesthetics/Comm Character, Traffic 25PublicJoann Jahnckejoannjahncke@optonline.net25-1 through 25-4Traffic, General, Process 26 Public Isabelle Kanz No Address Provided 26-1 and 26-2GW, Traffic 27PublicGroup for the East End, P.O. Box 1792, Southold, NY 1197127-1 through 27-7LU&Z, DEIS, Traffic, Ecology Robert S. DeLuca, President 28 Public Residents Goldsmith, Various Addresses Provided 28-1 through 28-7 Traffic, General, Economics, Noise Anderson, Peter, Huntington, Werth, Palumbo 29 Public Residents Clerici, Rothwen, Various Addresses Provided 29-1 through 29-7 Traffic, General, Economics, Noise Tynan, Rothwell 30 Public Adrienne F.G. Lynch 450 Youngs Avenue, Southold, NY 30-1 through 30-4 Plans, DEIS, GW, General 11971 7 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C# Type Commenter Address Provided #®¬¬¤­³ .®²ȁ &%)3 4®¯¨¢² 31 Public Marilyn Marks Shorecrest Bed and Breakfast and 31-1 through 31-6 General Process, General, Property Mgmt, 54300 County Road Economics 48, Southold, NY 11971 32 Public Michael Collins 232 Manor Place, Greenport, NY 11944 32-1 only General Opposition 33 Public North Fork Environmental 12700 Main Road, PO Box 799, 33-1 through 33-8 LU&Z, Ecology, GW, Traffic, Noise, CouncilMattituck, NY 11952General 34 Public Lynn S. Summers 1290 Oriole Drive, Southold, NY 11971 34-1 through 34-5 General, Comm. Character, Noise, Traffic 35 Public Anthony L & Barbara L 56863 Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 35-1 through 35-General, Economics, Construction, Forgione 12 STP, Noise, Hotel Components, Special Events, Traffic, Aesthetics 36 Public Patricia and Robert Rudolph 105 Country Club Drive, Cutchogue, NY 36-1 through 36-4 General, Comm. Character, Traffic, 11935 LU&Z 37 Public Jo-Ann Lechner 1415 Marlene Lane, Mattituck, NY 37-1 through 37-7 General, GW, Ecology, Traffic 11952 38 Public Dominic Antignanoantignano@optonline.net 38-1 General Comment in Support of Application 39 Public Noel D/Silva and Vimal noeld@aol.com 39-1 General Comment in Support of Fonseca Application 40PublicWilliam J. Kanz, Jr & Nancy A 1775 Village Lane, PO Box 1, Orient, 40-1General Comment in Opposition Kanz NY 11957 41 Public Joyce L'HommeDieu-Barry 305 King Street, New Suffolk, NY 41-1 through 41-Comm. Character, Special Events, 11956 13 General, STP, GW, Solid Waste, Construction, Aesthetics, Ecology 42 Public Resident Petition (112 Various Addresses Provided 42-1 through 42-9 Traffic, Comm. Character, Special signatures) Events, General, Noise, Alternatives 8 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ΐȁΒ #§ ­¦¤² ³® ³§¤ 0±®¯®²¤£ 3¨³¤ 0« ­  ­£ 0±®©¤¢³ #®¬¯®­¤­³² In response to comments received during the DEIS public hearing and/or in written correspondence, the proposed site plan has been slightly modified, as follows: 1. The ingress driveway has been shifted 11 feet to the west and additional landscaping has been incorporated into the land area between the driveway and the eastern property line to provide a 15- foot vegetated buffer. See Sheet C-100 in Appendix C of this FEIS. 2. The proposed pole-mounted light located in the parking island near the main entrance to the hotel has been modified such that there would be no light trespass over the property line. See Sheet C-500 in Appendix C of this FEIS. 3. The dumpster pad for the proposed hotel has been relocated from the northeast portion of the site to the northwest corner. The proposed location includes a fenced enclosure and also provides for easier access for trash pick-up and also relocates the dumpster away from the residential properties to the east. See Sheet C-100 in Appendix C of this FEIS. 4. A wooden stockade fence, of six-and-one-half (6.5) feet in height, has been added along the eastern and western property lines, and around the cottage exterior areas. The proposed fencing along the eastern side and cottage area will include an acoustic barrier with a minimum STC of 29 (such as NoiseOut 2 or LV-1R), which makes full contact with the ground in order to complete an acoustic seal. See Sheet C-100 and Sheet C-200 in Appendix C of this FEIS. 5. A parapet has been added to the proposed hotel for the rooftop HVAC unit. 6. The proposed pond has been modified to eliminate fish and will function as a decorative pond. 7. Sheet C-400 (Landscape Plan and Details) has been modified to include additional plantings along the east side and northeast corner of the subject property. 8. A spa solely for the use by overnight hotel guests has been added to the basement of the proposed hotel and the floor plans have been updated to illustrate same (see Appendix D). The proposed spa increases the square footage of the lower level from 9,891 SF to 15,068.92 SF (Total Lower Level Sq. Ft. = 24,959.92 SF). As indicated in Section 1.2.2 of the DEIS (page 3), the proposed spa is for overnight hotel guests only, and thus, the inclusion of the spa does not affect the projected water usage or STP design, as spa services are considered in the “per room” water usage and sanitary flow factor. 9. To address potential noise concerns from the proposed rooftop lounge area, while the roofline directly to the east and the parapet both act as an acoustic barrier, the proposed design has been modified to include a 30-inch glass barrier on top of the parapet. The barrier is expected to be quarter-inch monolithic glass or similar material. 10. A potential enclosed event room for a maximum attendance of 250 patrons was added to the proposed site plan to address noise concerns associated with outdoor events. The enclosed event room will be 9 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ a one-story addition on the south side of the hotel, and consists of a flat roof, pavilion-like structure. As indicated in Section 1.1 of this FEIS, the subject application was modified to eliminate outdoor events and this future potential enclosed space was added to accommodate the applicant’s desire to host events at the proposed hotel. 11. To accommodate indoor events, the former prep kitchen in the proposed hotel was modified to a full kitchen capable of food preparation for events as well as to service an internal café/bistro for hotel guests only. 12. As a result of the additional enclosed space and the interior conversion of the prep kitchen to a full kitchen, the proposed development plans have been updated (see Appendix C) to include the following: The maximum footprint of the future potential event room (6,640 SF) is reflected on the updated development plans. The bulk and dimensional components have been modified to include the potential enclosed space and are summarized in Section 2.3.1 (Table 3) of this FEIS. As noted in Table 3, the potential event space affects only the lot coverage and the percentage of landscaping, however, both comply with the zoning regulations. The projected sanitary flow was increased to account for a 250-person indoor event space and the capacity of the STP has been increased accordingly. As indicated in the “Sanitary Calculations” on the Site Plan General Notes (Sheet C-001): 74 SEATS RESTAURANT X 10 GPD/SEAT = 740 GPD 44 UNITS HOTEL X 150 GPD/UNIT = 6,600 GPD 250 SEATS EVENT SPACE X 5 GPD/SEAT = 1,250 GPD TOTAL SANITARY FLOW = 8,590 GPD TOTAL STP CAPACITY, INCLUDING KITCHEN FLOW = 10,695 GPD 13. The overall site plan with potential enclosed space will be reviewed by the Planning Board during site plan approval, which will occur after completion of this SEQRA process and approval of the special exception use by the ZBA, as Lead Agency. It is noted that the potential noise generation from cumulative sources (including indoor events, traffic, pool, cottages, HVAC, rooftop terrace, and parking lot) will not exceed 5 dBA over background (No Build) sound levels. This will be achieved with building materials and windows with high acoustic performance for noise attenuation, which will be designed as part of site plan review with the Planning Board. 14. The applicant has also agreed to traffic mitigation for special events exceeding 100 patrons, which includes hiring traffic control for safe movements. 10 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 15. The occurrence of large events (defined as events with 100 to a maximum of 250 persons) has been limited by the lead agency to no more than 10 large events per year and no more than one large event per week. Additionally, large events will require advanced notice to the Town. It is noted that the large events proposed at the subject site do not meet the definition of “Special Events” pursuant to Chapter 205 (Public Entertainment and Special Events) of the Town Code and are not regulated as such. 11 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2.0 DEI3 #/--%.43 !.$ 2%30/.3%3 2ȁΐ #®¬¬¤­³² ¨­ '¤­¤± « 3´¯¯®±³ ®¥ ³§¤ 0±®¯®²¤£ 0±®©¤¢³ Comments in general support for the proposed project were submitted, including Comments H9-1, H13-1, C38- 1, and C39-1. These comments are noted. ΑȁΑ #®¬¬¤­³² ¨­ '¤­¤± « /¯¯®²¨³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ 0±®¯®²¤£ 0±®©¤¢³ Comments indicating general opposition to the proposed project were submitted, including Comments C6-1, C8-1, C12-1, C20-2, C21-1, C32-1, and C40-1. These comments are noted. ΑȁΒ 2¤²¯®­²¤² ³® 3´¡²³ ­³¨µ¤ #®¬¬¤­³² 2.3.1 DEIS Comments related to the DEIS, as prepared by KGO Consulting, Inc. (KGO) and PWGC, are addressed in this section of the FEIS. Specifically, the following comments are included: H5-8, C1-8 through C1-23, C2-22 through C2-24, C18-1 through C18-5, C22-1, C22-3 through C22-6, C27-2, C27-3, and C30-2. Comment H5-8: 0§®³®² ±¤¥¤±±¤£ ³® ¨­ ³§¤ $± ¥³ %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ ­¤µ¤± ­®³ ®­¢¤ ²³± ­¦¤«¸ ®± ¡¤³³¤± ¸¤³ ®­ ¯´±¯®²¤ ±¤¥¤±² ®± ²§®¶² ³§¤ ³¶® ±¤²¨£¤­¢¤² ®¢¢´¯¨¤£ §®¬¤²  £© ¢¤­³ ³® ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ «¨­¤ ¤·¢¤¯³ ) ²¤¤ ¨³ ­®¶ ¨­ ³§¤ ¬®£¤«ȁ Response to Comment H5-8: The photographs presented in Appendix H of the DEIS were not intended to be exhaustive of every land use surrounding the subject property. The DEIS narrative (see page 64) and Land Use Map (see Figure 15 in Appendix A of the DEIS) identify the residential properties to the east. Further, the viewshed analysis (i.e., photo-simulations) considered the presence of the three (3) residential homes to the east of the subject property. It is further noted that the residential properties to the east were considered in the project evaluation and mitigation to reduce impacts on the adjacent properties was summarized in Section 3.1.3 of the DEIS and included the following: a landscaping plan that includes retaining select trees, grass seeding and the planting of native species and ornamental species; the planting of substantial and mature trees on the eastern and western property lines to provide early effective screening and this planting would occur early in the construction process to provide additional time for growth; and the installation of lighting that is downlit and shielded to prevent light trespass. Also, a wooden stockade fence, of six-and-one-half (6.5) feet in height, has been added along the eastern and western property lines. Additional mitigation to protect adjacent properties from potential noise and construction-related impacts, were also included in the DEIS in Sections 3.4.3 and 2.1.3, respectively. Comment C1-8: 4§¤ $%)3 § ² ¨£¤­³¨¥¨¤£   ­´¬¡¤± ®¥ ¬¨³¨¦ ³¨®­ ¬¤ ²´±¤² ³®  ££±¤²² ­®¨²¤ Ȩ´²¤ ®¥ ²®´­£ ¡ ±±¨¤±²Ǿ ­®¨²¤ «¨¬¨³¤±²Ǿ ¤³¢ȁȩȁ (®¶¤µ¤±Ǿ ³§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³ § ² ­®³ ¯±®µ¨£¤£   ¬¤ ­² ¥®± ¤­²´±¨­¦ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¬¨³¨¦ ³¨®­ ¬¤ ²´±¤²  ±¤ ¥®««®¶¤£  ­£ ³§¤±¤¥®±¤ ¤¥¥¤¢³¨µ¤  ³ ¬¨³¨¦ ³¨­¦ ³§¤ ¯®³¤­³¨ « ¨¬¯ ¢³ȁ 12 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Response to C1-8: The proposed action has been modified to exclude outdoor events on the lawn area. During preparation of the FEIS, the applicant agreed to relocate events to indoor spaces and, as a result, has modified the proposed site plan to include a future event room to the south of the hotel building (on the previously conceived open lawn area). Additionally, the Acoustic Report has been revised to address indoor events such that the potential noise generation from cumulative sources will not exceed 5 dBA over background (No Build) sound levels. This will be achieved with building materials and windows with high acoustic performance for noise attenuation, which will be designed as part of site plan review with the Planning Board. Also, as architectural and MEP design progresses, the noise consultant to the applicant (SoundSense) will review all mechanical plans to ensure that any and all mechanical units meet the Design Maximum Sound Level from Mechanical Equipment, as detailed in the Acoustic Report, with appropriate spacing and mitigation. Accordingly, no adverse noise impacts will occur from the hosting of events indoors on the subject property, or from the overall operation of the proposed development. Comment C1-9: " ²¤£ ®­ ³§¤ ¢®¬¬¤­³² ¨£¤­³¨¥¨¤£ §¤±¤¨­ ±¤« ³¤£ ³® ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤µ¤­³ ­®¨²¤  ­£ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¢®­¢¤±­²Ǿ ³§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³ § ² ­®³  £¤°´ ³¤«¸  ££±¤²²¤£ §®¶ ³§¤²¤ ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤µ¤­³² ¢®­¥®±¬ ³® ³§¤ 3¯¤¢¨ « %·¢¤¯³¨®­ Ȩȏ3%Ȑȩ ¢±¨³¤±¨  ¢®­³ ¨­¤£ ¨­ 3¤¢³¨®­ ΕΛΓ-ΔΗΕ Ȩ!Ǿ "ȩ  ­£ ΕΛΓ-143. Response to Comment C1-9: Section 3.1.2 of the DEIS included an analysis of the special exception use permit criteria set forth at Section 280-142 and Section 280-143. Section 280-142 (A) requires “4§ ³ ³§¤ 5²¤ ¶¨«« ­®³ ¯±¤µ¤­³ ³§¤ ®±£¤±«¸  ­£ ±¤ ²®­ ¡«¤ ´²¤ ®¥  £© ¢¤­³ ¯±®¯¤±³¨¤² ®± ®¥ ¯±®¯¤±³¨¤² ¨­  £© ¢¤­³ ´²¤ £¨²³±¨¢³²ȁȐ Section 280-142 (B) requires “4§ ³ ³§¤ ´²¤ ¶¨«« ­®³ ¯±¤µ¤­³ ³§¤ ®±£¤±«¸  ­£ ±¤ ²®­ ¡«¤ ´²¤ ®¥ ¯¤±¬¨³³¤£ ®± «¤¦ ««¸ ¤²³ ¡«¨²§¤£ ´²¤² ¨­ ³§¤ £¨²³±¨¢³ ¶§¤±¤¨­ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ´²¤ ¨² ³® ¡¤ «®¢ ³¤£ ®± ®¥ ¯¤±¬¨³³¤£ ®± «¤¦ ««¸ ¤²³ ¡«¨²§¤£ ´²¤² ¨­  £© ¢¤­³ ´²¤ £¨²³±¨¢³².” The consistency analysis of the proposed action with these Sections included in the DEIS (pages 80 and 81) relied on the proposed design to conclude that there would be no impact to the adjacent properties or properties surrounding the site. Regarding special events, the consistency analysis relied upon the findings of the noise and traffic analyses contained therein in Sections 3.4 and 3.6, respectively, to conclude that based on said findings and the mitigation proposed, that any nuisances associated with noise or traffic will be mitigated. A revised analysis of the project’s consistency with the criteria for the issuance of a special exception use permit has been prepared for the proposed action without outdoor events and the mitigation developed during this FEIS (see Appendix I of this FEIS). Based on this analysis, the project is consistent with all criteria for the issuance of said permit. As noted in Section 1.3 of this FEIS, during preparation of this FEIS, the applicant modified the project scope to eliminate outdoor events. In coordination with the ZBA and its consultants, the applicant revised the proposed Site Plan to include a future event room, which will be reviewed by the Planning Board during site plan approval. The Acoustic Report was also revised and concludes that the potential noise generation from cumulative sources (including indoor events, traffic, pool, cottages, HVAC, rooftop terrace, and parking lot) will not exceed 5 dBA over background (No Build) sound levels. This will be achieved with building materials and windows with high acoustic performance for noise attenuation, which will be designed as part of site plan review with the Planning Board. Also, as architectural and MEP design progresses, the applicant’s noise consultant (SoundSense) will review all mechanical plans to ensure that any and all mechanical units meet the Design Maximum Sound Level from Mechanical Equipment, as detailed in the Acoustic Report, with appropriate 13 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ spacing and mitigation. The applicant has also agreed to traffic mitigation for special events exceeding 100 patrons, which will include hiring traffic control for safe movements. To address the potential for traffic impacts on the adjacent or surrounding properties, a comprehensive traffic analysis was prepared and included the preparation of a Valet Parking Plan (included in Appendix C of the DEIS). As further evaluated in the Responses to Comments H14-13, H14-14 and H14-15 in Section 2.3.4 of this FEIS, no significant adverse traffic impacts on or off-site will occur. As further explained in these Responses, during special events, there will be adequate gaps for left turns to safely access the site (with a calculated Level of Service of A for the movement) during arrivals. During discharge, there is adequate stacking throat available on-site, although the capacity analysis projects less than three vehicles in the queue. Furthermore, while decreases in the levels of service were projected for northbound Locust Lane and the northbound 7-Eleven driveway, the changes are not significant. Accordingly, based on the additional analyses prepared by Dunn Engineering, large events in the peak season will not impact the adjacent or surrounding properties. Notwithstanding same, the ZBA and its traffic consultants have identified the need for traffic control for large events (i.e., events that exceed 100 patrons) and will limit the number of large events to 10 per year and no more than once per week. Events held in the off-peak season, when traffic volumes are less, will not have an adverse impact on the surrounding properties. Section 280-143 (A) specifically relates to: “4§¤ ¢§ ± ¢³¤± ®¥ ³§¤ ¤·¨²³¨­¦  ­£ ¯±®¡ ¡«¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ®¥ ´²¤² ¨­ ³§¤ £¨²³±¨¢³  ­£ ³§¤ ¯¤¢´«¨ ± ²´¨³ ¡¨«¨³¸ ®¥ ²´¢§ £¨²³±¨¢³ ¥®± ³§¤ «®¢ ³¨®­ ®¥  ­¸ ®¥ ²´¢§ ¯¤±¬¨³³¤£ ´²¤².” The subject property is located within the HB zoning district which permits the proposed hotel by special exception, subject to the additional regulations of §280-35B (4) of the Resort Residential (RR) District. The proposed action complies with these additional regulations (see Table 3 in this FEIS). The proposed use of the hotel for special events was evaluated in the DEIS and additional analyses have been included in this FEIS. As indicated above, with the elimination of outdoor events and relocation of events to the interior of the hotel or future event room on the south side of the hotel, there are no significant adverse noise impacts projected. Overall, the proposed design and mitigation considers the adjacent residential zoning district and residential uses located in the HB zoning district and the proposed hotel use is not expected to result in any significant adverse impacts. Comment C1-10: 0 ¦¤ ΛΕǾ 3´¡²¤¢³¨®­ !ȁ Ȩ3% 0¤±¬¨³ ²³ ­£ ±£² ±¤µ¨¤¶ȩȀ !¯¯«¨¢ ­³ ²§®´«£ £¨²¢´²² ³§¤ ¹®­¨­¦  ­£ ¨­£¨¢ ³¤ ¢®­¥®±¬¨³¸ ®± « ¢ª ®¥ ¢®­¥®±¬¨³¸ ³® ¹®­¨­¦Ǿ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸Ȍ² «®¢ ³¨®­ ±¤« ³¨µ¤ ³® ³§¤ ( ¬«¤³ #¤­³¤±  ­£ ±¤²¨£¤­³¨ « ­¤¨¦§¡®±§®®£²Ǿ ³§¤ ,)22Ǿ  ­£ ¢§ ­¦¤² ³®  ­£ ¯±¤²¤±µ ³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ ±¤²³ ´± ­³ȁ Response to Comment C1-10: Section 280-143 (A) is identified as a matter to be considered for the granting of a special exception, and specifically relates to: “4§¤ ¢§ ± ¢³¤± ®¥ ³§¤ ¤·¨²³¨­¦  ­£ ¯±®¡ ¡«¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ®¥ ´²¤² ¨­ ³§¤ £¨²³±¨¢³  ­£ ³§¤ ¯¤¢´«¨ ± ²´¨³ ¡¨«¨³¸ ®¥ ²´¢§ £¨²³±¨¢³ ¥®± ³§¤ «®¢ ³¨®­ ®¥  ­¸ ®¥ ²´¢§ ¯¤±¬¨³³¤£ ´²¤².” The subject property is located within the HB zoning district. Pursuant to §280-45A (8) of the Zoning Code, the proposed restaurant use is a permitted use within the HB zoning district. §280-45B (2) permits the proposed hotel use by special exception, subject to the additional regulations of §280-35B (4) of the Resort Residential (RR) District. The proposed plan complies with the bulk and dimensional requirements for uses within the HB zoning district, as well as the RR District use restrictions for the proposed hotel. The subject property is located at the eastern portion of the Hamlet Center (and HB-zoned properties), with HB zoned properties to the east along Main Road, and residentially-zoned properties to the northeast. Pursuant to §280-94, a “transition buffer area is to provide 14 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ privacy from noise, headlight glare and visual intrusion to residential dwellings. A buffer area shall be required along all boundaries of a nonresidential lot abutting any lot in a residential district.” The subject property is a non-residential lot partially abutting a residential district to the northeast, but with residential uses situated directly east on Main Road and northward to the LIRR. In response to comments received at the DEIS hearing held on November 7, 2019, the proposed site plan was modified to increase the landscaped side yard adjacent to the proposed restaurant to 15 feet, although this portion of the subject property adjoins a residential use in the HB zoning district (see the Zoning Map provided as Figure 16 in the DEIS). As noted in Sections 1.1 and 1.3 in this FEIS, to address noise concerns, the proposed action was modified to eliminate outdoor events and to include a future potential enclosed space to accommodate events indoors. The updated Site Plan includes the proposed location of the future building space for special events. It is noted that the indoor event space footprint, illustrated on the Proposed Site Plan, represents the maximum area, with the final design to fit entirely within the outlined area. This future event room will be reviewed by the Planning Board during site plan approval, which will occur after completion of this SEQRA process and approval of the special exception use by the ZBA, as lead agency. The table below demonstrates conformity with the bulk and dimensional requirements for the Proposed Site Plan and the Proposed Site Plan with the Future Enclosed Space. 4 ¡«¤ 3 - #®­²¨²³¤­¢¸ ¶¨³§ "´«ª  ­£ $¨¬¤­²¨®­ « 2¤°´¨±¤¬¤­³² ®¥ ³§¤ ("  ­£ 22 :®­¨­¦ $¨²³±¨¢³² RegulationRequirement 0±®¯®²¤£ 0±®¯®²¤£ !¢³¨®­ Action ¶ȝ&´³´±¤ %­¢«®²¤£ Space (" :®­¨­¦ $¨²³±¨¢³Ȁ Minimum Lot Size: Business, office, industrial or other nonresidential use 20,000 SF 294,202 SF No Change Motel, hotel or conference center - Guest unit with community water 6,000 SF per unit 6,686 SF per unit No Change -¨­¨¬´¬ ±¤°´¨±¤¬¤­³²Ȁ Lot width(min)60 feet190.66 feetNo Change Lot depth100 feet 928.03 feet No Change Front yard 15 feet 17.16 feetNo Change Side yard 10 feet* 32 feet* No Change Both side yards 25 feet 80.66 feet No Change Rear yard 25 feet 153.83 feet No Change Landscape area 25%58.62% 56.3% - ·¨¬´¬ ¯¤±¬¨³³¤£ £¨¬¤­²¨®­²Ȁ Lot coverage 40%16.3% 18.6% Building height / No. of Stories 35 feet/2 32.93 feet/2 No Change *!££¨³¨®­ « 2¤°´¨±¤¬¤­³ Ȩ3¨£¤ 9 ±£ 3¤³¡ ¢ªȩ: Transition Buffer Area (§280-94) 15 feet 15 feet No Change 22 $¨²³±¨¢³ – 5²¤ 2¤²³±¨¢³¨®­²Ȁ Maximum Number of Guest Units 1/6,000 SF or 49 44 unitsNo Change units Maximum Size of Guest Unit 600 SF 592 SF No Change 15 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ As indicated in Table 3 above, the subject property exceeds the minimum lot size requirement by 274,202 square feet (i.e., site is 6.75 acres, or 294,202 square feet and the minimum required lot size is 20,000 square feet). Further, the proposed front, side, total side, and rear yard setbacks all exceed the minimum requirements, even with the future event room. Moreover, the proposed landscape area exceeds the minimum requirement by 33.62 percent (i.e., 25 percent is required whereas 58.62 percent is provided), and the lot coverage is 23.7 percent less than the maximum permitted under the HB zoning (i.e., 40 percent is the maximum permitted whereas this application includes only 16.3 percent). For the plan inclusive of the future event room, the proposed landscape continues to exceed the requirement by 31.3% and the lot coverage continues to be considerably less than that permitted (18.6% proposed; 40% permitted). Finally, the proposed height is less than permitted (i.e., 35 feet maximum and 32.93 feet is proposed). It is recognized that along the property frontage, the existing residential structure on the property defines the character of the site from Main Road, as the largely undeveloped portion is not visible from the roadway. A residential use is situated to the east (outside of the Hamlet Center) and to the west are two commercial uses (hair salon and florist) in former residential structures. Similar to the land uses to the west, the proposed action seeks to convert the existing residential structure to a commercial use. The proposed plans include interior renovations to accommodate a restaurant use, but there would be no change to the building façade. The proposed signage for the restaurant and hotel will be consistent with signage along Main Road, within the Southold hamlet center. Renderings of the proposed development from Main Road are included in Appendix D of this FEIS. Also, as presented in the DEIS, the proposed renovations to the residence have been reviewed by the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) and were determined to have no adverse effect on the historic structure (see Section 3.5.2 of the DEIS). Accordingly, while the use of the property will change upon implementation of the proposed project, the visual character of the site will be minimally impacted. The proposed hotel is strategically set back a distance of 430± feet from Main Road with a significant hedge row (consisting of Northern privet \[Lig´²³±´¬ ·ȁ ¨¡®«¨´¬\]) along its southerly boundary, thus resulting in use that is not visible from the Main Road corridor. The future potential event room will be one-story in height and positioned on the south side of the two-story hotel, behind the hedge row. The proposed design also provides for vegetative screening of 15 feet (minimum) and fencing along the entire length of the eastern property line. The LIRR tracks run along the northern property line and effectively represent the northerly limit of the Hamlet Center. The proposed site design considers the presence of the LIRR tracks with the strategic placement of the STP and its expansion area, as well as parking areas. Comment C1-11: 0 ¦¤ ΛΖǾ 3´¡²¤¢³¨®­ #ȁ Ȩ3% 0¤±¬¨³ ²³ ­£ ±£² ±¤µ¨¤¶ȩȀ 0«¤ ²¤ ¡±¨¤¥«¸ £¨²¢´²² ³§¤ Κ-ΔΔ ¢®­µ¤­¨¤­¢¤ ²³®±¤  ­£ 3 «®­¤ $¤¨ # ¯¤««¨  ¢¢¤²²¤²ȝ¤¦±¤²²¤² ±¤« ³¨µ¤ ³® ²¨³¤  ¢¢¤²²ȝ¤¦±¤²²  ­£ §®¶ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¯±®©¤¢³ ¶¨««  ¥¥¤¢³ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¢®­¦¤²³¨®­  ­£ ¯´¡«¨¢ ² ¥¤³¸ȁ 0«¤ ²¤ ¨­£¨¢ ³¤ ¬¨³¨¦ ³¨®­² ¨¥ ­¤¤£¤£ȁ Response to Comment C1-11: The existing driveway to the 7-Eleven is fully evaluated in the Traffic Impact Study, as the proposed driveway onto Main Road from the site will be located directly opposite and the intersection of the two driveways and Main Road was analyzed as a four-way intersection. The existing access to the Salone Dei Capelli is a shared access with the business adjacent to the west. The driveway lies approximately halfway between the 7-Eleven driveway and Locust Lane. As the proposed site driveway accommodates only exiting traffic, the presence of the site exit should not unduly interfere with the Salone driveway. 16 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Comment C1-12: 0 ¦¤ ΛΘǾ 3´¡²¤¢³¨®­ 'ȁ Ȩ3% 0¤±¬¨³ ²³ ­£ ±£² ±¤µ¨¤¶ȩȀ 0«¤ ²¤ £¨²¢´²² §®¶ ³§¤ ¤«¨¬¨­ ³¨®­ ®¥ ®­- ²³±¤¤³ ¯ ±ª¨­¦ ¨­ ¥±®­³ ®¥ ³§¤ ²¨³¤ ¬ ¸  ¥¥¤¢³ ¯´¡«¨¢ ¯ ±ª¨­¦ ¥®± ®³§¤± « ­£ ´²¤² ¨­ ³§¤  ±¤ ȁ )² ¨³ ¢´±±¤­³«¸ ´²¤£Ȉ (®¶ ¬ ­¸ ²¯ ¢¤² ¶®´«£ ¡¤ «®²³Ȉ )² ³§¨²  ­ ¨¬¯ ¢³Ǿ  ­£ ¨¥ ²®Ǿ ¶§ ³ ¨¥  ­¸ ¬¨³¨¦ ³¨®­ ¨² ¯±®¯®²¤£Ȉ Response to Comment C1-12:As further explainedin the Response to Comment H14-18in Section 2.3.4 of this FEIS, approximately seven (7) parking spaces will be lost in front of the site in order to maximize sight distance for the site exit driveway. The residential homes located to the east of the site will not be impacted and the commercial uses to the west of the site appear to have adequate on-site parking and do not appear to use spaces in front of the subject property, based on observations of the transportation engineer. The one site that may benefit from the on-street parking in front of the subject property is the 7-Eleven across Main Road. The 7- Eleven has the required on-site parking and utilizing on-street parking on the north side of Main Road encourages pedestrians to cross the street. While maximizing sight distance for the subject site exit is ideal, there is the potential to provide for some on-street parking on the north side of Main Street, if necessary. Comment C1-13: 0 ¦¤ ΛΙǾ 3´¡²¤¢³¨®­ -ȁ Ȩ3% 0¤±¬¨³ ²³ ­£ ±£² ±¤µ¨¤¶ȩȀ ! £¨²¢´²²¨®­ ®¥ ¢®­¥®±¬ ­¢¤ ®± « ¢ª ®¥ ¢®­¥®±¬ ­¢¤ ³® ´²¤  ­£ £¨¬¤­²¨®­ « ¹®­¨­¦ ±¤°´¨±¤¬¤­³² ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ¯±®µ¨£¤£ȁ Response to Comment C1-13: See Response to Comment C1-10 and Table 3 of this FEIS. Comment C1-14: 4§¤ $%)3 ¨­£¨¢ ³¤² ³§ ³   ¯±®¯®²¤£ ±®®¥³®¯ ³¤±± ¢¤ ¶®´«£ ¡¤ ´²¤£ ¥®± ¦ ³§¤±¨­¦²Ǿ §®¶¤µ¤± µ¤±¸ «¨³³«¤ ¨­¥®±¬ ³¨®­ ¨² ¯±®µ¨£¤£ ±¤¦ ±£¨­¦ ³§¨² ¥¤ ³´±¤ȁ ! ¥´«« £¤²¢±¨¯³¨®­ ¨­¢«´£¨­¦ ¡´³ ­®³ ­¤¢¤²² ±¨«¸ «¨¬¨³¤£ ³® ¨³² ²¨¹¤ ¨­ ²°´ ±¤ ¥¤¤³  ­£ ¢ ¯ ¢¨³¸ ¨­ ³¤±¬² ®¥ ³®³ « ­´¬¡¤± ®¥ ¯¤®¯«¤Ǿ ¨³² ¯´±¯®²¤Ǿ ¶§¤­ ¨³ ¶®´«£ ¡¤ ´²¤£Ǿ ¶§¤³§¤± ³§¤±¤ ¶®´«£ ¡¤  ¬¯«¨¥¨¤£ ²®´­£Ǿ £¨­¨­¦Ǿ   ¡ ± ®±  ­¸ ®³§¤± ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ ¤«¤¬¤­³ ®±  ¢³¨µ¨³¨¤² ®­ ³§¤ ±®®¥Ǿ  ­£ ³§¤ ¯®³¤­³¨ « ¥®±  ­¸ ­®¨²¤  ­£ µ¨²´ «ȝ ¤²³§¤³¨¢ ¨¬¯ ¢³²  ­£ ¨­³±´²¨®­ ®­ ³§¤ ¯±¨µ ¢¸ ®¥  £©®¨­¨­¦ ­¤¨¦§¡®±²ȁ ! ³§®±®´¦§ £¤²¢±¨¯³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ ³¤¢§­¨°´¤²  ­£ ¬¤³§®£² ¥®± ¯±¤µ¤­³¨­¦ ­®¨²¤Ǿ  ¤²³§¤³¨¢Ǿ  ­£ ¯±¨µ ¢¸ ¨¬¯ ¢³² ®­  £©®¨­¨­¦ ­¤¨¦§¡®±² ¬´²³ ¡¤ ¨­¢«´£¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ &%)3ȁ Response to Comment C1-14: The proposed rooftop terrace is envisioned as a passive sitting and/or reading area consisting of sofas and chairs for hotel guests. The applicant envisions background music with a small bar, but no dining. Aesthetically, the rooftop terrace would be integrated into the space such that there will be no direct view of the space from the ground level. To prevent noise, aesthetic and privacy impacts, while the roofline directly to the east and the parapet both act as an acoustic and visual barrier, the proposed design has been modified to include a 30-inch glass barrier on top of the parapet. The barrier is expected to be quarter- inch monolithic glass or similar material. The proposed terrace sitting area is approximately 2,900 square feet with a maximum occupancy of 50 guests. The proposed roofline along the roof terrace acts as an acoustic barrier to the nearest property line. The worst-case scenario path is to the southeast, the distance of this acoustic path, approximately 220 feet from the center of the rooftop terrace. In addition to this being a longer path, a glass barrier has been integrated into the southern roofline. The mitigation measures and distance are more than adequate to attenuate anticipated noise levels along this path. Also, the two-and-a-half story building at the east end of the terrace will sufficiently mitigate conversational sound and background music from neighbors. It is anticipated that the terrace will have limited hours of operation (10AM-9PM Sun-Thurs, 11AM-10PM Fri-Sat). Overall, there are no privacy impacts expected from the terrace. Comment C1-15: 4§¤ ±®®¥ ®¥ ³§¤ §®³¤« ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¥« ³ȁ 7¨«« HV!# ´­¨³² ¡¤ «®¢ ³¤£ ®­ ³§¤ ±®®¥Ǿ  ­£ ¨¥ ²®, ¶¨«« ³§¤²¤ ¥¤ ³´±¤² ¡¤ ¯±®¯¤±«¸ ²¢±¤¤­¤£ ³® ¯±¤µ¤­³ ®± ¬¨³¨¦ ³¤ µ¨²´ «  ­£ ­®¨²¤ ¨¬¯ ¢³²? 17 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Response to Comment C1-15: The proposed design includes the placement of HVAC units on the roof. All HVAC units will be contained within noise-attenuating enclosures, if necessary, upon review of mechanical equipment. As mechanical systems have yet to be designed, it is not possible to project noise levels due to mechanical equipment or evaluate mitigation measures for specific pieces of mechanical equipment which may be used on the project. As architectural and MEP design progresses, the applicant’s noise consultant (SoundSense) will review all mechanical plans to ensure that any and all mechanical units meet the Design Maximum Sound Level from Mechanical Equipment, as detailed in the Acoustic Report, with appropriate spacing and mitigation. It is noted that the HVAC units (with the Design Maximum Sound Level) have been considered in the cumulative assessment which concludes that the potential future noise generation from all sources (including indoor events, traffic, pool, cottages, HVAC, rooftop terrace, and parking lot) will not exceed 5 dBA over background (No Build) sound levels. Also, the inclusion of parapet walls will prevent the units from being visible. Comment C1-16: 4§¤ $%)3 ¨­£¨¢ ³¤² ³§ ³ ®£®± ¢®­³±®« ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¯±®µ¨£¤£ ¥®± ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ 340ȁ 0«¤ ²¤ ®´³«¨­¤ ³§¤ 3´¥¥®«ª #®´­³¸ $¤¯ ±³¬¤­³ ®¥ (¤ «³§ 3¤±µ¨¢¤² ±¤°´¨±¤¬¤­³² ¥®± ³§¤ £¤²¨¦­  ­£ ®­¦®¨­¦ ¬ ¨­³¤­ ­¢¤ ±¤°´¨±¤¬¤­³² ³® ¤­²´±¤ ³§ ³ ³§¤ ®£®± ¢®­³±®« ²¸²³¤¬ ±¤¬ ¨­² ¤¥¥¤¢³¨µ¤ ®µ¤± time. Response to Comment C1-16: The Suffolk County Department of Health Services requires the odor control system to be designed to handle twelve (12) air changes per hour of the total volume of air within the proposed STP and pump station. The odor control system consists of a two-stage granular activated carbon filters. These filters are checked for operation by the licensed wastewater treatment plant operator as part of the required daily inspection. The granular activated carbon will be replaced every six (6) to 12 months as needed. It is also important to note that the STP proposed is not unique to Suffolk County. Comment C1-17: 0 ¦¤ ΗΚ ®¥ ³§¤ $%)3 ²³ ³¤² “Ȭ¶ȭ¨³§ ±¤²¯¤¢³ ³® ¯¤²³¨¢¨£¤²Ǿ ³§¤ « ­£²¢ ¯¤£  ±¤ ² ¶¨«« ¡¤ ³±¤ ³¤£ ®±¦ ­¨¢ ««¸  ³ ¥¨±²³ǿ ¨¥ ³§¤ ®±¦ ­¨¢ ³±¤ ³¬¤­³ ¥ ¨«² ³§¤­ ²¯¤¢¨¥¨¢Ǿ  ¯¯±®µ¤£ ¯¤²³¨¢¨£¤² ¶¨«« ¡¤ ´³¨«¨¹¤£ȁ 4§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤²¤ ¯¤²³¨¢¨£¤² ¶¨«« ¡¤ «¨¬¨³¤£ ³® ³§¤ ¨¬¯ ¢³¤£  ±¤ ²  ­£ ¶®´«£ ­®³ ¡¤ ²¯±¤ £  ¢±®²²  «« ®¥ ³§¤ « ­£²¢ ¯¤£  ±¤ ²ȁ͗ 7§® ¶¨«« ¡¤ ±¤²¯®­²¨¡«¤ ¥®± ¨¬¯«¤¬¤­³¨­¦ ³§¨² ±¤¢®¬¬¤­£ ³¨®­  ­£ §®¶ ¶¨«« ³§¨² ²³ ­£ ±£ ¡¤ ¨¬¯«¤¬¤­³¤£ȝ¥®««®¶¤£ ®± ¤­¥®±¢¤£ £´±¨­¦ ³§¤ ¢±¨³¨¢ « ¯¤±¨®£ ®¥ ¯« ­³ ²´±µ¨µ «Ȉ Response to Comment C1-17: The applicant will contract with a landscape maintenance company to maintain the property in accordance with the recommended practices in organic treatment. It is expected that the maintenance agreement and implementation of landscape maintenance practices would be similar to other commercial land uses within the Town of Southold. Comment C1-18: 0 ¦¤ ΜΛǾ .®ȁ Ε ´­£¤± ³§¤ §¤ £¨­¦Ǿ “3¢¤­¨¢ 3®´³§®«£ #®±±¨£®± - ­ ¦¤¬¤­³ 0« ­Ǿ ΕΓΓΔ”: .0lj6 ±¤¢®¬¬¤­£² ¯±®µ¨£¨­¦   ¯¤£¤²³±¨ ­ «¨­ª Ȩ²¨£¤¶ «ª  ­£ȝ®± ¯ ³§ȩ ¡¤³¶¤¤­ ³§¤ §®³¤«  ­£ ±¤²³ ´± ­³ ³® ¤­§ ­¢¤ ¯¤£¤²³±¨ ­ ¢®­­¤¢³¨µ¨³¸ ³® ³§¤ ±¤²³ ´± ­³ȝ§®³¤«  ­£ ¤­²´±¤ ¯´¡«¨¢ ² ¥¤³¸ȁ !«²®Ǿ ¨³ ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ­®³¤£ ³§ ³ ²¨¦­ ¦¤ ¬´²³ ¡¤ ¢®­²¨²³¤­³ ¶¨³§ #§ ¯³¤± ΕΛΓ !±³¨¢«¤ 8)8Ǿ ͗3¨¦­²Ǿ͗  ­£ ¡¤ ²¤­²¨³¨µ¤ ³®  ­£ ¢®­²¨²³¤­³ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ §¨²³®±¨¢ ¢§ ± ¢³¤± ®¥ ³§¤ ±¤²³ ´± ­³ ¡´¨«£¨­¦  ­£ ( ¬«¤³ȁ Response to Comment C1-18: The proposed site plan has been modified to include a pedestrian link between the hotel and restaurant, which includes a crushed gravel sidewalk located along the west side of the hotel traversing the property to the restaurant as shown on Sheet C-100 in Appendix C. The location of the proposed 18 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ signage is illustrated in the drawing included in Appendix D of this FEIS. The proposed signage for the restaurant and hotel will be consistent with signage along Main Road, within the Southold hamlet center, and would include a ground mount sign with shielded individual light fixtures. The proposed light intensity or lumens would comply with Chapter 172 of the Town Code (Outdoor Lighting). It is important to note that a detailed review of the proposed signage will be performed during site plan review by the Town Planning Board and Architectural Review Board. Comment C1-19: 0 ¦¤² ΔΓΖ-ΔΓΙǾ ³§¤ ¥®««®¶¨­¦ ¢®­²¨£¤± ³¨®­² ²§®´«£ ¡¤ £¨²¢´²²¤£ ±¤« ³¨µ¤ ³® ͗4 ¡«¤ ΔΙ #®­²¨²³¤­¢¸ !­ «¸²¨² ¶¨³§ ³§¤ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£ ,720͗Ȁ 0 ¦¤ ΔΓΖȀ 4§¤ ±¤²¯®­²¤ ³® 0®«¨¢¸ Δ ²§®´«£  «²® ¨­£¨¢ ³¤ §®¶ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¯±®©¤¢³ ¶¨«« ¯±®³¤¢³ ³§¤ ±¤²¨£¤­³¨ « ¢§ ± ¢³¤± ®¥  £© ¢¤­³ ±¤²¨£¤­³¨ « £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ³® ³§¤ ¤ ²³ ¨­ ³¤±¬² ®¥ «¨¦§³¨­¦Ǿ ­®¨²¤Ǿ « ­£²¢ ¯¨­¦Ǿ  ­£ ²¨¦­ ¦¤ȁ 0 ¦¤ ΔΓΖȀ 4§¤ ±¤²¯®­²¤ ³® 0®«¨¢¸ Η £®¤² ­®³ ¨­£¨¢ ³¤ §®¶ ²³®±¬¶ ³¤± ±´­®¥¥  ­£ ¥«®®£¨­¦ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¢®­³±®««¤£ ®­  ­£ ®¥¥-²¨³¤  ­£ £®¤²­͖³ £¨²¢´²²  ­¸ ¦±¤¤­ ¨­¥± ²³±´¢³´±¤  ² ²´¦¦¤²³¤£ ¨­ ®³§¤± ¯ ±³² ®¥ ³§¤ $%)3ȁ 0 ¦¤ ΔΓΘȀ 4§¤ ±¤²¯®­²¤ ³® 0®«¨¢¸ Λ ²§®´«£ £¨²¢´²² £´¬¯²³¤± ¤­¢«®²´±¤² ®­- ²¨³¤Ǿ §®¶ ³§¤¸ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¤­¢«®²¤£  ­£ ³§¤ ¢§ ± ¢³¤±¨²³¨¢² ®¥ ³§¤ ¤­¢«®²´±¤ ³® ¯±¤µ¤­³ ¤±± ­³ ³± ²§ ¥±®¬ ¡¤¨­¦ ¡«®¶­ ¨­³® ³§¤ ²³±¤¤³ ®± ®­ ³®  £©®¨­¨­¦ ¯±®¯¤±³¨¤²Ǿ  ­£ §®¶ £´¬¯²³¤±²  ­£ ¯®²²¨¡«¸ £´¬¯²³¤± ¤­¢«®²´±¤² ¶¨«« ¡¤ ²¢±¤¤­¤£ ¥±®¬ ¯´¡«¨¢ µ¨¤¶  ­£  £© ¢¤­³ ±¤²¨£¤­¢¤²ȁ 0 ¦¤ ΔΓΙȀ 2¤¦ ±£¨­¦ 0®«¨¢¸ ΔΖǾ ¯«¤ ²¤ ¢« ±¨¥¸ ®± ¢®­¥¨±¬ ³§ ³ ³§¤ §¨²³®±¨¢ ±¤²³ ´± ­³ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ¶¨«« ­®³ ¨­¢«´£¤ ²®« ± ¯ ­¤«² ®­ ³§¤ ±®®¥  ­£ ³§ ³ ³§¤ ¯ ­¤«² ¶®´«£ ¡¤ ¬®´­³¤£ ®­ ³§¤ §®³¤« ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ®­«¸ȁ Response to Comment C1-19: In response to the comments set forth above, the consistency analyses with Policies 1, 4, 8 and 13 are modified as follows: 0®«¨¢¸ ΔȀ &®²³¤±   ¯ ³³¤±­ ®¥ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ¨­ ³§¤ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£ ³§ ³ ¤­§ ­¢¤² ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ¢§ ± ¢³¤±Ǿ ¯±¤²¤±µ¤² ®¯¤­ ²¯ ¢¤Ǿ ¬ ª¤² ¤¥¥¨¢¨¤­³ ´²¤ ®¥ ¨­¥± ²³±´¢³´±¤Ǿ ¬ ª¤² ¡¤­¤¥¨¢¨ « ´²¤ ®¥   ¢® ²³ « «®¢ ³¨®­Ǿ  ­£ ¬¨­¨¬¨¹¤²  £µ¤±²¤ ¤¥¥¤¢³² ®¥ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ȁ As excerpted from the DEIS, “The proposed project would change the land use character of the subject property from one residence to a mixed-commercial use. However, the proposed commercial uses are permitted by the underlying zoning (via special exception use permit) and the proposed project would situate new land uses complimentary to the hamlet center while meeting various local and regional planning goals. Overall, the proposed project is consistent with various local and state comprehensive planning documents relevant to the hamlet and Town of Southold and the larger region regarding preservation of existing historic character of the area. Regarding open space, approximately 58.62 percent of the site (3.763± acres) would consist of existing vegetation and planted areas. Accordingly, based upon the above, the proposed action would be consistent with the intent of this policy.” In furtherance to the excerpt above, and in response to comment above (i.e., indicate how the proposed project will protect the residential character of adjacent residential development to the east in terms of lighting, noise, landscaping, and signage), the proposed development plan considers site lighting. The proposed plan includes 10-foot lamp poles along the internal driveway, within the parking areas and adjacent to the STP, with each lamp pole consisting of a down shielded LED fixture to direct all 19 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ light downwards. As noted on the Site Lighting and Details Plan (included herein in Appendix C), the photometric analysis demonstrates that there will be no off-site lighting impacts from any of the light poles proposed. Regarding building fixtures, fixed lighting that is down shielded to direct light downward would be installed on the proposed hotel building and restaurant. The light intensities will comply with Chapter 172 of the Town Code (Outdoor Lighting), as well as the lighting standards set forth in §172-5. All lighting would fully comply with the lighting requirements and standards set forth in the Town Code. The proposed landscaping plan provides for the required minimum 15-foot transition buffer along the entire eastern property line. On-site screening primarily consists of a double row of 14-to-16-foot tall mature Leyland Cypress, spaced eight-feet on center to screen the proposed development from the adjacent residential area. Since the driveway has been relocated to achieve the 15-foot transition buffer, a double row of screening can now be utilized for the entire east side of the property. The use of the mature Leyland Cypress on this side in both the single and double row configuration aims to provide immediate screening of the proposed action. Also, a 6.5-foot high, wooden stockade fence has been added to the site design. Regarding signage, as indicated in the Response to Comment C1-18, the location of the proposed signage is illustrated in the drawing included in Appendix D of this FEIS. Finally, with respect to noise, a comprehensive acoustic assessment of the proposed development has been performed and mitigation to prevent any noise-related impacts during normal operations or during periods when events are held, have been identified for implementation. The proposed noise mitigation includes the following: The number of large events will be limited to 10 per year. All events will occur during the following times: Friday Evenings from 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM, Saturday day or evening events ranging from 2:00 PM to 11:00 PM, or Sunday day events from 2:00 PM to 6:00 PM; with only one large event to occur per week and no events to be held concurrently. More than one small event (i.e., an event with less than 100 people) can be held in a weekend (i.e., Friday evening and Sunday afternoon); however, the proposed event times are within the non-sensitive period set forth in §180-6 of the Town of Southold Noise Ordinance (Sunday through Thursday, 65 dB(A) between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm and 50 dB(A) between 7:00 pm and 7:00 am; Friday and Saturday, 65 dB(A) between 7:00 am and 11:00 pm and 50 dB(A) between 11:00 pm and 7:00 am). Events will be hosted indoors, either inside the hotel or within a future enclosed space, which will be reviewed by the Planning Board during site plan approval. The potential noise generation from cumulative sources (including indoor events, traffic, pool, cottages, HVAC, rooftop terrace, and parking lot) will not exceed 5 dBA over background (No Build) sound levels. This will be achieved with building materials and windows with high acoustic performance for noise attenuation, which will be designed as part of site plan review with the Planning Board. Acoustic barriers will be installed along the eastern property line as well as around the cottage exterior spaces. These barriers would include 6.5-ft wooden stockade fencing with an acoustic barrier with a minimum STC of 29 (such as NoiseOut 2 or LV-1R), which will make full contact 20 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ with the ground to complete the acoustic seal. Also, the proposed landscaping will be completed on the development side of the fence in order to reduce additional acoustic reflections. The proposed HVAC units will be placed on the roof and will be contained within noise- attenuating enclosures, if necessary, upon review of mechanical equipment. Also, as architectural and MEP design progresses, the applicant’s noise consultant (SoundSense) will review all mechanical plans to ensure that mechanical units meet the Design Maximum Sound Level from Mechanical Equipment, as detailed in the Acoustic Report, with appropriate spacing and mitigation. The proposed rooftop terrace will have limited hours of operation (10AM-9PM Sun-Thurs, 11AM-10PM Fri-Sat) for hotel guests only. To address potential noise concerns from the proposed rooftop lounge area, while the roofline directly to the east and the parapet both act as an acoustic barrier, the proposed design has been modified to include a 30-inch glass barrier on top of the parapet. The barrier is expected to be quarter-inch monolithic glass or similar material. No outdoor amplified music will be permitted. The proposed site design complies with all required front, side and rear yard setbacks pursuant to the bulk and dimensional requirements for the HB Zoning District. See Responses to Comments C1-8, C1-9 and C2-24 in this section, and Responses to Comments H14-3, H14-11 in Section 2.3.3 of this FEIS. 0®«¨¢¸ ΗȀ -¨­¨¬¨¹¤ «®²² ®¥ «¨¥¤Ǿ ²³±´¢³´±¤²Ǿ  ­£ ­ ³´± « ±¤²®´±¢¤² ¥±®¬ ¥«®®£¨­¦  ­£ ¤±®²¨®­. As excerpted from the DEIS, “The subject property is located within the developed hamlet center and outside of the 500-year floodplain (Flood Zone X), and therefore, no significant adverse impacts associated with flooding would be expected to occur. Also, erosion and sedimentation controls would be undertaken prior to and during construction. Accordingly, the proposed action complies with this policy.” In furtherance to the excerpt above, and in response to the comment (i.e., indicate how stormwater runoff and flooding will be controlled on and off-site and any green infrastructure), the proposed development includes a comprehensive stormwater management system consisting of swales, catch basins, trench drains and leaching pools designed to accommodate runoff for a two-inch rain event (as required by Town Code). Green infrastructure includes the use of swales in the landscaped areas, such as the main lawn adjacent to the hotel, as shown on Sheet C-200 in Appendix C. 0®«¨¢¸ ΛȀ -¨­¨¬¨¹¤ ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « £¤¦± £ ³¨®­ ¨­ ³§¤ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£ ¥±®¬ ²®«¨£ ¶ ²³¤  ­£ § ¹ ±£®´² ²´¡²³ ­¢¤²  ­£ ¶ ²³¤²ȁ 21 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ As excerpted from the DEIS, “As discussed in Sections 2.1.2 and 3.6.2, a SMMP has been prepared to address pesticides and metals that were detected in shallow soils at the site, likely associated with its past agricultural use. In summary, the impacted soils can be handled in one or all of the following methods: (1) vertical mixing of impacted and un-impacted materials; (2) placement of impacted soils below impervious areas, such as parking lots or buildings; (3) capping of impacted areas with one foot of clean fill; and/or (4) proper off-site disposal. By utilizing the first three methods, the impacted materials will remain on site, which reduces the possibility of off-site contamination and reduces the overall amount of soils requiring off-site disposal. In addition to the mitigation of the soils, the SMMP discusses the measures needed to monitor and control dust associated with the clearing, grading and excavation work on the site. These measures include dust monitoring, reporting during construction activities and the implementation of dust control measures, such as water spraying. After development, all landscaped area will be professionally maintained, including fertilizer and pesticide applications. The landscaped areas shall be cared for in an organic manner at first with the use of specific approved pesticides only in the event that organic treatment methods are not sufficient. Pesticides shall be applied only to impacted areas and in accordance with manufacturer recommendations to reduce the impact on the environment. Also, as discussed in Sections 1.2.9 and 4.5 of this DEIS, all solid waste from the proposed development would be collected and disposed of by a licensed private carter. Recycling on the property would be implemented with separate trash receptacles; however, recycling methods (single-stream or dual-stream) would be determined by the carter contracted to collect and dispose of the on-site trash. As part of the proposed project, best management practices for reduction in solid waste generation and product selection would be incorporated into the business plans. Based upon the above, the proposed action is consistent with the intent of this policy.” In furtherance to the excerpt above, and in response to the comment (i.e., to discuss dumpster enclosures on-site, how they will be enclosed and the characteristics of the enclosure to prevent errant trash from being blown into the street or on to adjoining properties, and how dumpsters and possibly dumpster enclosures will be screened from public view and adjacent residences), the dumpsters are to be located within screened fence enclosures with perimeter vegetation. Specifically, the proposed screen fence will be vinyl coated chain link fence with privacy slats and 8 feet in height. The proposed plantings would consist of a mix of larger shrubs such as Leyland Cypress and some smaller shrubs, consistent with the species indicated on the landscape plan, Sheet C-400, in Appendix C. As indicated in Section 1.3 of this FEIS, the dumpster pad for the proposed hotel use has been relocated from the northeast portion of the site to the northwest corner, which provides for easier access for trash pick-up and also relocates the dumpster away from the residential properties to the east. All 22 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ dumpsters will be equipped with lids such that all trash would be secure from being blown. Further, trash pick-ups will be scheduled to eliminate wastes being held for a long duration or overfills. 0®«¨¢¸ ΔΖȀ 0±®¬®³¤  ¯¯±®¯±¨ ³¤ ´²¤  ­£ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ®¥ ¤­¤±¦¸  ­£ ¬¨­¤± « ±¤²®´±¢¤². As excerpted from the DEIS, “As part of the proposed project, the design would include the installation of high efficiency boilers capable of nearly 98 percent efficiency. The proposed hotel building would consist of heavy thermally broken panels of glass and insulated with art spray foam insulation to not only provide a thermal blanket but also to mitigate air leakage throughout the buildings. The project sponsor is currently investigating the potential for solar energy with the installation of photovoltaic panels mounted on the flat roof areas, which would offer the potential of a “co-generation” system, where excess electricity generated by these panels can either be stored in batteries on site or sold back to PSEG by agreement. As such, this policy is not applicable to the proposed action.” In furtherance to the excerpt above, and in response to the comment (i.e., clarify or confirm that the historic restaurant building will not include solar panels on the roof and that the panels would be mounted on the hotel building only), there are no solar panels proposed on the roof of the restaurant building. Comment C1-20: 0 ¦¤ ΔΔΖ ®¥ ³§¤ $%)3 ²³ ³¤² ³§ ³ ³§¤ 3ΜΕ ¡´² ±®´³¤ ¯ ²²¤² ¡¸ ³§¤ ²´¡©¤¢³ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ¤µ¤±¸ §®´± ¨­ ¡®³§ £¨±¤¢³¨®­² ¡¤³¶¤¤­ ΚȀΓΓ !-  ­£ ΚȀΓΓ 0-ȁ 0«¤ ²¤ ¨­£¨¢ ³¤ ¶§¤³§¤± ³§¤±¤ ¨²   ¡´² ²³®¯ ­¤ ±¡¸ ®± ¶§¤³§¤± ³§¤±¤ ¨² ³§¤ ¯®³¤­³¨ « ¥®±   ­¤¶ ¡´² ²³®¯ ¨­ ³§¤  ±¤ ȁ Response to Comment C1-20: There is no bus stop proposed as part of this application. The closest bus stop for the S92 bus route is located to the west of the subject property, at the intersection of Main Road at Youngs Avenue, which is approximately 1,660 feet in linear distance (or 0.3± mile) from the proposed development. The nearest stop for the Hampton Jitney is located across from the Feather Hill Shopping Center on Main Road (approximately 2,545 feet in linear distance or 0.48 mile) west of the proposed development. It is expected that select staff of the proposed restaurant and proposed hotel may elect to use the S92 bus route to and from the site. Regarding patrons to the restaurant, it is expected that private automobile or ride sharing (i.e., Uber, Lyft) would be the forms of transportation. For guests of the hotel, it is expected that private automobiles or ride sharing from the local Hampton Jitney drop-off may be used. Comment C1-21: 3´¡²¤¢³¨®­ ΖȁΙǾ 0 ¦¤ ΔΖΚȁ $´¤ ³® ³§¤ ¯®³¤­³¨ « ®¢¢´¯ ­¢¸ ®¥ ³§¤ §®³¤«Ǿ ¨³ ¨² ¤·¯¤¢³¤£ ³§a³ ¡¤¥®±¤   "´¨«£¨­¦ 0¤±¬¨³ ¨² ¨²²´¤£Ǿ that ³§¤ &¨±¤ D¨²³±¨¢³Ǿ "´¨«£¨­¦ $¤¯ ±³¬¤­³  ­£ȝ®± Fire - ±²§ «Ǿ  ²  ¯¯«¨¢ ¡«¤Ǿ ¶¨«« ¤­²´±¤ ³§ ³  ­¸ ¥¨±¤ §¸£± ­³² ³§ ³ ¬ ¸ ¡¤ ­¤¤£¤£  ±¤ ¨­²³ ««¤£Ǿ ¤¬¤±¦¤­¢¸  ¢¢¤²² ¨² ²´¥¥¨¢¨¤­³Ǿ  ­£ ³§ ³ ³§¤ §®³¤«  ­£ ±¤²³ ´± ­³  ±¤ ¡´¨«³ ³®  ¯¯«¨¢ ¡«¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦  ­£ ¥¨±¤ ¢®£¤²ȁ 4¤·³ ¨­ ³§¤ $%)3 ²³ ³¤² ³§ ³ ²®¬¤ ±¤²¯®­²¤² ¥±®¬ ¤¬¤±¦¤­¢¸ ²¤±µ¨¢¤ ¯±®µ¨£¤±²  ±¤ ¯¤­£¨­¦ȁ )¥ ±¤²¯®­²¤² § µ¤ ¡¤¤­ ±¤¢¤¨µ¤£ ¥±®¬ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ²¤±µ¨¢¤ ¯±®µ¨£¤±²Ǿ ¯«¤ ²¤ ¯±®µ¨£¤ ³§®²¤ ±¤²¯®­²¤²  ­£ ¨­£¨¢ ³¤ ¨¥  ­¸  ¢³¨®­² ¶¨«« ¡¤ ³ ª¤­ ³®  ££±¤²² ³§¤ ¢®¬¬¤­³²ȁ 23 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Response to Comment C1-21: As part of this FEIS, follow up correspondence has been sent to the Southold Fire Department and Southold Police Department. Copies of this correspondence has been included in Appendix H of this FEIS. It is noted that the Southold Police Department commented on the proposed project and the applicant has responded to the comments and this correspondence is also included in Appendix H of this FEIS. It is also noted that the comments of the Southold Police Department that regarding additional traffic and noise complaints from neighbors due to outdoor events were addressed through the project scope and site plan revision. Specifically, by eliminating outdoor events and committing to a cumulative post-development noise level not to exceed 5 dBA over No Build sound levels, there will be no adverse noise impacts during events. Furthermore, in coordination with the Town, traffic control will be on-site for events greater than 100 patrons to avoid potential traffic-related issues at the site. Comment C1-22: 4§¤ ¯§®³®²  ­£ ±¤­£¤±¨­¦² ²´¡¬¨³³¤£ £® ­®³ ¢«¤ ±«¸ ²§®¶ ³§¤ µ¨²´ « ¨¬¯ ¢³ ³® ³§¤ ²³±¤¤³²¢ ¯¤  ­£ ­¤¨¦§¡®±¨­¦ ¯±®¯¤±³¨¤² ¶§¤­ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¤­³±¸  ­£ ¤·¨³ £±¨µ¤¶ ¸²Ǿ ¯±®¯®²¤£ « ­£²¢ ¯¨­¦Ǿ ¯ ±ª¨­¦ «®³  ­£ ³§¤ §®³¤« § µ¤ ¡¤¤­ ¢®¬¯«¤³¤£ȁ &®± ¤· ¬¯«¤Ǿ &¨¦´±¤² ΕΕ  ­£ ΕΖ ²§®¶ ­¤¶ ¤µ¤±¦±¤¤­² ¨­ ³§¤ ͗0®²³-$¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ 6¨¤¶²͗ ¡´³ ³§¤ , ­£²¢ ¯¤ 0« ­ £®¤² ­®³ ¯±®µ¨£¤ ²´¢§ ³±¤¤²  ³ ³§¤ «®¢ ³¨®­² ¨£¤­³¨¥¨¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ µ¨¤¶ «¤¦¤­£ȁ 4§¤ ¯§®³®- simulations ¬´²³ ¡¤  ¢¢´± ³¤«¸ ¢®¬¯«¤³¤£ ¡ ²¤£ ®­ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ²¨³¤ ¯« ­²Ǿ ¨­¢«´£¨­¦ « ­£²¢ ¯¨­¦Ǿ ²¨³¤ ¦± £¤²  ­£ ¨¬¯±®µ¤¬¤­³²ȁ !££¨³¨®­ « µ¨¤¶² ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ¯±®µ¨£¤£ ³® £¤¬®­²³± ³¤ §®¶ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¯±®©¤¢³ ¶¨««  ¯¯¤ ± ³® ¯ ²²¤±²¡¸ ®­ ¥®®³  ­£ ¨­ ¢ ±²  ­£ ¥±®¬ ³§¤  £© ¢¤­³  ±¤ ² ¤ ²³  ­£ ¶¤²³ȁ Response to Comment C1-22: The project architect has prepared updated photo-simulations in response to the comment, which are included in Appendix D of this FEIS. As illustrated, the views into the subject property from the east are obscured by the proposed plantings and the wooden stockade fencing that has been added to the proposed site plan. Views of the proposed development from Main Road have also been presented in updated renderings (see Appendix D). The renderings clearly show that the proposed hotel is obscured with the proposed landscape treatments. Comment C1-23: 4§¤ "52"3 .¨³±®¦¤­ ,® £¨­¦ -®£¤« ¯±®µ¨£¤£ ¨­ !¯¯¤­£¨· & ®¥ ³§¤ $%)3 ´²¤²   ±¤²¨£¤­³¨ « ¥¤±³¨«¨¹ ³¨®­ ± ³¤ȁ )³ ¨² ´­¢«¤ ± ¶§¸   ¢®¬¬¤±¢¨ « ± ³¤ ¶ ² ­®³ ´²¤£ ³® ¡¤ ¬®±¤ ¢®­²¨²³¤­³ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ¢®¬¬¤±¢¨ « ­ ³´±¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¯±®©¤¢³ȁ 0«¤ ²¤ ¤·¯« ¨­  ­£ ¨­£¨¢ ³¤ ¶§ ³ ³§¤ £¨¥¥¤±¤­¢¤ ¨² ¨¥  ­¸ȁ Response to Comment C1-23: The BURBS Nitrogen Loading Model utilized the fertilization rate of 2.04 lbs/1,000sf/year, as established by the NLM model and used by Suffolk County in developing the County’s Subwatershed Wastewater Plan (“Subwatershed”). The commercial fertilization rates utilized by the Subwatershed plan included golf course, parks and recreation and various agricultural practices. With the exception of golf courses and sod farming, all of the other application rates are lower than the 2.04 lbs/1,000sf/year utilized. This property is not a golf course and will not be a sod farm; as such, the residential rate of 2.04 lbs/1,000sf/year was selected. The landscaping and grass utilized by the proposed hotel is not significantly different than that utilized by residential properties within the Town. Therefore, this rate was utilized as it was the best suited for the project. Comment C2-22: 4®¶­ #®£¤ §180-ΚȨ!ȩȨΙȩ ¶ ² ¢¨³¤£Ǿ ¶§¨¢§ ¤·¤¬¯³² ­®­- ¬¯«¨¥¨¤£ ­®¨²¤ ¦¤­¤± ³¤£ ¥±®¬ « ¶¥´«  ³§«¤³¨¢ ®± ±¤¢±¤ ³¨®­ «  ¢³¨µ¨³¨¤²Ǿ ¤µ¤­³² ®± ¥ ¢¨«¨³¨¤²ȁ )³ ¨² °´¤²³¨®­ ¡«¤ ¶§¤³§¤± ³§¨²  ¯¯«¨¤² ³®   ¢®¬¬¤±¢¨ « ¯±®¯¤±³¸  ­£ ¨³² ´²¤ȁ 4§¤ 4®¶­ ¬ ¸ ­¤¤£ ³® ±¤­£¤±  ­ ¨­³¤±¯±¤³ ³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¨² ¨³¤¬ ¨­ ³§¤¨± #ode. 24 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Response to Comment C2-22: Section 280-35(B)(4)(c) provides, in connection with a hotel use, that no music, entertainment or loudspeaker system shall be “audible” beyond the property line. It is noted that the Town Code does have a Noise Ordinance (Chapter 180) which regulates the decibel level of sound produced on a parcel, whether through human voice, instrument or amplified sound (See. Sec. 180-4 “Noise Pollution”). The noise impact analyses conducted as part of the DEIS (Appendix J of the DEIS) and as part of this FEIS (see Appendix F). In addition, the NYSDEC criteria used for evaluation is more stringent than the Noise Ordinance and demonstrates no anticipated impact. Comment C2-23: 4§¤ 2¤¯®±³ £¨£ ­®³ ¨£¤­³¨¥¸ ³§¤ 3 ³´±£ ¸ ¯¤ ª §®´±ȁ Response to Comment C2-23:The DEIS and Acoustic Report was prepared in accordance with the Final Scope for the DEIS issued by the Town of Southold, as prepared by its consultants, Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC and RTP Environmental Associates, Inc, on April 19, 2018 (“Final Scope”). The Final Scope required the following time periods for measurement: “The Noise Study will include an identification of the ambient noise levels at four (4) locations during times of peak ambient noise generation…” Peak noise generation was determined to occur during “peak season” in the area, as was considered during development of the scope of work for the DEIS, as determined by the Final Scope issued by the lead agency. This “peak season” can be generalized as the time between Memorial Day and Labor Day. As indicated in Section 3.4.1 of the DEIS: $ ¸³¨¬¤  ¬¡¨¤­³ ²®´­£ «¤µ¤« ¬¤ ²´±¤¬¤­³² ¶¤±¤ ³ ª¤­  ³ ²¤µ¤± « ±¤¢¤¨µ¤±² ­¤ ± ³§¤ ²´¡©¤¢³ ¯±®¯¤±³¸Ǿ  ² ²§®¶­ ¨­ &¨¦´±¤ ΗȁΔȁΔ ®¥ ³§¤ !¢®´²³¨¢ 2¤¯®±³ȁ !² ­®³¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ !¢®´²³¨¢ 2¤¯®±³Ǿ ³§¤ ±¤¢¤¨µ¤± «®¢ ³¨®­² ¶¤±¤ ²¤«¤¢³¤£ ¨­ ®±£¤± ³® ¢§ ± ¢³¤±¨¹¤ ³§¤  ¢®´²³¨¢ ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸  ­£ ²´±±®´­£¨­¦  ±¤ ²Ȃ,®¢ ³¨®­ Δ ¶ ² ²¤«¤¢³¤£ ¨­ ®±£¤± ³® ¢§ ± ¢³¤±¨¹¤ ³§¤ ¤·¨²³¨­¦  ¬¡¨¤­³ ²®´­£ ¯±¤²²´±¤ «¤µ¤«²  ³ ³§¤ ¥±®­³ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸  ­£ ¢§ ± ¢³¤±¨¹¤ ³§¤  ¢®´²³¨¢ ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³  ³ ³§¤ ²³±¤¤³  ­£ ³® ³§¤ ­¤ ±¡¸ ¢®¬¬¤±¢¨ « ±¤¢¤¨µ¤±²ȁ $´±¨­¦ ¢®««¤¢³¨®­ ®¥  ¢®´²³¨¢ £ ³   ³ ,®¢ ³¨®­ ΔǾ ³¨¬¤²³ ¬¯² ¶¤±¤ ¢®««¤¢³¤£ ®¥ µ ±¨®´²  ¢®´²³¨¢ ¤µ¤­³² ²´¢§  ² µ ±¨®´² ¢ ± ¯ ²²-¡¸² ¨­ ®±£¤± ³® ´³¨«¨¹¤ ¨­ ¥´³´±¤ ¢ «¢´« ³¨®­² ¥®± ³§¨²  ¢®´²³¨¢ ²³´£¸ ±¤« ³¤£ ³® ³± ¥¥¨¢ȁ ,®¢ ³¨®­² ΕǾ Ζ  ­£ Η ¢§ ± ¢³¤±¨¹¤ ³§¤  ¢®´²³¨¢ ¢®­£¨³¨®­² ¨­ ³§¤ ±¤ ± ®¥ ³§¤ ¤·¨²³¨­¦ ®­-²¨³¤ ±¤²¨£¤­¢¤  ­£ ¢®¬¬¤±¢¨ « ¡´²¨­¤²²¤²ȁ #®««¤¢³¨µ¤«¸Ǿ  «« ³§¤  ¢®´²³¨¢ £ ³  ¦ ³§¤±¤£ ¯±®µ¨£¤²   ¢«¤ ± ¯¨¢³´±¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ¤·¨²³¨­¦ ²®´­£²¢ ¯¤ ®¥ ³§¤  ±¤ ȁ 2¤ £¨­¦² ¶¤±¤ ¢®««¤¢³¤£  ² ¢«®²¤ ³® ­¤ ±¡¸ ±¤²¨£¤­³¨ « ±¤¢¤¨µ¤±²  ² ¯®²²¨¡«¤ȁ )­  ££¨³¨®­ ³® ³§¤ «®¢ ³¨®­Ǿ ³§¤ ³¨¬¤ ®¥ ³§¤  ¢®´²³¨¢ ±¤ £¨­¦² ¶¤±¤ ²¤«¤¢³¤£ ¨­ ®±£¤± ³® ²´±µ¤¸   µ ±¨¤³¸ ®¥  ¢®´²³¨¢ ¢®­£¨³¨®­²ȁ &®± ¤· ¬¯«¤Ǿ  ¢®´²³¨¢ ±¤ £¨­¦² ¶¤±¤ ¢®««¤¢³¤£ £´±¨­¦ ³§¤ £ ¸ ¨­ ®±£¤± ³® ¢§ ± ¢³¤±¨¹¤ ³¸¯¨¢ « ²®´­£² £´¤ ³® ³± ¥¥¨¢  ­£  ¢®´²³¨¢ ±¤ £¨­¦² ¢®««¤¢³¤£ £´±¨­¦ ³§¤ ­¨¦§³³¨¬¤ ±¤ £¨­¦² ¶¤±¤ ¢®®±£¨­ ³¤£ ¶¨³§   ¯ ²²-¡¸ ®¥  ­ ,)22 ³± ¨­  ³ ³® ³§¤ ­®±³§ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ȁ !­  ¢®´²³¨¢ ¢®­²´«³ ­³ ±¤¬ ¨­¤£ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ¬¤³¤± ¥®± ³§¤ £´± ³¨®­ ®¥ ¤ ¢§ ΕΓ-¬¨­´³¤ ¬¤ ²´±¤¬¤­³ ¯¤±¨®£Ǿ ­®³¨­¦ ³§¤  ¢³¨µ¨³¨¤² ¢®­³±¨¡´³¨­¦ ³® ³§¤ ²®´­£²¢ ¯¤ ®¥ ³§¤  ±¤ Ǿ  ­£ ­®³¨­¦ §¨¦§ ²®´­£ «¤µ¤« ¤µ¤­³² ²´¢§  ² ¢ ±  ­£ ³±´¢ª ¯ ²²-¡¸²ȁ 4§¤ ¤·¨²³¨­¦  ¬¡¨¤­³ ²®´­£²¢ ¯¤ ¨­ ³§¤  ±¤  ®¥ ³§¤ ²´¡©¤¢³ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ¨² ¢§ ± ¢³¤±¨¹¤£ ¬ ¨­«¸ ¡¸ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ®­ 2®´³¤ ΕΘǾ ¶§¨¢§ ¨­¢«´£¤² ¢ ±²Ǿ ¡´²²¤²Ǿ ¬¨£  ­£ « ±¦¤ ²¨¹¤£ ³±´¢ª²Ǿ ¤¬¤±¦¤­¢¸ µ¤§¨¢«¤²Ǿ  ² ¶¤««  ² ³§¤  £© ¢¤­³ ,)22 ³± ¢ª²Ǿ ¯« ­¤²Ǿ  ­£ §¤«¨¢®¯³¤±²ȁ 4§¤ ±¤²´«³² ®¥ ³§¤  ¬¡¨¤­³ ²®´­£ «¤µ¤« ¬¤ ²´±¤¬¤­³²Ǿ.. ±¤ ³¸¯¨¢ « ®¥   ±¤²¨£¤­³¨ «  ±¤  ­¤ ±¡¸   ¡´²¸ ±® £¶ ¸ȁ 4§¤ ²®´­£ «¤µ¤«²  ³ ,®¢ ³¨®­ ΔǾ ¶§¨¢§  ±¤ ±¤¯±¤²¤­³ ³¨µ¤ ®¥ ³§¤  ¢®´²³¨¢ ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³  ³ ³§¤ ¢®¬¬¤±¢¨ «  ­£ ±¤²¨£¤­³¨ « ±¤¢¤¨µ¤±² ®­ 2®´³¤ ΕΘǾ  ±¤ £®¬¨­ ³¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ²®´­£² ®­ 2®´³¤ ΕΘȁ 4§¤ ¤¥¥¤¢³ ®¥ 2®´³¤ ΕΘ ®­ ,®¢ ³¨®­ Δ ¨² ¤²¯¤¢¨ ««¸ ¤µ¨£¤­³ ¨­ ³§¤ ¤«¤µ ³¤£ ,!¤°  ­£ ,ΜΓ ¬¤ ²´±¤¬¤­³² ³§ ³  ±¤ ³¸¯¨¢ ««¸ ´²¤£ ³® ¢§ ± ¢³¤±¨¹¤ ³§¤ ¡ ¢ª¦±®´­£ ­®¨²¤ «¤µ¤«²ȁ 25 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Further, as indicated in Section 3.4.2 of the DEIS, “As part of the noise analysis, SoundSense modeled the expected change in sound level at the four receivers (Locations 1 – 4) based on the expected increase in traffic, as documented in the TIS… In order to determine the worst-case scenario impacts for each receiver, the baseline sound levels were selected to be either the morning or evening readings, depending upon which time of day was generally quieter at each location. In this way, the analysis shows the expected worst-case scenario if all of the additional traffic occurred during the quietest periods of the day at each receiver. For this analysis, the evening sound levels were used for Locations 1 and 3, while the early afternoon sound levels were used for Locations 2 and 4.” The proposed mitigation considered the times when ambient noise was lower as it is critical to know the quietest background noise level. If the proposed mitigation was engineered for the summer background noise levels, as opposed to the quieter ambient times that SoundSense measured, event sounds not heard during the summer could possibly be significant and perceivable at quieter times. The quieter times are actually considered the worst conditions for this type of acoustic review. It is also noted that the DEIS was initially filed by the applicant in April 2019 and was revised and resubmitted in July 2019 and August 2019, before its acceptance in October 2019. At no time during the review process was the request for additional noise monitoring during weekends requested. Comment C2-24: )³ ¨² ¨¬¯®±³ ­³ ³® ±¤¨³¤± ³¤ ³§ ³ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¬¨³¨¦ ³¨®­ ´²¨­¦   ȏ«¨¬¨³¤±Ȑ ­¤¤£² ³® ¡¤ ¡¤³³¤± ¤·¯« ¨­¤£Ǿ ³® ¨­¢«´£¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¯±®¢¤£´±¤² ®­ §®¶ ¨³ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¨¬¯«¤¬¤­³¤£ȁ Response to Comment C2-24: The audio limiter is a similar tool to the audio compressor in that it reduces the dynamic range of a signal that passes through it. A compressor gradually reduces the signal level above a certain threshold, but a limiter completely prevents a signal from exceeding a specified setting. The Proposed Action has been modified to prohibit outdoor large events and no outdoor amplified music will be permitted, therefore the use of auto limiters is no longer being considered for noise mitigation. Comment C18-1: /­ ¯ ¦¤ ΔΔ ¨­ ³§¨² ²¤¢³¨®­Ǿ ³§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³ ­®³¤² ³§ ³ ȏ4§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ §®³¤« ¶®´«£ ¡¤ £¨²¢±¤¤³«¸ §¨££¤­ ¡¤§¨­£ ³§¨² §¤£¦¤±®¶Ǿ ³§´² ¬¨­¨¬¨¹¨­¦ ³§¤ µ¨¤¶²§¤£ ¢§ ­¦¤² ¥±®¬ - ¨­ 2® £ȁȐ 4§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³  «²® ²³ ³¤² ³§ ³ ȏ³§¤ £¤²¨¦­ ¨­³¤­³ ¶ ²   ²¬ ««-²¢ «¤Ǿ ¡®´³¨°´¤-²³¸«¤ §®³¤«Ǿ ¶¨³§ «¨¬¨³¤£ ¥®®³¯±¨­³Ǿ ²´¢§ ³§ ³ ¨³ ¶®´«£ ¢®¬¯«¤¬¤­³ ³§¤ ²´±±®´­£¨­¦ § ¬«¤³ȁȐ ) £® ­®³ ¡¤«¨¤µ¤ ³§¨² ¯±®©¤¢³ ¤­³ ¨«²   «¨¬¨³¤£ ¥®®³¯±¨­³ ³§ ³ ¨²   ¢®¬¯«¤¬¤­³ ³® ³§¤ ¤·¨²³¨­¦ § ¬«¤³ȁ !«³§®´¦§ ³§¤ §®³¤« ¶¨«« ­®³ ¡¤ ²¤¤­ ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ²³±¤¤³ ³§¤ ¥®®³¯±¨­³ ¥ ± ¤·¢¤¤£² ¢´±±¤­³ ´²¤² ¨­ ³§¤ § ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£  ­£  ¯¯¤ ±² ³® ¡¤   ( ¬¯³®­²-²³¸«¤ ¯±®©¤¢³ ¬®±¤ ²´¨³¤£ ³® 3®´³§ ¬¯³®­ ®± % ²³ ( ¬¯³®­ ¶§¤±¤ ´«³± -«´·´±¸  ¢¢®¬¬®£ ³¨®­²  ±¤ ¢®¬¬®­ȁ ) ¡¤«¨¤µ¤ ³§¤ ²¢ «¤ ®¥ ³§¨² §®³¤« ¨² ³§¤ ¥¨±²³ ²³¤¯ ³§ ³ ¨­µ¤²³®±²  ­£ ²¯¤¢´« ³®±² §®¯¤ ¶¨«« ¡¤   ³± ­²¥®±¬ ³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ .®±³§ &®±ª ¨­³® ³§¤ 3®´³§ &®±ª –   ³®´±¨²³ £¤²³¨­ ³¨®­ ¥®± ³§¤ ¶¤ «³§¸  ­£ ¯±¨µ¨«¤¦¤£ȁ 4§¨² ¨² ³§¤ « ²³ ³§¨­¦ ³§ ³ 3®´³§®«£ ±¤²¨£¤­³² ¶ ­³ȁ Response to Comment C18-1: The proposed development is subject to the use, bulk and dimensional requirements of the HB-zoning district, in addition to the Special Exception Use Permit criteria set forth at §280-142 and §280-143, and supplemental landscaping regulations set forth in Article XX of the Town Zoning Code. The DEIS and this FEIS have addressed the aforementioned requirements (see Response to Comment C1-10 and Appendix I of this FEIS). 26 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ As illustrated on the Site Plan General Notes in Appendix C and summarized in Table 3 of this FEIS, the proposed action is a 44-unit hotel on a property that exceeds the minimum lot size requirement by 274,202 square feet (i.e., site is 6.75 acres, or 294,202 square feet and the minimum required lot size is 20,000 square feet). Further, the proposed front, side, total side, and rear yard setbacks all exceed the minimum requirements. Moreover, the proposed landscape area exceeds the minimum requirement by 33.62 percent (i.e., 25 percent is required whereas 58.62 percent is provided), and the lot coverage is 23.7 percent less than the maximum permitted under the HB zoning (i.e., 40 percent is the maximum permitted whereas the proposed application includes only 16.3 percent). Finally, the proposed height is less than permitted (i.e., 35 feet maximum and 32.93 feet is proposed). Accordingly, based on the dimensional summary, the density of the proposed development is not excessive. As indicated in the Response to Comment C1-10 and in Table 3, the Proposed Site Plan with future event room (for indoor events) also complies with the bulk and dimensional requirements. Also, the intent of the proposed design was to screen the hotel from view from Main Road, as well as screen Main Road from the hotel guests, and the additional viewsheds prepared for this FEIS (see Appendix D) demonstrate that the proposed hotel would not be visible from Main Road. The future indoor event space will not be visible behind the hedge row. The applicant has also elected to preserve and restore the existing residence for reuse as a restaurant, and this results in a retention of an important historic residential structure for the Town. This element of the proposed action also maintains the existing character of the site from Main Road. 1 It is noteworthy that in the absence of an updated comprehensive plan during the DEIS process, the DEIS considered the Southold Hamlet Study, which was initially prepared in 2005, and last updated in 2008. The DEIS also considered the Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan, Long Island North Shore Heritage Area Management Plan, and the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. However, after submission of the FEIS dated April 2020, the Town adopted the updated Comprehensive Plan on September 8, 2020 and the economic development goals are relevant to the comments on the suitability of this proposed use. The first economic development goal includes “%­¢®´± ¦¤ .¤¶  ­£ & ¢¨«¨³ ³¤ ³§¤ '±®¶³§ ®¥ %·¨²³¨­¦ "´²¨­¤²² 3¤¢³®±² ³§ ³ 0´±²´¤ 3³ ¡«¤  ­£ 3´²³ ¨­ ¡«¤ %¬¯«®¸¬¤­³ȁ 4§¨² ¨­¢«´£¤²  ¦±¨¢´«³´±¤Ǿ  °´ ¢´«³´±¤Ǿ §¤ «³§ ¢ ±¤Ǿ ±¤­¤¶ ¡«¤ ¤­¤±¦¸Ǿ ³®´±¨²¬Ǿ «¨¦§³ ¨­£´²³±¨ «Ǿ ±¤³ ¨«ȝ²¤±µ¨¢¤-¡ ²¤£Ǿ  ­£ ³§¤ ¬ ±¨³¨¬¤-±¤« ³¤£ ¨­£´²³±¸.” Of relevance within such goal is the following objective: $¤µ¤«®¯   ¥®±¬ « "´²¨­¤²² 2¤³¤­³¨®­  ­£ %·¯ ­²¨®­ 0±®¦± ¬ ³§±®´¦§ 4®¶­ ¦®µ¤±­¬¤­³ȁ Discussion of this objective indicates, as excerpted from page 2 of Chapter 7: “4§¤  ¡¨«¨³¸ ®¥ ³§¤ 4®¶­ ³® ±¤³ ¨­ ¡´²¨­¤²²¤² ¨² ®¥³¤­ ¤ ²¨¤± ³§ ­  ³³± ¢³¨­¦ ­¤¶ ¡´²¨­¤²²¤² ³® ³®¶­ȁ Townwid¤ ¤¥¥®±³² ¨­ ¡´²¨­¤²²  ³³± ¢³¨®­  ­£ ±¤³¤­³¨®­ ²§®´«£ ¤¬¯«®¸   ²¨¬¨« ± ¥®¢´²Ǿ  ­£   "´²¨­¤²² 2¤³¤­³¨®­  ­£ %·¯ ­²¨®­ 0±®¦± ¬ ¶®´«£ ²¤³ ®´³ ³®  ¢¢®¬¯«¨²§ ³§¨². ! "´²¨­¤²² 2¤³¤­³¨®­  ­£ %·¯ ­²¨®­ 0±®¦± ¬ ¶®´«£ ²¤¤ª ³® ¨£¤­³¨¥¸  ­£ ´­£¤±²³ ­£ ³§¤ ¨²²´¤²  ­£ ®¡²³ ¢«¤² ¥ ¢¤£ ¡¸   µ ±¨¤³¸ ®¥ «®¢ « ¡´²¨­¤²²¤² ¨­ ³§¤ 4®¶­Ǿ ³§±®´¦§   ²¤±¨¤² ®¥ £¤³ ¨«¤£ ²´±µ¤¸²Ǿ ¨­³¤±µ¨¤¶²Ǿ ¬¤¤³¨­¦²Ǿ  ­£ ®±¦ ­¨¹ ³¨®­ ®¥ ±¤¯±¤²¤­³ ³¨µ¤² ¥±®¬ ª¤¸ ¡´²¨­¤²² ®¶­¤±² ³§±®´¦§®´³ ³§¤ 4®¶­ȁ 4§¤ ¯±®¦± ¬ ¶¨««  ²²¨²³ ¨­ ´­£¤±²³ ­£¨­¦ ³§¤ ¨¬¬¤£¨ ³¤ ¢®­¢¤±­² ®¥ «®¢ « ¡´²¨­¤²² ®¶­¤±² ²¤¤ª¨­¦ ³® ¨¬¯±®µ¤ 4®¶­-¶¨£¤ ¤¥¥®±³² ³® ±¤³ ¨­  ­£ ¤­¢®´± ¦¤ ¦±®¶³§ȁ” 1 The Town of Southold Comprehensive Plan: Southold 2020, which the applicant proposed to address as part of the DEIS (see Draft Scope submitted by applicant on February 8, 2019) was adopted by the Town on September 8, 2020. 27 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Another objective under this goal is to “3³±¤­¦³§¤­ ©®¡-³± ¨­¨­¦  ­£ ¶®±ª¥®±¢¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ȁ” Discussion of this objective indicates, as excerpted from page 3 of Chapter 7: ȏ3³±¤­¦³§¤­¨­¦ ©®¡-³± ¨­¨­¦  ­£ ³§¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ®¥ ³§¤ «®¢ « ¶®±ª¥®±¢¤ ¨² ­¤¢¤²² ±¸ ³® ¤­²´±¤ ³§ ³ ±¤²¨£¤­³²  ±¤ ³± ¨­¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ ¥¨¤«£² ³§ ³  «¨¦­ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ 4®¶­Ȍ² ¤²³ ¡«¨²§¤£  ­£ ¤¬¤±¦¨­¦ ¡´²¨­¤²² ²¤¢³®±²Ǿ ¨­¢«´£¨­¦  ¦±¨¢´«³´±¤Ǿ  °´ ¢´«³´±¤Ǿ §¤ «³§ ¢ ±¤Ǿ ±¤­¤¶ ¡«¤ ¤­¤±¦¸Ǿ ³®´±¨²¬Ǿ  ­£ «¨¦§³ ¨­£´²³±¨ «Ǿ retail/service-¡ ²¤£Ǿ  ­£ ³§¤ ¬ ±¨³¨¬¤-±¤« ³¤£ ¨­£´²³±¸ȁ 4§¤ £¨¥¥¨¢´«³¸ ¨­ ¥¨­£¨­¦ ²ª¨««¤£ ¶®±ª¤±² ¬ ª¤² 3®´³§®«£ 4®¶­   «¤²² £¤²¨± ¡«¤ ¯« ¢¤ ³® ²³ ±³ ®± ±¤«®¢ ³¤   ¡´²¨­¤²²ȁ -®±¤®µ¤±Ǿ ³§¤  ¦¨­¦ ¶®±ª¥®±¢¤ ¶¨³§¨­ 3®´³§®«£ 4®¶­ ± ¨²¤² ¢®­¢¤±­²  ² ³® ¶§ ³ ¶¨«« § ¯¯¤­ ¶§¤­ µ¤³¤± ­ ¶®±ª¤±² ±¤³¨±¤ȁ 4§¨² ¯®³¤­³¨ « ²¢¤­ ±¨®Ǿ ¢®¬¡¨­¤£ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ­¤¤£ ³® ±¤µ¤±²¤ ³§¤  ±¤ Ȍ² ȏ¡± ¨­ £± ¨­ǾȐ ¢®´«£ ¡¤  ££±¤²²¤£ ¶¨³§  ­ ¨¬¯±®µ¤£ job-³± ¨­¨­¦  ­£ ¶®±ª¥®±¢¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ¯±®¦± ¬ ³§ ³ ¶®´«£  ²²¨²³ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ¯±®µ¨²¨®­ ®¥ ²³ ¡«¤  ­£ ²´²³ ¨­ ¡«¤ ¤¬¯«®¸¬¤­³ ®¯¯®±³´­¨³¨¤² ¥®± ³§¤ £¨µ¤±²¤ ¡ ²¤ ®¥ ¢´±±¤­³  ­£ ¥´³´±¤ ±¤²¨£¤­³² ®¥ ³§¤ 4®¶­ȁȐ Accordingly, the proposed action is consistent with the aforementioned economic development goals and objectives to (1) increase commercial square footage in the hamlet of Southold, and (2) attract new businesses that can generate taxes. Also, the proposed action, as a tourism-related business, is also recognized in the aforementioned excerpts as an emerging business sector, and one in which the Town recognizes the need for improved job-training and workforce development. As indicated in the DEIS, the proposed development is projected to generate approximately $123,482 dollars in total tax revenue and total job creation is projected at 53 jobs. These projected jobs would include food preparation and service, housekeeping, maintenance, and managerial positions, among others. It is further noted that a second goal for Economic Development is to “0±®¬®³¤ %¢®­®¬¨¢ $¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ³§ ³ %­²´±¤²  ­ !£¤°´ ³¤ 4 · " ²¤ 7¨³§®´³ #®¬¯±®¬¨²¨­¦ ³§¤ 5­¨°´¤ #§ ± ¢³¤± ®¥ ³§¤ 4®¶­.” As indicated above, the proposed building height, building placement and landscaping plan results in a site design that effectively screens the proposed hotel from Main Road. Further, the proposed renovation and preservation of the existing historic residence maintains the character of the site from Main Road. The Economic Development goals also include specific recommendations for the HALO zones in which the property is situated. Specifically, Goal 3 is “0±¤²¤±µ¤  ­£ )¬¯±®µ¤ ³§¤ 6¨³ «¨³¸ ®¥ % ¢§ ®¥ ³§¤ 4®¶­Ȍ² ( ¬«¤³ #¤­³¤±²  ­£ (!,/ :®­¤²  ² 7 «ª ¡«¤ ,®¢ « "´²¨­¤²² $istricts.” One of the corresponding objectives is to “Concentrate new residential and commercial development in the Town’s hamlet centers and HALO zones, and encourage infill development, historic preservation, renovation, and adaptive reuse, where possible” and includes the recommendation to “Provide incentives for new development and/or business relocation for the reuse and adaptive reuse of existing structures within the Town’s hamlet centers and HALO zones.” As noted above, the proposed action is consistent with this goal and recommendations to achieve the objective. Accordingly, based on the above, the proposed uses, projected tax revenues and job creation, combined with the small-scale design that is not visible from the road, is consistent with the economic development goals set forth in the updated Comprehensive Plan. Moreover, the proposed action is fully compliant with the bulk and dimensional requirements for the HB zoning district as well as the Special Exception Use Permit criteria set forth at §280-142 and §280-143, and supplemental landscaping regulations set forth in Article XX of the Town Zoning Code. 28 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Comment C18–2: 4§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³ ¢®­¢«´£¤² ³§ ³Ȁ 7§¨«¤ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¯±®©¤¢³ ¶®´«£ ¢§ ­¦¤ ³§¤ « ­£ ´²¤ ¢§ ± ¢³¤± ®¥ ³§¤ ²´¡©¤¢³ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ¥±®¬ ®­¤ ±¤²¨£¤­¢¤ ³®   ¬¨·¤£-¢®¬¬¤±¢¨ « ´²¤Ǿ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¯±®©¤¢³ ¨² ¢®­²¨²³¤­³ ¶¨³§ µ ±¨®´² «®¢ «  ­£ ²³ ³¤ ¢®¬¯±¤§¤­²¨µ¤ ¯« ­­¨­¦ £®¢´¬¤­³² ±¤«¤µ ­³ ³® ³§¤ § ¬«¤³  ­£ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£  ­£ ³§¤ « ±¦¤± ±¤¦¨®­ ±¤¦ ±£¨­¦ ¯±¤²¤±µ ³¨®­ ®¥ ¤·¨²³¨­¦ §¨²³®±¨¢ ¢§ ± ¢³¤± ®¥ ³§¤  ±¤ ȁ ) £¨² ¦±¤¤ȁ 4§¨² ¯±®©¤¢³ ¨² ­®³ ¢®­²¨²³¤­³ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ $± ¥³ #®¬¯±¤§¤­²¨µ¤ 0« ­Ǿ ±¤¢¤­³«¸ ¢®¬¯«¤³¤£Ǿ ¶§¨¢§ ³§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³ § ² ­¤µ¤±  ££±¤²²¤£ȁ )­²³¤ £Ǿ ³§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³ § ² ±¤¥¤±¤­¢¤£ ³§¤ ΕΓΓΘ ( ¬«¤³ 3³´£¸  ­£ ¨³² ΕΓΓΚ ´¯£ ³¤²Ǿ  ² ¶¤««  ² ³§¤ ,®¢ « 7 ³¤±¥±®­³ 2¤µ¨³ «¨¹ ³¨®­ 0« ­Ǿ ®± ,720Ǿ ¶§¨¢§  ±¤  «« ¬®±¤ ³§ ­ ³¤­ ¸¤ ±² ®«£  ­£ ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ¢®­²¨£¤±¤£ ®´³£ ³¤£ȁ Response to Comment C18-2: In the absence of an updated comprehensive plan during the DEIS process, the DEIS considered the Southold Hamlet Study, which was initially prepared in 2005, and last updated in 2008.It is noted that the applicant proposed to evaluate the Draft Comprehensive Plan (Town of Southold Comprehensive Plan: Southold 2020) in the DEIS (see Draft Scope submitted by applicant on February 8, 2019); however, the applicant was advised that because the Draft Comprehensive Plan had not been adopted by the Town of Southold, and was pending review under the implementing regulations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, it was not to be considered in the DEIS. It is also noted that the updated Comprehensive Plan was adopted five months after submission of the FEIS dated April 2020. Nevertheless, review of the goals and objectives set forth in the updated Comprehensive Plan indicates that the proposed application is consistent with the economic development goals set forth in Chapter 7 of the updated Comprehensive Plan (see Response to Comment C18-1 above). Finally, as indicated in the Responses to Comments C1-9, C1-10, C18-1, and Table 3 of this FEIS (Section 2.3.1), Response to Comment C33-2 (Section 2.3.11), and evaluated in Section 3.1 of the DEIS, the proposed action is fully compliant with the purpose, bulk and dimensional requirements for the HB zoning district, as well as the Special Exception Use Permit criteria set forth at §280-142 and §280- 143, and supplemental landscaping regulations set forth in Article XX of the Town Zoning Code. Comment C18–3: )­ ³§¤ ±¤¢¤­³«¸ ¢®¬¯«¤³¤£ #®¬¯±¤§¤­²¨µ¤ 0« ­ ¯±®¢¤²²Ǿ ®³§¤±¶¨²¤ ª­®¶­  ² 3®´³§®«£ ΕΓΕΓǾ 3®´³§®«£ ( ¬«¤³ ±¤²¨£¤­³² £¤¥¨­¨³¨µ¤«¸ ²³ ³¤£ ³§¤¸ ¶ ­³ ³® ͗- ¨­³ ¨­  ­£ ¤­§ ­¢¤ ®´± ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸͖² ͗²¤­²¤ ®¥ ¯« ¢¤͗  ­£ ®´± ±¤²¨£¤­³¨ «Ǿ ±´± «Ǿ  ­£ §¨²³®±¨¢ ¢§ ± ¢³¤± ¡¸ ¤­¢®´± ¦¨­¦ ¬¨·¤£Ǿ ²¬ ««-²¢ «¤Ǿ ¢®¬¬¤±¢¨ «  ­£ ±¤²¨£¤­³¨ « £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ¨­ ®´± § ¬«¤³ ¢¤­³¤±ǿ ¬ ¨­³ ¨­¨­¦ ³§¤ µ¨ ¡¨«¨³¸ ®¥ ®´± - ¨­ 3³±¤¤³  ²   ¡´²¨­¤²² £¨²³±¨¢³ ¥®± «®¢ « ¤­³±¤¯±¤­¤´±²ǿ ¯±®¬®³¨­¦ £¨µ¤±²¤ §®´²¨­¦ ³¸¯¤² ¨­ ®´± (!,/ ¹®­¤ Ȩ ª  ³§¤ ( ¬«¤³ ,®¢´²:®­¤Ǿ  ­  ±¤  ²´±±®´­£¨­¦  ­£ ¨­¢«´£¨­¦ ³§¤ § ¬«¤³ ¢¤­³¤±²ȩǿ  ­£ ¤­²´±¨­¦ ³§ ³ £¤­²¨³¸ ¶¨³§¨­ ³§¤²¤ ³¶® £¨²³±¨¢³² ¨² ¢ ±¤¥´««¸ ¡ « ­¢¤£ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ¯±¤²¤±µ ³¨®­ ®¥ ¥ ±¬« ­£  ­£ ®¯¤­ ²¯ ¢¤ ®´³²¨£¤ ³§¤¨± ¡®´­£ ±¨¤²ȁ )­£¤¤£Ǿ ¨­ ³§¤ $± ¥³ #®¬¯±¤§¤­²¨µ¤ 0« ­ £®¢´¬¤­³²Ǿ  ­ ¤­³¨±¤ ¢§ ¯³¤± ¨² £¤£¨¢ ³¤£ ³® ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ¢§ ± ¢³¤±ȁ /¡©¤¢³¨µ¤ ΔȁΙ ¨­ ³§¨² ¢§ ¯³¤± ²³ ³¤²Ȁ ͗0« ­ ¥®± £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ®¥ § ¬«¤³ ¢¤­³¤±² ¶¨³§   ¥®¢´² ®­ µ¨³ «¨³¸Ǿ ¥´­¢³¨®­Ǿ  ­£  ¤²³§¤³¨¢²  ­£  ³   ¢®¬¯ ³¨¡«¤ ²¢ «¤ ³§ ³ ¬ ¨­³ ¨­² ³§¤ ¢§ ± ¢³¤± ®¥ ³§¤ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ȁ !­£ %µ «´ ³¤ ´²¤² ¶¨³§¨­ ³§¤ ( ¬«¤³ "´²¨­¤²² Ȩ("ȩ  ­£ '¤­¤± « "´²¨­¤²² Ȩ"ȩ ¹®­¨­¦ £¨²³±¨¢³² ¥®±  ¯¯±®¯±¨ ³¤­¤²² ®¥ ¨­³¤­²¨³¸ ¶¨³§¨­ ¤ ¢§ § ¬«¤³ ¢¤­³¤±  ­£ ²´±±®´­£¨­¦  ±¤ ²ȁȐ )­ '® « ΘǾ ³§¤ #®¬¯±¤§¤­²¨µ¤ 0« ­ ²³ ³¤² ³§ ³ 3®´³§®«£ ±¤²¨£¤­³² ͗¶ ­³ ³® 0±®³¤¢³ ³§¤ 4®¶­ #§ ± ¢³¤±ȁ 3®´³§®«£ ±¤³ ¨­² ¬´¢§ ®¥ ¨³² ²¬ ««-³®¶­ ¢§ ±¬ȁ - ­¸ ¥ ¢³®±² ¢®­³±¨¡´³¤ ³® °´ «¨³¸ ®¥ «¨¥¤ǿ ³§¤²¤ i­¢«´£¤ ³§¤ 4®¶­͖² ²¢¤­¨¢Ǿ ¢´«³´± «Ǿ  ­£ ­ ³´± « ±¤²®´±¢¤²ȁ͗ 4§¨² ¯±®©¤¢³ ¶¨«« ¡¤   ¥¨±²³ ²³¤¯ ³§ ³ ¶¨«« «¤ £ ³® ³§¤ «®²² ®¥ 3®´³§®«£͖² ͗²¬ ««-³®¶­ ¢§ ±¬͗ ¡¸ ®¯¤­¨­¦   £®®± ³® ³§¤ ¥¨±²³ ®¥ ¶§ ³ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¬ ­¸ « ±¦¤  ­£ ¨­ ¯¯±®¯±¨ ³¤ ¯±®©¤¢³² ¨­ ³§¤ § ¬«¤³  ­£ ³§¤ ³®¶­ȁ Response to Comment C18-3: See Response to C18-2 in this section of the FEIS. 29 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Comment C18–4: )­ ²´¬¬¨­¦ ´¯ ¨³² ³± ¥¥¨¢ ²³´£¨¤²Ǿ ³§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³ ²³ ³¤²Ȁ ͗$¤²¯¨³¤ ³§¤ §¨¦§¤± £¤« ¸² ¤µ¨£¤­¢¤£  ³ ³§¤ ²³´£¸ ¨­³¤±²¤¢³¨®­²Ǿ ³§¤  ££¨³¨®­ ®¥ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¯±®©¤¢³ £®¤² ­®³ ±¤²´«³ ¨­  ­¸  £µ¤±²¤ ¢§ ­¦¤² ¨­ ¨­³¤±²¤¢³¨®­ ®¯¤± ³¨­¦ ,¤µ¤«² ®¥ 3¤±µ¨¢¤  ­£ ¬¨­®± )­¢±¤ ²¤² ¨­ ¨­³¤±²¤¢³¨®­ ¬®µ¤¬¤­³ £¤« ¸ ®¥ Θ ²¤¢®­£² ®± «¤²²Ǿ ¶§¨¢§ ¶®´«£ ­®³ ¡¤ ­®³¨¢¤ ¡«¤ȁ͗ !­¸®­¤ ³± µ¤«¨­¦ ¨­ ³§¨²  ±¤  ­®¶ ±¤ «¨¹¤² ³§ ³ ¤µ¤­ i­ ³§¤ ¶¨­³¤±³¨¬¤Ǿ ¶¤¤ª¤­£ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¢ ´²¤² ­®³¨¢¤ ¡«¤ £¤« ¸²ȁ 4(%  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³  ££² ³§ ³ ͗³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ²¨³¤ ¤·¨³Ǿ ®¯¯®²¨³¤ ³§¤ ¤·¨²³¨­¦ Κ-ΔΔ £±¨µ¤¶ ¸Ǿ ¶®´«£ ®¯¤± ³¤ ¶¨³§   ,¤µ¤« ®¥ 3¤±µ¨¢¤ ®¥ ͗#͗ ®± ¡¤³³¤± £´±¨­¦ ³§¤ 7¤¤ª£ ¸ ¯¤ ª ¯¤±¨®£²  ­£   ,¤µ¤« ®¥ 3¤±µ¨¢¤ ®¥ ͗$͗ £´±¨­¦ ³§¤ 3 ³´±£ ¸ ¯¤ ª §®´±ȁ 4§¤ ,¤µ¤« ®¥ 3¤±µ¨¢¤ $ ®­ 3 ³´±£ ¸ ¶®´«£ § µ¤ «¤²² £¤« ¸ ³§¤­ \[sic\]  ­¸ ®¥ ³§¤ ®³§¤± ²¨£¤ ²³±¤¤³ ¬®µ¤¬¤­³ ²³´£¨¤²  ­£ ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ¢®­²¨£¤±¤£  ­  £¤°´ ³¤ ,¤µ¤« ®¥ 3¤±µ¨¢¤ȁ͗ 4§¤ ¹®­¨­¦ ¡® ±£ ²§®´«£ ­®³ ³±´²³ ³§¨² ¢®­¢«´²¨®­  ­£ ®±£¤±   ­¤¶ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ²³´£¸ ³® ¡¤ £®­¤ ¨­ *´«¸ ®± !´¦´²³ £´±¨­¦ ¯¤ ª ³± µ¤« ³¨¬¤² ®­ ¶¤¤ª¤­£²  ­£ ¶¤¤ª£ ¸²ȁ 4§¤ ±¤²´«³² ¶¨«« ¡¤ °´¨³¤ £¨¥¥¤±¤­³ȁ Response to Comment C18-4: The Traffic Impact Study was based on summer traffic counts and the results of the analysis described in the study reflected peak summer traffic conditions. The summer traffic counts were collected on several occasions in July of 2018 during a typical weekday AM peak period from 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M., a typical weekday PM peak period of 4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M, and a Saturday peak period of 11:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. The Traffic Impact Study used capacity analysis methodologies and procedures that are nationally accepted standards and were also identified as the methodology to be used in the Final Scope, as issued by the ZBA. Comment C18-5: 4§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³ ­®³¤² ³§ ³ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£  ¢³¨®­ ¶®´«£  «³¤± « ­£ ¢®µ¤± ²´¢§ ³§ ³ ³§¤ ¨¬¯¤±µ¨®´² ²´±¥ ¢¤  ±¤  ¶®´«£ ¨­¢±¤ ²¤ ¡¸ ΕȁΛΙΙ±  ¢±¤²  ­£ ³§¤±¤ ¶®´«£ ¡¤   ±¤²´«³ ­³ ¨­¢±¤ ²¤ ¨­ ²³®±¬¶ ³¤± ¦¤­¤± ³¨®­ȁ (®¶¤µ¤±Ǿ ³§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³ ¯« ­² ³® ±¤¬¤£¨ ³¤ ³§¨² ³§±®´¦§ ¯±¤¯ ± ³¨®­² ³® § ­£«¤ ®­«¸   ³¶®-¨­¢§ ± ¨­¥ «« ®­ ³§¨² ¯±®¯¤±³¸ȁ 4§¨² ¨² ­®³ ¤­®´¦§ ¦¨µ¤­ ¢«¨¬ ³¤ ¢§ ­¦¤  ­£ §¤ µ¨¤± «®¢ « ± ¨­¥ ««² ³§ ³ § µ¤ «¤£ ³® ²¤µ¤±¤ ¥«®®£¨­¦ȁ 4§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³ ²§®´«£ ¡¤  ²ª¤£ ³® «¨¬¨³ ¨³² ²³®±¬¶ ³¤± ±´­®¥¥ ¡¸ ¨­²³ ««¨­¦ ¯¤±µ¨®´² ²´±¥ ¢¤²Ǿ ± ³§¤± ³§ ­ ΕȁΛΙΙ  ¢±¤² ®¥ ¨¬¯¤±µ¨®´² ²´±¥ ¢¤ ³§ ³ ¶¨«« ­®³  ««®¶ ¥®± ²³®±¬¶ ³¤± ±¤¢§ ±¦¤ȁ 0±¤µ¨®´² ¯ µ¤±²  ±¤ ±¤ £¨«¸  µ ¨« ¡«¤  ­£  ±¤ ­®¶ ¨­ ´²¤ ³§±®´¦§®´³ ³§¤ ¢®´­³¸ ³® «¨¬¨³ ²³®±¬¶ ³¤± ±´­®¥¥  ­£  ««®¶ ¥®± ¶ ³¤± ±¤¢§ ±¦¨­¦ȁ Response to Comment C18-5: The stormwater drainage system has been designed to comply with Town Code, which requires the site to accommodate a two-inch rainfall event. Utilization of permeable pavers or paving is not required under Town Code. While the use of permeable pavers is not required, the proposed action utilizes a crushed stone walkway between the hotel and the restaurant, rather than a paved or concrete sidewalk, to reduce the stormwater runoff. Pervious surfaces were not utilized in other areas of the project for ADA compliance and ease of maintenance. The proposed action largely consists of natural and landscaped areas, the total natural and landscaped areas equate to 58.62% of the overall project area. While the percentage slightly decreases to 56.3% with the future event room, the proposed landscaping remains greater than that which is required in the HB Zoning District (see Table 3 in this FEIS). In addition, a large swale was utilized in the main lawn area to collect a recharge stormwater rather than typical stormwater drywells. Comment C22-1: ) ¡¤«¨¤µ¤ ³§¤ $%)3 ¶ ² ¢®­£´¢³¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³ ´²¨­¦  ­³¨°´ ³¤£ ²³ ³¨²³¨¢²  ­£ ­´¬¡¤±² ³§ ³ £® ­®³  ¢¢´± ³¤«¸ ±¤¯±¤²¤­³ ³§¤ ´²¤² £¤²¢±¨¡¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¯« ­²ȁ 4§¤ ¨­³¤­²¨³¸ ®¥ ´²¤ ®­ ³§¨² ¯ ±¢¤« ¶¨«« § µ¤ ²¤µ¤±¤ ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « ¨¬¯ ¢³²Ǿ  ­£  ² ) ¶¨««  ±¦´¤ ¥´±³§¤±Ǿ ¨­³±®£´¢¤² ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ «³§ ¨²²´¤²ȁ !«³§®´¦§ ³§¨² ¢ ­ ¡¤ £¤£´¢¤£ ¥±®¬ ²®¬¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ¢ «¢´« ³¨®­²  «±¤ £¸ ¨­ ³§¤ $%)3Ǿ ³§¤ ¤·³¤­³ ®¥ ¯®³¤­³¨ « £ ¬ ¦¤ ¨² ­®³ ±¤¯±¤²¤­³¤£ accurately. 30 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Response to Comment C22-1: The DEIS was prepared in accordance with the Final Scope issued by the lead agency (Town of Southold ZBA), which set forth not only the scope of work but also identified the sources, methods, and research required for all impact issues. The DEIS fully evaluated the density of the proposed use as well as the potential human health and safety impacts in accordance with the Final Scope. As indicated in the Responses to Comments C1-10, C18-1, Table 3 and Appendix I of this FEIS, and evaluated in Section 3.1 of the DEIS, the proposed action is fully compliant with the bulk and dimensional requirements for the HB zoning district as well as the Special Exception Use Permit criteria set forth at §280-142 and §280-143, and supplemental landscaping regulations set forth in Article XX of the Town Zoning Code. The proposed action is a 44-unit hotel on a property that exceeds the minimum lot size requirement by 274,202 square feet (i.e., site is 6.75 acres, or 294,202 square feet and the minimum required lot size is 20,000 square feet). Further, the proposed front, side, total side, and rear yard setbacks all exceed the minimum requirements. Moreover, the proposed landscape area exceeds the minimum requirement by 33.62 percent (i.e., 25 percent is required whereas 58.62 percent is provided), and the lot coverage is 23.7 percent less than the maximum permitted under the HB zoning (i.e., 40 percent is the maximum permitted whereas the proposed application includes only 16.3 percent). Finally, the proposed height is less than permitted (i.e., 35 feet maximum and 32.93 feet is proposed). As indicated in the Response to Comment C1-10 and in Table 3, the Proposed Site Plan with future event room (for indoor events) also complies with the bulk and dimensional requirements. Comment C22-3: 4§¤ ²´¬¬ ±¸  «²® ¦®¤² ®­ ³® ² ¸ ȋ³§¤ ±¤²´«³¨­¦ § ¡¨³ ³ «®²²  ­£  ­¸ ²´¡²¤°´¤­³ ±¤£´¢³¨®­² ¨­ «®¢ «  ¡´­£ ­¢¤ ®¥ ¡¨±£ ®± ¶¨«£«¨¥¤ ²¯¤¢¨¤² ¨² ­®³   ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³  £µ¤±²¤ ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « ¨¬¯ ¢³  ²Ȁ ²´¢¢¤²²¨®­ « § ±£¶®®£ ¥®±¤²³²  ­£ ²´¢¢¤²²¨®­ « ®«£ ¥¨¤«£²  ±¤ ¢« ²²¨¥¨¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ .¤¶ 9®±ª ­ ³´± « §¤±¨³ ¦¤ ¯±®¦± ¬  ² ȏ£¤¬®­²³± ¡«¸ ²¤¢´±¤ ¡®³§ ¨­ .¤¶ 9®±ª 3³ ³¤  ­£ ¦«®¡ ««¸Ȑȁ 4§¨² ¨² ¯®®± ²¢¨¤­¢¤ §¤±¤ȁ 4 ª¨­¦  ­ ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « ²³ ³¨²³¨¢ ®­   ²³ ³¤-¶¨£¤ ²¢ «¤  ­£  ¯¯«¸¨­¦ ¨³ ³®   ²¬ «« «®¢ « £®¶­-²³ ³¤ ¢®­£¨³¨®­ ¨² ¨­ ¯¯±®¯±¨ ³¤ȁ .¤¶ 9®±ª ²³ ³¤¶¨£¤ $ ³  ¨² ²ª¤¶¤£ȁ $ ³  ¥±®¬ ³§¤ « ±¦¤±Ǿ £¨²¢®­­¤¢³¤£Ǿ  ±¤  ¬ ²² ®¥ ´¯²³ ³¤Ǿ ²ª¤¶² ²³ ³¤¶¨£¤ £ ³  «¤ µ¨­¦ «®¢ « ¢®­£¨³¨®­² Ȩ)ȁ¤ȁ ,®­¦ )²« ­£ȩ ´­£¤±±¤¯±¤²¤­³¤£ ¶§¤­ ®¡²¤±µ¤£ ®­ ³§ ³ « ±¦¤ ®¥   ²¢ «¤ȁ 4§¤ ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « ¢®­£¨³¨®­² ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®©¤¢³ ²¨³¤ ­¤¤£ ³® ¡¤ ¤µ «´ ³¤£ ¥ ¨±«¸  ³   «®¢ « ²¢ «¤ȁ Response to Comment C22-3: The New York Natural Heritage Program’s Community Rarity and Vulnerability Rankings are the accepted standard in New York State for assessing the rarity and vulnerability of an ecological community and are based on the geographic range of the community, the number of occurrences, the viability of the occurrences, and the vulnerability of the community around New York State. More local data on the abundance of successional old field or successional forest communities (or most other ecological communities) is not available at the Town- or County-level. As stated in the DEIS, the proposed action will result in the loss of 4.8± acres of successional southern hardwood forests and 0.7± acres of successional old fields. The rarity rankings of S5 and S4 assigned to successional southern hardwood forests and successional old field communities by the New York Natural Heritage Program indicate that these ecological communities are considered “demonstrably secure” and “apparently secure”, respectively, in New York State (Edinger et al, 2014). These successional ecological communities occur on sites that have been cleared and plowed (for farming or development), and then abandoned (Edinger et al, 2014). Existing agricultural lands account for approximately 30 percent of land area in the Town of Southold (Town of Southold, 2019). Due to the abundance of existing and former agricultural lands in the Town of Southold, successional field and successional forest habitats are also expected to be locally abundant on fallow agricultural lands, former agricultural fields, and at the margins of existing agricultural lands. 31 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Comment C22-4: 4§¤ $%)3 %·¤¢´³¨µ¤ ²´¬¬ ±¸  «²® ²³ ³¤²\[,\] ͖4§¤ ²´¢¢¤²²¨®­ « ¥®±¤²³²  ­£ ®«£ ¥¨¤«£² ¯±¤²¤­³  ³ ³§¤ ²¨³¤  ±¤ ­®³ ª­®¶­ ³® ¯±®µ¨£¤ § ¡¨³ ³ ¥®±  ­¸ ¤­£ ­¦¤±¤£Ǿ ³§±¤ ³¤­¤£Ǿ ®± ± ±¤ ¶¨«£«¨¥¤ ®± ¯« ­³ ²¯¤¢¨¤²ȁ͖ 4§¤ ±¤ ²®­ ¶§¸ ³§¤±¤  ±¤ ­® ¤­£ ­¦¤±¤£Ǿ ³§±¤ ³¤­¤£ ®± ± ±¤ ²¯¤¢¨¤² ®­²¨³¤ ¨² ¡¤¢ ´²¤ ³§¤¸ £®­͖³ ¤·¨²³  ­¸¬®±¤Ǿ ¬®²³  ±¤ ¤·³¨­¢³ȁ 0®®± ²¢¨¤­³¨¥¨¢ ±¤ ²®­¨­¦Ǿ  ² £¤²¢±¨¡¤£  ¡®µ¤Ǿ § ² ¡¤¤­ ´²¤£ ³® ¨­¥®±¬ ¹®­¨­¦ ¯±®¢¤²²¤² ¥®± ¥ ± ³®® «®­¦  ­£ ¤ ±«¸ ²´¢¢¤²²¨®­ « ¢®¬¬´­¨³¨¤² § µ¤ ¡¤¤­  ««®¶¤£ ³® ¡¤ ¢«¤ ±¤£Ǿ «¤ µ¨­¦ ­®³ ¬ ­¸ ¯« ­³²  ­£  ­¨¬ «² ³§ ³ «¨µ¤ ¨­ ³§¤²¤ ¹®­¤² «¤¥³ ³® ¯±®³¤¢³ȁ "¸  ««®¶¨­¦ ³§¤ ¢«¤ ±¨­¦ ®¥ ³§¨² ²¯¤¢¨¥¨¢ ²¨³¤Ǿ ¶¤  ±¤ ­®³ §¤«¯¨­¦ ³§¤ ²¨³´ ³¨®­ȁ 7¤ ¬´²³ ¤­¢®´± ¦¤ ³§¤ ¬ ³´± ³¨®­  ­£ ±¤²¯®­²¨¡«¤ ¬ ­ ¦¤¬¤­³ ®¥ ³§¤²¤ ¯ ±¢¤«² ®¥ ¤ ±«¸ ²´¢¢¤²²¨®­ « ¥®±¤²³² ¨­ ®±£¤± ³® i­¢±¤ ²¤ ¡¨®£¨µ¤±²¨³¸ ¨­ ®´± «®¢ « ¤¢®«®¦¨¢ « ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸. !² ²³ ³¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ .¤¶ 9®±ª 3³ ³¤ 3³± ³¤¦¨¢ 0« ­ ¥®± 3³ ³¤ &®±¤²³ - ­ ¦¤¬¤­³ (¶§¨¢§ ³® ¬¸  ¶ ±¤­¤²² ¶ ² ­®³ ¢®­²´«³¤£ ¥®± ³§¤ ¯´±¯®²¤² ®¥ ³§¤ %­¢« µ¤² $%)3ȩǾ ͗¤ ±«¸ ²´¢¢¤²²¨®­ « ¢®µ¤± ¬ ¸ ¢®­³¨­´¤ ³® £¤¢±¤ ²¤  ² ³¨¬¤ ¯±®¦±¤²²¤² ´­«¤²² ²³¤¯²  ±¤ ³ ª¤­ ³® £¤«¨¡¤± ³¤«¸ ¢±¤ ³¤Ǿ  ­£ ¤­§ ­¢¤  ­£ ²´²³ ¨­ ­¤¶ § ¡¨³ ³ȁ͗ 4§¨² ³¸¯¤ ®¥ § ¡¨³ ³ ¨² ¤²¯¤¢¨ ««¸ ¨¬¯®±³ ­³ ¥®± ²®­¦¡¨±£²Ǿ ³´±ª¤¸Ǿ ¦±®´²¤Ǿ £¤¤±Ǿ ± ¡¡¨³²Ǿ ¥®·  ­£ ­ ³¨µ¤ ¡¤¤² ³® ­ m¤   ¥¤¶. Response to Comment C22-4: The DEIS addresses the potential for the subject property to support endangered, threatened, or rare wildlife or plant species in accordance with the Final Scope. The absence of endangered, threatened, or rare wildlife or animal species at the subject property is not due solely to the general rarity of these species. There are many endangered, threatened, or rare wildlife or plant species that occur in the Town of Southold. The subject property does not support a great diversity of plant and wildlife species or natural ecological communities due to its past clearing and soil disturbance, such as tilling and plowing associated with previous agricultural uses, and other factors related to the site’s location within the business district of the Town of Southold and the adjacent land uses (i.e. local highway, commercial boatyard, and residential properties) including competition from invasive plants and herbivory from over-abundant white-tailed deer populations. The comment correctly notes that early successional communities can have important value as wildlife habitat. However, the long-term persistence of early successional habitats is typically dependent on natural disturbance regimes (such as wildfires) or anthropogenic surrogates for natural disturbance such as periodic mowing or other management. Without periodic natural disturbance or active management, early successional communities such as old fields, grasslands, meadows, and shrublands transition into forested communities over time. For example, after cessation of agricultural activities on the subject property, most of the subject property has already transitioned to young successional forests (5.0± acres under existing conditions acres) comprised of young eastern red cedar (*´­¨¯¤±´² µ¨±¦¨­¨ ­ ) and black cherry (0±´­´² ²¤±®³¨­ ) trees (generally 6-to-14 inches in diameter) compared to only 0.7± acres of successional old fields dominated by dominated by goldenrods (Solidago sp.) and brambles (Rubus sp.). The loss of 4.8± acres of successional southern hardwood forests and 0.7± acres of successional old fields through the proposed site redevelopment is identical to the as-of-right Alternate Development Plan to construct a 30,650 SF, one-story office building under the prevailing HB zoning district associated with hamlet central business areas. Furthermore, due to the location within the hamlet business district and the past and existing environmental impacts noted above (i.e. past clearing and tilling/plowing and impacts associated with adjacent land uses), the subject property is not a high-priority site for the active management (via periodic mowing, invasive plant control, selective tree thinning or control, or prescribed fires) necessary for long-term persistence of high quality early successional habitats. 32 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The comment references the 2010 New York State Strategic Plan for State Forest Management (https://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/64567.html). This is not an appropriate document for consideration by the DEIS, as this plan is intended to provide management objectives for the 786,329-acres of State Forest holdings controlled by New York State. The provided quotation partially represents an objective of New York State under its State Forest Management Plan to ensure that its large forest land holdings include a broad diversity of ecological community types, including early- and late-successional communities, and Plan recommendation that the State undertake active management on its own Forest lands (such as prescribed fires or mechanical thinning) to maintain early successional habitats and overall ecological community diversity. Comment C22-5:4§¤ 3®´³§®«£  °´¨¥¤± i²   «¨¬¨³¤£  °´¨¥¤± ³§ ³ ¨² ¢´±±¤­³«¸ ¡¤¨­¦ £¤¯«¤³¤£ ¥ ²³¤± ³§ ­ ¨³ ¢ ­ ¡¤ ­ ³´± ««¸ ±¤¯«¤­¨²§¤£  ­£ ¨² ¥ ¢¨­¦ ¯±®¡«¤¬² ®¥ ² «³¶ ³¤± ¨­³±´²¨®­Ǿ ²´¡²¨£¤­¢¤Ǿ  ­£ ¢®­³ ¬¨­ ³¨®­ȁ 4§¨² ¨²   µ¤±¸ ²¤­²¨³¨µ¤ ³¨¬¤ ¨­ ³§¤ «¨¥¤²¯ ­ ®¥ ³§¤  °´¨¥¤± ³® µ «¨£ ³¤ ¶¨³§£± ¶¨­¦ ΕȁΘ ¬illi®­ ¦ ««®­² ®¥ ¥±¤²§¶ ³¤± Ȩ ² ²³ ³¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ $%)3ȩ £¨±¤¢³«¸ ¥±®¬  ­ ®­²¨³¤ ¶¤«« ³® ¨±±¨¦ ³¤   ¯±®¯®²¤£ « ­£²¢ ¯¤ ³§ ³ ¯±®µ¨£¤² ­® ¤¢®«®¦¨¢ « ®± ¥´­¢³¨®­¨­¦ ±¤¬¤£¨ ³¨®­ µ «´¤ -  « ­£²¢ ¯¤ ®¥ « ¶­  ­£ §¤£¦¤² ¡´¨«³ ¨­  ³³¤¬¯³² ³® ¯«¤ ²¤ ³§¤ ¤¸¤² ®¥ §®³¤« ¦´¤²³²Ǿ £®¤² ­®³ £¤²¤±µ¤ /52 «¨¬¨³¤£ ²´¯¯«¸ ®¥ ¥±¤²§¶ ³¤±ȁ 7§ ³ ±¨¦§³² £® ³§¤¸ § µ¤ ³® /52 ¶ ³¤±Ȉ Response to Comment C22-5: Based upon the information in the BURBS model, the proposed site is expected to recharge 7.293 million gallons of stormwater per year, see Response to Comment C26-1 in Section 2.3.8 of this FEIS. This recharge offsets both the withdrawal for the irrigation use as well as the domestic water use. Utilizing the existing on-site well for irrigation has the potential to remove existing nitrates from the groundwater, which when used as irrigation, will offset some of the need for additional fertilizer. Finally, as noted in the Response to Comment C1-17 in this section of the FEIS, the applicant will contract with a landscape maintenance company to maintain the property in accordance with the recommended practices. Comment C22-6: 7 ²³¤¶ ³¤± ¢ «¢´« ³¨®­²  ±¤ ´­£¤±µ «´¤£ȁ !¯¯«¨¢ ­³ ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ±¤°´¤²³¤£ ³® ±¤µ¨²¤ ¤«¤¬¤­³² ³§ ³  ±¤ ­®³ ¢ «¢´« ³¤£ ¥®± ²´¢§  ² ²¶¨¬¬¨­¦ ¯®®«Ǿ §®³ ³´¡²Ǿ « ´­£±¸Ǿ  ­£ ¤·¢¤²² ²§®¶¤±¨­¦ ¡¸ ¯®®«ȝ¡¤ ¢§ ¦®¤±² ²³ ¸¨­¦  ³ §®³¤«ȁ 7§¤­ ¢®¬¯«¤³¤£Ǿ ³§¤ ­´¬¡¤±² ¥®± ² ­¨³ ±¸ ¥«®¶ ¶¨«« ¨­¢±¤ ²¤  ­£  ¥¥¤¢³ ³§¤ ¶ ²³¤¶ ³¤± ³±¤ ³¬¤­³ ¯« ­ ³§´² ¨­¢±¤ ²¨­¦ ³§¤  ¬®´­³ ®¥ ³±¤ ³¤£ ¤¥¥«´¤­³ ³§ ³ ¦¤³² ¯´¬¯¤£ ¡ ¢ª ¨­³® ³§¤ 3®´³§®«£  °´¨¥¤±ȁ 7¨³§®´³ ³§¤ ¬¨²²¨­¦ ¤«¤¬¤­³² «¨²³¤£  ¡®µ¤Ǿ $%)3 ²³ ³¤² ³§ ³  ¯¯±®·¨¬ ³¤«¸ ΖȁΕ ¬¨««¨®­ ¦ ««®­² ®¥ ³±¤ ³¤£ ¤¥¥«´¤­³ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ²¤­³ ³® ³§¤ «¤ ¢§¨­¦ ¯®®«²  ­£ ±¤¢§ ±¦¤£ ¡ ¢ª ¨­³® ³§¤  °´¨¥¤±ȁ 4±¤ ³¤£ ¤¥¥«´¤­³ ¢®­³ ¨­² ­¨³±®¦¤­Ǿ § ±¬¥´« ¡ ¢³¤±¨   ­£ ¬¨¢±®®±¦ ­¨²¬²  ² ¶¤««  ² ¤­£®¢±¨­¤ £¨²±´¯³¨­¦ ¯§ ±¬ ¢¤´³¨¢ «² ²´¢§  ² ¢ ¥¥¤¨­¤  ­£ ²¸­³§¤³¨¢ §®±¬®­¤²ȁ 4§¨² ¨²  ­®³§¤± ¯®³¤­³¨ « ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ «³§ ¨²²´¤ ³§ ³ ¶®´«£ ¡¤ ¨­³±®£´¢¤£ ¡¸ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¯« ­²ȁ Response to Comment C22-6: The wastewater calculations were performed in accordance with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services Commercial Standards. The flow rates utilized for the hotel take into consideration the accessory uses associated with the hotel, such as swimming pools, hot tubs, and guest laundry. Commercial laundry for the hotel and restaurant will be performed off-site by a third-party vendor. The proposed STP has also been sized to accommodate events, with a maximum attendance of 250 patrons. With respect to effluent from the proposed STP, the sewage treatment system will treat nitrogen to below 10mg/L, as per the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit. This level of treatment is far greater than that of the alternative plan or any conventional sewage disposal system, including those systems commonly utilized by residential homes and business, which only treat nitrogen to a level of 50mg/L. Further, any bacteria and microorganisms discharged from the STP are filtered by the existing sandy soils which 33 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ surround the proposed leaching pools. Pharmaceuticals are present in low concentrations in all wastewater streams and are not currently regulated by the County or NYSDEC as part of the SPDES permit for the STP. The proposed STP, as well as swimming pools and outdoor hot tubs for the four cottages, would be subject to review and permitting from the SCDHS under Article 6 and Article 16 of Suffolk County Sanitary Code, respectively. Comment C27-2: 7 ³¤± 2¤²®´±¢¤²Ȁ 4§¤ $%)3 ¬ ª¤² \[it\] ¢«¤ ± ³§ ³ ³§¤ ²´¡©¤¢³  ¯¯«¨¢ ³¨®­ ¶¨«« ±¤°´¨±¤ ³§¤ ¢®­²´¬¯³¨®­ ®¥ ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ °´ ­³¨³¨¤² ®¥ ¶ ³¤±  ³   ³¨¬¤ ¶§¤­ 3®´³§®«£Ȍ² ¶ ³¤± ²´¯¯«¸ ¨² ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³«¸ ´­£¤± ²³±¤²²ȁ Response to Comment C27-2:As part of the DEIS, the applicant consulted with the Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA), which is the water purveyor with jurisdiction over water usage on the subject property. The SCWA, in correspondence dated July 10, 2018 (included in Appendix K of the DEIS), confirmed service availability for the proposed development. An updated service availability request was filed with the SCWA on March 22, 2021 for the increased flow for the event space and associated changes, and a letter of water availability dated April 6, 2021 was received (see Appendix K of this FEIS). It is noted that the applicant seeks to use an existing irrigation well for on-site irrigation needs, which will reduce the demand on the public supply system. See also the Response to Comment C22-5 earlier in this section. Comment C27-3: 4§¤ $%)3  ±¦´¤² ³§ ³ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£  ¢³¨®­ ¨² ¯±¤¥¤± ¡«¤ ³®  ­ ȏ ²-of-±¨¦§³Ȑ ¯±®¯®² « ¡¤¢ ´²¤ ¨³ ¶¨«« ¯±®µ¨£¤ ¤­§ ­¢¤£ ¶ ²³¤¶ ³¤± ³±¤ ³¬¤­³  ­£ ³§¤ ȏ ²-of-±¨¦§³Ȑ ¯±®©¤¢³ ¶¨«« ­®³ȁ 4§¤±¤  ±¤ ³¶® ¯±®¡«¤¬² ¶¨³§ ³§¨² ¯±¤²¤­³ ³¨®­ȁ &¨±²³Ǿ ¨³ ¨² µ¤±¸ «¨ª¤«¸ ³§ ³ ³§¤±¤  ±¤ ®³§¤± ´²¤² ®¥ ³§¨² ²¨³¤ ¶§¨¢§ ¢®­¥®±¬ ³® ¤·¨²³¨­¦ ¹®­¨­¦  ­£ ¶§¨¢§ ±¤°´¨±¤ ¥ ± «¤²² ¶ ³¤± ¢®­²´¬¯³¨®­  ­£ ¶ ²³¤¶ ³¤± ¤¥¥«´¤­³ ¦¤­¤± ³¨®­ ³§ ­ ³§¤ ²¨­¦«¤  «³¤±­ ³¨µ¤ £¨²¢´²²¤£ȁ 3¨¬¯«¸ ¡¤¢ ´²¤ ³§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³ § ² ¨£¤­³¨¥¨¤£ ®­¤ ȏ ²-of-±¨¦§³Ȑ  «³¤±­ ³¨µ¤ ¥®± ¢®­²¨£¤± ³¨®­ £®¤² ­®³ ¬¤ ­ ¨³ ¨² ³§¤ ®­«¸ ¯®²²¨¡¨«¨³¸ȁ '¨µ¤­ ¨³² ¡±® £ ±¤²¯®­²¨¡¨«¨³¨¤² ¨­ 3¯¤¢¨ « 0¤±¬¨³ ±¤µ¨¤¶²Ǿ ³§¤ :"! ²§®´«£ ¢ ±¤¥´««¸ ¤µ «´ ³¤ ²´¢§ ®³§¤±  «³¤±­ ³¨µ¤²  ² ¬ ¸ ¡¤ ­¤¢¤²² ±¸ ³®  ±±¨µ¤  ³   ¯±®¯®² « ³§ ³ ¬¤¤³² ¡®³§ ³§¤ ±¤°´¨±¤¬¤­³² ®¥ ³§¤ 4®¶­ #®£¤  ­£ ³§¤ £¨±¤¢³¨µ¤² ®¥ ³§¤ 3³ ³¤ %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « 1´ «¨³¸ 2¤µ¨¤¶ !¢³ Ȩ3%12!ȩ ³® ¨£¤­³¨¥¸   ¯±®©¤¢³  «³¤±­ ³¨µ¤ ³§ ³ ¬¨­¨¬¨¹¤² § ±¬ ³® ³§¤ ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ȁ 3¤¢®­£Ǿ ³§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³Ǿ ¯®¨­³² ³® ¨³² ¯±®¯®² « ¥®± ­¤¶ ²¤¶ ¦¤ ³±¤ ³¬¤­³ ¯« ­³  ² ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ ¬¨³¨¦ ³¨®­ ¥®± ¶ ²³¤¶ ³¤± ¨¬¯ ¢³²  ²²®¢¨ ³¤£ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ £¤²¨±¤£ ¯±®©¤¢³Ǿ ®­ ³§¤  ²²´¬¯³¨®­ ³§ ³  £µ ­¢¤£ ¶ ²³¤¶ ³¤± ³±¤ ³¬¤­³ ¶®´«£ ­®³ ¡¤ ±¤°´¨±¤£ ¥®± ¨³² ¢®­²¨£¤±¤£ ȏ ²-of-±¨¦§³Ȑ  «³¤±­ ³¨µ¤ȁ 4§¨² ¯±¤²¤­³ ³¨®­ ¥ ¨«² ³® ±¤¢®¦­¨¹¤ ³§ ³ ¨³ ¨² ¶¤«« ¶¨³§¨­ ³§¤ ¯®¶¤± ®¥ ³§¤ «¤ £  ¦¤­¢¸ ³® ±¤°´¨±¤  £µ ­¢¤£ ¶ ²³¤¶ ³¤± ³±¤ ³¬¤­³ Ȩ¶§¤³§¤± ®± ­®³ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®² « ¢®­¥®±¬² ³®  ­¸ ¨­µ®«µ¤£  ¦¤­¢¸ ±¤¦´« ³¨®­²ȩ  ²  ­ ®´³¢®¬¤ ®¥ ¨³²  ²²¤²²¬¤­³ ®¥ ¯®³¤­³¨ « ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « ¨¬¯ ¢³² ´­£¤± 3%12!ȁ Response to Comment C27-3: The implementing regulations of SEQRA that pertain to alternatives (§617.9\[b\](\[5\](\[v\]) require the DEIS to include “  £¤²¢±¨¯³¨®­  ­£ ¤µ «´ ³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ ± ­¦¤ ®¥ ±¤ ²®­ ¡«¤  «³¤±­ ³¨µ¤² ³® ³§¤  ¢³¨®­ ³§ ³  ±¤ ¥¤ ²¨¡«¤Ǿ ¢®­²¨£¤±¨­¦ ³§¤ ®¡©¤¢³¨µ¤²  ­£ ¢ ¯ ¡¨«¨³¨¤² ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®©¤¢³ sponsor…” (emphasis added) The as-of-right alternative, as indicated in the Final Scope, was to include “Development Pursuant to Prevailing Zoning (Permitted HB Use and no variances).” The alternate plan evaluated in the DEIS is a development plan that is permitted (as-of-right) and complies with the bulk and dimensional requirements of the HB zoning district. It is also noted that the alternatives evaluated in the DEIS were those required by the Final Scope, included in Appendix B of the DEIS. Regarding additional analyses, the objective of the project sponsor is to develop the subject property for a hotel and restaurant use, not an alternate use. 34 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The DEIS included a comparative analysis of the proposed action (i.e., with the proposed sewage treatment plant) with an as-of-right plan (i.e., fully compliant with Suffolk County Sanitary Code Article 6 density requirements, thus a development with a conventional sanitary system). That analysis demonstrated that there was less nitrogen loading associated with the proposed action than with an as-of-right development. Comment C30-2: 4§¤ ¥®««®¶¨­¦ ²³ ³¤¬¤­³² ¨­ ³§¤ ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « ¨¬¯ ¢³ ²³ ³¤¬¤­³ ±¤ ««¸ ¢ ´¦§³ ¬¸ ¤¸¤Ȁ ȏ±¤²´«³¨­¦ ¨­ ³§¤ «®²² ®¥ ΗȁΛΔΙ  ¢±¤² ȨΜΙωȩ ®¥ ²´¢¢¤²²¨®­ « ²®´³§¤±­ § ±£¶®®£ ¥®±¤²³²  ­£ ΓȁΙΚΙύ  ¢±¤² ȨΔΓΓȁΓωȩ ®¥ ²´¢¢¤²²¨®­ « ®«£ ¥¨¤«£²ȁȐ ȏ4§¤ «®²² ®¥ ¤ ±«¸ ²´¢¢¤²²¨®­ « ¢®¬¬´­¨³¨¤² ¶®´«£ ±¤²´«³ ¨­ £¤¢±¤ ²¤£ § ¡¨³ ³  µ ¨« ¡¨«¨³¸ ¥®± ³§¤ ¯« ­³²Ǿ ¡¨±£²Ǿ  ­£ ¶¨«£«¨¥¤ ³§ ³ ´³¨«¨¹¤ ³§¤²¤ § ¡¨³ ³²  ­£   £¤¢±¤ ²¤ ¨­ ³§¤  ¡´­£ ­¢¤  ­£ diver²¨³¸ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯« ­³  ­£ ¶¨«£«¨¥¤ ²¯¤¢¨¤² ¯±¤²¤­³ȁȐ ȏ5­£¤± ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¢®­£¨³¨®­²Ǿ §´¬ ­ £¨²³´±¡ ­¢¤  ­£  ¢³¨µ¨³¸ ¶®´«£ ¡¤ ²´¡²³ ­³¨ ««¸ ¨­¢±¤ ²¤£Ǿ ³§¤ ¢´±±¤­³«¸ ¤·¨²³¨­¦ ­ ³´± « § ¡¨³ ³² ¶®´«£ ¡¤ «®²³Ǿ  ­£ ±¤¬ ¨­¨­¦ § ¡¨³ ³ ¶®´«£ ¡¤ «¨¬¨³¤£ ³® ³§¤ ¬®¶¤£ « ¶­  ±¤ ²  ­£ ­ ±±®¶ ²³±¨¯² ®¥ « ­£²¢ ¯¨­¦  ­£ ¡®±£¤± ³±¤¤²ȁ 4§¤²¤ ¬®¶¤£ « ¶­²Ǿ « ­£²¢ ¯¨­¦Ǿ  ­£ §¤£¦¤±®¶² ¶®´«£ ­®³ ¯±®µ¨£¤  ­¸ ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ ¤¢®«®¦¨¢ « ¡¤­¤¥¨³² £´¤ ³® ³§¤ ¯®®± £¨µ¤±²¨³¸  ­£ ¶¨«£«¨¥¤ § ¡¨³ ³ ¯±®µ¨£¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤²¤  ±¤ ²ȁȐ !³ ³§¨² ³¨¬¤ ¨­ §´¬ ­ §¨²³®±¸ ¶¨³§ ®´± ¯« ­¤³ ²¤¤¬¨­¦«¸  ³   ³¨¯¯¨­¦ ¯®¨­³ ¨­ ³¤±¬² ®¥ ¨³²  ¡¨«¨³¸ ³® ¢®¯¤ ¶¨³§ §´¬ ­ ¨¬¯ ¢³ ²§®´«£ ¶¤ ¡¤ ¤­¢®´± ¦¨­¦   ¬®µ¤ ³®¶ ±£² ¦±¤ ³¤± § ¡¨³ ³ £¤²³±´¢³¨®­ ¥®± «¨µ¨­¦ ¢±¤ ³´±¤²Ȉ ) ³§¨­ª ­®³ȁ Response to Comment C30-2: The DEIS quantifies the impact of the proposed project on the site’s natural vegetation and habitat. The DEIS indicates that the proposed action will result in the loss of 4.8± acres of successional southern hardwood forests and 0.7± acres of successional old fields. This loss of natural vegetation and habitat is identical to the as-of-right Alternate Development Plan to construct a 30,650 SF, one- story office building under the prevailing HB zoning district. The loss of 4.8± acres of successional southern hardwood forests and 0.7± acres of successional old fields is not a significant adverse ecological impact as: The ecological communities present have emerged recently after the cessation of agricultural uses in the early 1980s. The plants and wildlife observed at the site are commonplace and abundant species that are typical of suburban landscapes and former agricultural lands and tolerant of the existing and past disturbances as the site, including tilling and soil disturbance associated with agricultural uses, and disturbances associated with the property’s location between a local highway, a commercial boatyard, and residential properties. The populations of the commonplace plant and wildlife species inhabiting the old fields and successional forests found at the subject property are largely considered abundant and stable. Successional southern hardwood forests and successional old fields are classified by the New York Natural Heritage Program as “demonstrably secure” and “apparently secure”, respectively, in New York State (Edinger et al. 2014). Accordingly, these habitats are abundant both throughout New York State and locally due to the abundance of existing and former agricultural lands in the Town of Southold. 2.3.2 Plans Comments related to the site development plans, as prepared by PWGC, are addressed in this section of the FEIS. Specifically, the following comments are included: H7-1, C1-1 through C1-7, C4-2, C16-6, and C30-1. 35 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Comment H7-1: …3® ³® ¦® ¡ ¢ª ³® ³§¤ ¡´¥¥¤±Ǿ  ² ³§¤ ¯« ­² ¢´±±¤­³«¸  ±¤ ³§¤±¤ ¨² ­®³ ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ ¡´¥¥¤± ¡¤³¶¤¤­ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ £±¨µ¤¶ ¸ ®¥ ³§¤ ¤­¢« µ¤²  ­£ ¬¸ ¯±®¯¤±³¸  ­£ ¶§ ³Ȍ² ³§¤±¤ ­®¶ ¨²   £¤¢¨£´®´² §¤£¦¤ ¶§¨¢§ ¨­ ³§¤ ¶¨­³¤± ³§¤±¤Ȍ² ­®³§¨­¦ȁ 3® ³§¤±¤Ȍ² ­® £´²³ ¡ ±±¨¤±Ǿ ³§¤±¤Ȍ² ­® ­®¨²¤ ¡ ±±¨¤±Ǿ ³§¤±¤Ȍ² ­®³ ¤­®´¦§ ±®®¬…¥®±³¸ ²¨· ­¤¶ µ¤§¨¢«¤ ³±¨¯² ¯¤± §®´± ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¦¤­¤± ³¤£  ³ ¯¤ ª §®´±²ȁ &®±³¸ ²¨· ¢ ±² ¯¤± §®´± ¯ ²²¨­¦ ¬¸ «¨µ¨­¦ ±®®¬ ¶¨­£®¶ ³§ ³Ȍ² ²¤µ¤± « ¥¤¤³  ¶ ¸ ¥±®¬ ³§¨² ´­-¡´¥¥¤±¤£ ¹®­¤ȁ 3® )Ȍ£ ©´²³ «¨ª¤ ³§ ³ ³® ¡¤ ³ ª¤­ ¨­³® ¢®­²¨£¤± ³¨®­ ¨¥ ³§¤¸ £® ¢§ ­¦¤ ³§¤ ¯« ­² ®± ­¤¤£ ³® ¬®£¨¥¸ ³§ ³ £±¨µ¤¶ ¸ȁ Response to Comment H7-1: The proposed site plan has been modified to shift the ingress driveway to the west, which allows for a 15-foot vegetated buffer to be created between the driveway and the eastern property line (see Sheet C-100 in Appendix C). A wooden stockade fence of six-and-one-half (6.5) feet in height has also been added along the eastern and western property lines (see Sheets C-100 and C-200). Moreover, along the entire eastern property line is proposed screening with mature Leyland Cypress designed to provide immediate screening of the proposed development. With the topography of the site being generally flat, the proposed fencing and vegetation and setbacks would screen the development from properties located to the east. The project architect has prepared updated photo simulations, and these are included in Appendix D of this FEIS. During construction, erosion and sedimentation controls, including dust control, will be implemented to mitigate dust and off-site soil transport. As indicated in Sections 1.2.6 and 2.1.2 of the DEIS, the proposed development requires approximately 6,044 cubic yards of material to be removed from the site, which is approximately six (6) construction vehicles per day over a period of two months assuming 20 cubic yards per transport. Overall, the proposed action includes approximately 58.62 percent of the site (3.763± acres) to consist of existing vegetation and planted areas, which far exceeds the required minimum of 25 percent (see Table 3 of this FEIS). While the percentage slightly decreases to 56.3% with the future event room, the proposed landscaping remains greater than that which is required in the HB Zoning District (see Table 3 in this FEIS). Regarding noise attenuation, see the Response to Comment C1-19 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS. Comment C1-1: ! ³± ­²¨³¨®­ « ¡´¥¥¤± ¨² ­®³ ¯±®µ¨£¤£  «®­¦ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£  ¢¢¤²² £±¨µ¤¶ ¸ ®­ ³§¤ ¤ ²³ ²¨£¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ȁ 7§¨«¤ ³§¤ «®³  £© ¢¤­³ ³® ¤ ²³ ¨² ­®³ ±¤²¨£¤­³¨ ««¸ ¹®­¤£Ǿ ¨³ ¨²   ±¤²¨£¤­³¨ ««¸ ´²¤£ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ȁ ! «¨¬¨³¤£ « ­£²¢ ¯¤ ²³±¨¯ Ȩ ¯¯±®·¨¬ ³¤«¸ ΗȌ ¶¨£¤ȩ ¨² ²§®¶­ ¡¤³¶¤¤­ ³§¤ £±¨µ¤¶ ¸  ­£ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ «¨­¤ȁ 4§¨² « ­£²¢ ¯¤ ²³±¨¯ ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ¤µ «´ ³¤£  ² ¨³ £®¤² ­®³  ¯¯¤ ± ³® ¯±®µ¨£¤  £¤°´ ³¤  ±¤  ¥®± ³§¤ ΔΗȌ-ΔΙȌ ,¤¸« ­£ #¸¯±¤²² ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¶¨³§¨­ ³§¤ ²³±¨¯ȁ !¯¯±®¯±¨ ³¤ ²¢±¤¤­¨­¦ ³® ¯±¤²¤±µ¤ ¯±¨µ ¢¸ ®­ ³§¤  £© ¢¤­³ ±¤²¨£¤­³¨ ««¸ ´²¤£ ¯±®¯¤±³¨¤²Ǿ ±¤£´¢¤ µ¨²´ « ¨­³±´²¨®­ ¥±®¬ ¢ ±²ȝ§¤ £«¨¦§³² ¤­³¤±¨­¦ ³§¤ ²¨³¤Ǿ  ­£ ­®¨²¤  ¡ ³¤¬¤­³ ¨² ­¤¢¤²² ±¸ȁ 4§¤ ²¨³¤ ¯« ­ ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ±¤µ¨²¤£ ³® ¯±®µ¨£¤   ¬®±¤ ¢®¬¯«¨ ­³ ³± ­²¨³¨®­ ¡´¥¥¤±  ³ ³§¤ ²®´³§¤ ²³ ¢®±­¤± ®¥ ³§¤ ²¨³¤  ² ­®³¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ 4®¶­ #®£¤ Ȩȷ ΕΛΓ- ΜΗ "ȁȨΔȩȩȁ 4§¤ ²¨³¤ ¯« ­ ²§®´«£  «²® ¡¤ ´¯£ ³¤£ ³® ¨­¢«´£¤ £¨¬¤­²¨®­² ¥®±  «« ±¤°´¨±¤£ ¹®­¨­¦ ²¤³¡ ¢ª²Ǿ  ² ¶¤««  ² ³§¤ £¨¬¤­²¨®­² ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ¤ ²³¤±­ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ «¨­¤ ³® ³§¤ ­¤¶ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ȁ Response to Comment C1-1: See Response to Comment H7-1 above. The site plan (see Sheet C-100 in Appendix C) also provides all dimensions as well as a zoning compliance table. Comment C1-2: 4§¤ , ­£²¢ ¯¤ 0« ­  ­£ $¤³ ¨«² Ȩ3§¤¤³ #-ΗΓΓȩ ²§®¶² ²¤µ¤± « ¤·¨²³¨­¦ £¤¢¨£´®´² ³±¤¤² ³§ ³ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ±¤³ ¨­¤£  «®­¦ ³§¤ ¤ ²³¤±«¸ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ «¨­¤  £© ¢¤­³ ³® ±¤²¨£¤­³¨ ««¸ ¹®­¤£  ­£ £¤µ¤«®¯¤£ « ­£ ¨£¤­³¨¥¨¤£  ² ȏ­®¶ ®± ¥®±¬¤±«¸ ®¥ $®«®¬¨³¤ǿȐ §®¶¤µ¤±Ǿ ³§¤ ±¤¬ ¨­£¤± ®¥ ³§¤ ¤ ²³¤±«¸ ¡´¥¥¤± ¨² ¯±®¯®²¤£ ³® ¢®­²¨²³ ®¥   £®´¡«¤ ®± ²¨­¦«¤ ±®¶ ®¥ ¤µ¤±¦±¤¤­s…4§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ,¤¸« ­£ #¸¯±¤²² ³±¤¤² ³® ¡´¥¥¤± ³§¤ ¤ ²³¤±­ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ «¨­¤  ±¤ ΔΗȌ-ΔΙȌ ¨­ §¤¨¦§³ȁ 7§¨«¤ ³§¤²¤  ±¤ ¥ ²³ ¦±®¶¨­¦ ¤µ¤±¦±¤¤­ ³±¤¤²Ǿ ³§¤ ²¤¢®­£ ¥«®®± ±®®¬² ®¥ ³§¤ §®³¤« ¶®´«£ § µ¤ ´­®¡²³±´¢³¤£ µ¨¤¶² ¨­³® ³§¤ ±¤²¨£¤­³¨ « ¯±®¯¤±³¨¤² ³® ³§¤ ¤ ²³ ¥®± ²¤µ¤± « ¸¤ ±² ¶§¨«¤ ³§¤ ³±¤¤² ¬ ³´±¤ȁ !££¨³¨®­ « ¬¤ ²´±¤²  ±¤ 36 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ­¤¢¤²² ±¸ ³®  £¤°´ ³¤«¸ ²¢±¤¤­ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ §®³¤« ±®®¬² ±¤« ³¨µ¤ ³® ³§¤ ¤·¨²³¨­¦ ±¤²¨£¤­³¨ « ´²¤² ³® ³§¤ ¤ ²³  ­£ £¤¬®­²³± ³¤ ¢®­¥®±¬ ­¢¤ ¶¨³§ 3¤¢³¨®­ ΕΛΓ-ΜΗ #ȁ ®¥ ³§¤ #®£¤ȁ !££¨³¨®­ ««¸Ǿ ¨­¢±¤ ²¨­¦ ³§¤ £¨²³ ­¢¤ ¡¤³¶¤¤­ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ «¨­¤  ­£ ³§¤ §®³¤« ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ¶®´«£  «²®  ¨£ ¨­ ¨¬¯±®µ¨­¦ ³§¤ ¡´¥¥¤± ¡¤³¶¤¤­ ³§¤ ³¶® ´²¤²ȁ Response to Comment C1-2:The Leyland Cypress which are directly east of the hotel rooms will be planted at 18-20 ft tall (see drawing in Appendix D of this FEIS), which, when standing at the floor level, will effectively screen the view to the neighbor (see attached drawing in Appendix D of this FEIS). The proposed action includes retaining four (4) Black Cherry trees along the eastern property boundary. If other screening is preferred, these four trees can be removed, and additional Leyland Cypress can be planted. Comment C1-3:7§ ³ ²¢±¤¤­¨­¦ȝ¤­¢«®²´±¤²ȝ¥¤­¢¨­¦  ±¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¥®± ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ²¤¶ ¦¤ ³±¤ ³¬¤­³ ¯« ­³Ȉ4§¤ $%)3 ¨­£¨¢ ³¤² ³§ ³ ®£®± ¢®­³±®« ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¯±®µ¨£¤£Ǿ ¶§¨¢§ ±¤°´¨±¤² ³§¤ ¢®­³¨­´ « ´²¤ ®¥ ¥ ­² ¥®± ®¯¤± ³¨®­ȁ 4§¤ «®¢ ³¨®­  ­£  ­¸ ²¢±¤¤­¨­¦ ³®  ££±¤²² ³§¤ ­®¨²¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ¥ ­² ²§®´«£ ¡¤  ££±¤²²¤£Ǿ  ² ¶¤««  ²  ­¸  ±¤  «¨¬¨³¨­¦ ¥¤­¢¤ ®± ¬¤ ²´±¤² ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¥®± ²¤¢´±¨³¸ ¯±®¯®²¤²ȁ 4§¤ ²¤¶ ¦¤ ³±¤ ³¬¤­³ ¯« ­³ ¶¨««  «²® ±¤°´¨±¤ ³§ ³   ²«´£¦¤ ³±´¢ª  ¢¢¤²² ³§¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ±¤¦´« ±«¸ ¥®± ¬ ¨­³¤­ ­¢¤ȁ 4§¤ ²¨³¤ ¯« ­ ²§®´«£ £¤¬®­²³± ³¤  £¤°´ ³¤  ¢¢¤²²  ­£ ¢¨±¢´« ³¨®­ ¥®±   ²«´£¦¤ ³±´¢ª ³® ³§¤ 340 ¡´¨«£¨­¦ȁ Response to Comment C1-3: The site development plans included in Appendix C have been revised to show a proposed fence and landscaping screening around the STP as required by SCDHS. The proposed fence would be an eight (8)-foot high, vinyl coated chain link fence with privacy slats. The landscaping proposed around the STP fence will be consistent with the landscaping throughout the site. The fencing and landscaping screening are expected to mitigate the minimal noise that may be generated from the STP area. The odor control fans are small 0.75 hp fans, do not produce excessive noise and are expected to be below the ambient noise level. The other STP equipment is installed within the control building within sound attenuating enclosures to mitigate noise issues. Additionally, the access driveway to the STP has been added to the site plan (in Appendix C), which is suitable for sludge truck access as well as daily operator access. Comment C1-4: 4§¤ «®¢ ³¨®­ ¥®± ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¦ ±¡ ¦¤  ±¤  ¨² ¯±®·¨¬ ³¤ ³® ³§¤ ­¤¨¦§¡®±¨­¦ ±¤²¨£¤­³¨ « « ­£ ´²¤²ȁ 4§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³ ²§®´«£ ±¤«®¢ ³¤ ³§¤ ¦ ±¡ ¦¤ ¤­¢«®²´±¤  ¶ ¸ ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ±¤²¨£¤­³¨ « « ­£ ´²¤  ­£ ¯±®µ¨£¤ £¤³ ¨«² ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¤­¢«®²´±¤ Ȩ¯« ­³¨­¦²Ǿ §¤¨¦§³Ǿ ³§¤ ¬ ³¤±¨ «² ³® ¡¤ ´²¤£Ǿ ¤³¢ȁȩȁ Response to Comment C1-4: As indicated in the Response to Comment C1-19 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS, the dumpster pad for the proposed hotel use has been relocated from the northeast portion of the site to the northwest corner. See the Response to Comment C1-19 in Section 2.3.1 of the FEIS for details on the proposed enclosures, plantings, height, and the materials to be used. Comment C1-5: 3¨­¢¤ ®µ¤±¥«®¶ ¯ ±ª¨­¦ ¨² ¡¤¨­¦ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ µ¨¢¨­¨³¸ ®¥ ³§¤ ±¤²³ ´± ­³ ¶§¨¢§ ¨²  ­³¨¢¨¯ ³¤£ ³® ¡¤ ®¢¢ ²¨®­ ««¸ ´²¤£ ¡¸ §®³¤« ¦´¤²³²Ǿ ³§¤­   ¯¤£¤²³±¨ ­ ¶ «ª¶ ¸ ®± ²¨£¤¶ «ª ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ¨­²³ ««¤£ ³® ¢®­­¤¢³ ³§¤²¤ ³¶®  ±¤ ²  ­£ ¯±®µ¨£¤ ² ¥¤  ­£ ¢®­µ¤­¨¤­³  ¢¢¤²²ȁ Response to Comment C1-5: See Response to C1-18 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS. Comment C1-6: )³  ¯¯¤ ±² ³§ ³ ®­¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ®´³£®®± «¨¦§³²  «®­¦ ³§¤ ¶¤²³¤±«¸ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ¡®´­£ ±¸ ­¤·³ ³® ³§¤ ¤­³± ­¢¤ ³® ³§¤ §®³¤«  ² ²§®¶­ ®­ ³§¤ ͗3¨³¤ ,¨¦§³¨­¦  ­£ $¤³ ¨«²͗ ¯« ­ Ȩ3§¤¤³ #-500) ¤·¢¤¤£² ³§¤ «¨¦§³¨­¦ ²³ ­£ ±£ ´­£¤± ȷ ΔΚΕ-Θȁ#ȁȨ«ȩǾ ¶§¨¢§ ²³ ³¤² ³§ ³ ³§¤ ¬ ·¨¬´¬ ¨««´¬¨­ ­¢¤  ³ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ «¨­¤ ¡¤³¶¤¤­ ³¶® ­®­±¤²¨£¤­³¨ « 37 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ¯±®¯¤±³¨¤² ¬ ¸ ¡¤  ² §¨¦§  ² ΓȁΔ ¥®®³-¢ ­£«¤ Ȩ͗&#͗ȩǿ §®¶¤µ¤±Ǿ ³§¤ £ ³  ¯±®µ¨£¤£ ®­ ³§¤ «¨¦§³¨­¦ ¯« ­ ¨­£¨¢ ³¤² ³§ ³ the «¤µ¤«²  ³ ³§¨² «®¢ ³¨®­  ±¤ ¡¤³¶¤¤­ ΓȁΔ  ­£ ΓȁΘ &#  ³ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ «¨­¤ȁ 4§¤±¤¥®±¤Ǿ ²¤µ¤± « ²³ ³¤¬¤­³² ¨­ $%)3 Ȩ¯¯ȁ ·Ǿ ΙǾ ΚΚǾ ΛΗǾ  ­£ ΔΕΓȩ ¨­£¨¢ ³¨­¦ ³§ ³ ³§¤±¤ ¶®´«£ ¡¤ ͗­® ®¥¥-site «¨¦§³¨­¦ ¨¬¯ ¢³²͖͖ ¥±®¬  ­¸ ®¥ ³§¤ «¨¦§³ ¯®«¤² ¯±®¯®²¤£ ²¤¤¬² ¨­ ¢¢´± ³¤ȁ 4§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³ ²§®´«£ ¢®­¥¨±¬ ³§ ³ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ «¨¦§³¨­¦ ¯« ­ ¶¨«« ¡¤ £¤²¨¦­¤£ ¨­ ¢®¬¯«¨ ­¢¤ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ 4®¶­ #®£¤Ǿ ¶§¨¢§ ¶®´«£ ³§¤±¤¥®±¤ ±¤²´«³ ¨­ ­® ®¥¥-²¨³¤ «¨¦§³ ¯®««´³¨®­ȁ Response to Comment C1-6: The Site Lighting and Details plan has been modified such that there will be no off- site lighting impacts. The outdoor light has been relocated several feet to the east to ensure the maximum illuminance at the property line is less than 0.1 foot-candle. The revised plan is included in Appendix C. Comment C1-7:4§¤ 0±®¯®²¤£ $± ¨­ ¦¤  ­£ '± £¨­¦ 0« ­ ²§®¶² ²¤µ¤± « ¢ ³¢§ ¡ ²¨­²Ǿ «¤ ¢§¨­¦ ¯®®«²Ǿ ¥«®®±£± ¨­²Ǿ   ²¶¨¬¬¨­¦ ¯®®« £± ¨­ ¦¤ ²³±´¢³´±¤Ǿ  ­£ ¯¤±µ¨®´² ®µ¤±¥«®¶ ¯ ±ª¨­¦  ±¤ ² ³®  ££±¤²² ±´­®¥¥ȁ 0 ¦¤ ΖΛ ®¥ ³§¤ $%)3Ǿ ¥¨±²³ ¯ ± ¦± ¯§ ´­£¤± ͗3³®±¬¶ ³¤± 2´­®¥¥  ­£ $± ¨­ ¦¤Ǿ͗ ¬¤­³¨®­² ³§¤ ´²¤ ®¥ ²¶ «¤² ¥®± ¢®­³±®««¨­¦ £± ¨­ ¦¤ǿ §®¶¤µ¤±Ǿ ³§¤±¤ ¨² ­® ¨­£¨¢ ³¨®­  ² ³® ¶§¤±¤ ³§¤²¤ ²¶ «¤² ¶¨«« ¡¤ «®¢ ³¤£Ǿ ³§¤¨± ²¨¹¤ ®±  ­¸ ®³§¤± ¯¤±³¨­¤­³ ¨­¥®±¬ ³¨®­  ­£ ³§¤¸  ±¤ ­®³ ²§®¶­ ®­ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ 3¨³¤ $± ¨­ ¦¤  ­£ '± £¨­¦ 0« ­ Ȩ3§¤¤³ #-ΕΓΓȩȁ .0lj6 ­®³¤² ³§ ³ ³§¤±¤  ±¤ ®¯¯®±³´­¨³¨¤² ³® ¨­¢®±¯®± ³¤ ¦±¤¤­ ¨­¥± ²³±´¢³´±¤ ¨¬¯±®µ¤¬¤­³² ²´¢§  ² ± ¨­ ¦ ±£¤­²Ǿ µ¤¦¤³ ³¤£ ²¶ «¤²Ǿ ®± ®³§¤± ¡¨®±¤³¤­³¨®­ ¥¤ ³´±¤² ¨­³® ³§¤ ¯±®©¤¢³ £¤²¨¦­Ǿ ³® ¤­§ ­¢¤ ³§¤  ¯¯¤ ± ­¢¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ²¨³¤  ­£ ¯±®µ¨£¤ µ¨²´ « ¨­³¤±¤²³ ¨­ ¢¤±³ ¨­ «®¢ ³¨®­²Ǿ ¶§¨«¤ ¢®­³ ¨­¨­¦Ǿ ¢®­³±®««¨­¦Ǿ ³±¤ ³¨­¦  ­£ ±¤¢§ ±¦¨­¦ ²³®±¬¶ ³¤± ±´­®¥¥ȁ 0«¤ ²¤ ¯±®µ¨£¤   £¤²¢±¨¯³¨®­ ®¥  ­¸ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¦±¤¤­ ¨­¥± ²³±´¢³´±¤Ǿ ³§¤¨± «®¢ ³¨®­² ®­ ³§¤ ²¨³¤Ǿ  ­£ ±¤«¤µ ­³ £¤³ ¨«²ȁ Response to Comment C1-7: As indicated in the Response to Comment C1-19 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS, the proposed stormwater management plan includes a swale, catch basins, trench drains and leaching pools designed to accommodate runoff for a two-inch rain event (as required by Town Code). A swale has been utilized in the landscaped areas north of the proposed restaurant and south of the proposed hotel to collect and direct stormwater to proposed drywells. Comment C4-2: 4§¤ 3#$(3 ¬ ¨­³ ¨­² ©´±¨²£¨¢³¨®­ ®µ¤± ³§¤ ¥¨­ « £¤­²¨³¸  ­£ ´²¤Ǿ  ­£ ³§¤ £¤²¨¦­ ®¥ ³§¤ ²¤¶ ¦¤ £¨²¯®² «  ­£ ¶ ³¤± ²´¯¯«¸ ²¸²³¤¬²ȁ 4§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³Ǿ ³§¤±¤¥®±¤Ǿ ²§®´«£ ­®³ ´­£¤±³ ª¤ ³§¤ ¯±®©¤¢³ ¶¨³§®´³ (¤ «³§ $¤¯ ±³¬¤­³  ¯¯±®µ «ȁ $¤­²¨³¸Ǿ £¤²¨¦­  ­£ ¥«®¶ ²¯¤¢¨¥¨¢ ³¨®­²Ǿ «®¢ ³¨®­Ǿ ²´¡²´±¥ ¢¤ ²®¨« ¢®­£¨³¨®­²Ǿ  ­£ ¢®¬¯«¤³¤ ²¨³¤ ¯« ­ £¤³ ¨«²  ±¤ ¤²²¤­³¨ « ³® ³§¤ ±¤µ¨¤¶ ®¥ ³§¨² ¯±®©¤¢³ȁ 4§¤²¤ ¢®­²¨£¤± ³¨®­²  ±¤ ±¤µ¨¤¶¤£ ¢®¬¯«¤³¤«¸  ³ ³§¤ ³¨¬¤ ®¥ 3#$(3  ¯¯«¨¢ ³¨®­ȁ Response to Comment C4-2: The comment is noted. Comment C16-6: 3¯¤ ª¨­¦ ®¥ ¨¬¯¤±µ¨®´² ²´±¥ ¢¤²Ǿ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ¢®­³ ¨­² ²®¬¤³§¨­¦ «¨ª¤ ΗΓ ¤·¢¤²² ¯ µ¤£ ¯ ±ª¨­¦ ²¯ ¢¤²ȁ "¸  «« ¬¤ ­² § µ¤ ¤·³±  ¯ ±ª¨­¦Ǿ ¡´³ ¶§¸ ¬´²³ ²® ¬´¢§ ®¥ ¨³ ¡¤ ¨¬¯¤±µ¨®´² ²´±¥ ¢¤²Ȉ 7§¸ ­®³ ¬ ª¤  «« ³§¤ ¤·³±  ¯ ±ª¨­¦ ¦± ²²Ȉ Response to Comment C16-6: Some of the excess parking proposed will be land banked, as noted on the proposed site plan. However, the majority of the excess parking will be paved for ease of property maintenance and use for the facility. As indicated in Section 3.2 of the DEIS, the total required parking for the proposed restaurant and hotel is 94 spaces. The proposed design includes 38 spaces for the restaurant, of which, 27 are paved and 11 are grass paved, and an additional two (2) grass overflow spaces are provided. For the hotel, the proposed design includes a dedicated 96-space parking area with an additional 26 grass spaces provided as overflow parking. Accordingly, of the total 160 spaces provided, 37 spaces are grass, which represents approximately 23 percent of the total. Furthermore, as indicated in Table 3 and the Response to Comment C22- 38 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1, the proposed landscape area exceeds the minimum requirement by 33.62 percent (i.e., 25 percent is required whereas 58.62 percent is provided) and for the future event space, this area still exceeds the minimum by 31.3% (see Table 3 in this FEIS). Comment C30-1:)  ¬ ¶±¨³¨­¦ ³® ¤·¯±¤²² ¬¸ ®¯¯®²¨³¨®­ ³® ³§¤  ¯¯±®µ « ®¥ ¯« ­² ¥®± ³§¤ ¯±®©¤¢³Ǿ ¢ ««¤£ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤Ǿ «®¢ ³¤£ ¶¤²³ ®¥ ³§¤ ¨­³¤±²¤¢³¨®­ ®¥ - ¨­ 2® £  ­£ 4®¶­ ( ±¡®± , ­¤ ¨­ 3®´³§®«£ȁ ( µ¨­¦ «®®ª¤£  ³ ¡®³§ ³§¤ $± ¥³ %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³  ­£ ³§¤ ¯±®©¤¢³ ¯« ­² ³§ ³  ±¤ ¯®²³¤£ ®­«¨­¤ ) § µ¤ ²¤±¨®´² ¢®­¢¤±­²  ¡®´³ ³§¨² ¯±®©¤¢³ ®­ ²¤µ¤± « ¦±®´­£²ȁ &¨±²³«¸Ǿ ³§¤ ¯±®©¤¢³ ¯« ­² ¨­£¨¢ ³¤ ³§ ³ ³§¤±¤ ¶¨«« ¡¤ µ¤±¸ «¨³³«¤ ¦±¤¤­ ²¯ ¢¤ «¤¥³ ®­ ³§¤ ¯ ±¢¤« ®­¢¤ ³§¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ¨² ¢®¬¯«¤³¤ȁ 7§ ³ ¬ ª¤² ³§¤ .®±³§ &®±ª   ´­¨°´¤  ­£ ²¯¤¢¨ « ¯« ¢¤ ³® «¨µ¤  ­£ µ¨²¨³ ¨² ³§¤  ¡´­£ ­¢¤ ®¥ ¦±¤¤­ ²¯ ¢¤  ­£ ¸¤³ ³§¨² ¯±®©¤¢³ ¶¨«« ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³«¸ £¨¬¨­¨²§ that. Response to Comment C30-1: Although this proposed action would result in an increase in developed area, the proposed plan significantly exceeds the 25 percent landscape area requirement, as set forth in the Town Zoning Code. The proposed plan includes 58.62 percent landscape area (i.e., 33.62 percent more than what is required); of which includes retaining select trees, grass seeding and planting of native species and ornamental species on the subject property. The percentage slightly decreases to 56.3% with the future event room, however, the proposed landscaping remains greater than that which is required in the HB Zoning District. 2.3.3 Noise Comments related to noise and the Acoustical Report prepared by Sound Sense Acoustic Consulting & Design (“Sound Sense”) are addressed in this section of the FEIS. Specifically, the following comments are included: H1-5, H4-4, H14-3 through H14-6, H14-8, H14-9, H14-11, C1-27, C1-28, C2-1 through C2-21, C7-6, C16-10, C22- 15, C28-5, C29-5, C33-7, C34-4, C35-6, C35-9, and C42-7. Comment H1-5: Ȃ³§¤ ²¯¤¢¨ « ¯´±¯®²¤ ¤·¤¬¯³¨®­ ¨­ ¨³²¤«¥ § £   ¢®¬¬¤­³  ¡®´³ ­®¨²¤ ­®³ ¡¤¨­¦  ´£¨¡«¤  ³ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ «¨­¤  ­£ ³§ ³ ²®´­£² «¨ª¤   £¨¥¥¤±¤­³ ±¤°´¨±¤¬¤­³ ³§ ­ ³§¤ ®­¤ ¶¤ ¶¤±¤ §¤ ±¨­¦  ¡®´³ ³§¤ ®µ¤± «« ­®¨²¤ ®±£¨­ ­¢¤Ȃ¨³ ²®´­£² «¨ª¤ ¬´«³¨¯«¤ ­®¨²¤ ²³ ­£ ±£² ³® ¡¤ ¢®­²¨£¤±¤£ȁ Response to Comment H1-5: Section 5.4 of the original Acoustic Report (included in Appendix J of the DEIS) specifically addresses the issue of special events and meeting the noise ordinance. As noted in Section 1.3 of this FEIS, the applicant modified the project scope during preparation of this FEIS to eliminate outdoor events and the potential noise generation from cumulative sources (including indoor events, traffic, pool, cottages, HVAC, rooftop terrace, and parking lot) will not exceed 5 dBA over background (No Build) sound levels. The predicted noise levels range from 47 dBA to 49 dBA and meets the Town of Southold Noise Ordinance and is not considered a noise impact per the NYSDEC guidelines, which have been adopted as the project criteria. As indicated in the Acoustic Report, a sound level increase of less than 5 dB is considered by the NYSDEC as “Unnoticed to Tolerable.” Accordingly, the sound level increase will not have any significant adverse impacts and complies with the requests of the ZBA and its consultants during preparation of this FEIS. See also, Response to Comment C1-19 in Section 2.3.1 for a list of all noise mitigation measures to be undertaken by the applicant. Comment H4-4: Ȃ  «®³ ®¥ ¯¤®¯«¤ ´­£¤±²³ ­£ ³§ ³ ¨¥ ¸®´ ³§±®¶ «¨°´®±Ǿ ­®¨²¤Ǿ ¬´²¨¢ ³§¤  ¬®´­³ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯¤®¯«¤ Ȩ¨­ ´£¨¡«¤ȩ ¨­   ±®®¬ ¨³ ¦¤³² «®´£¤±  ­£ «®´£¤± ³§ ³ ¨² ¨­ ¬¸ ¡ ¢ª ¸ ±£  ² ¶¤«« ²® ¶¤ ª­®¶ ¡¤³¶¤¤­ ³§¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢Ǿ ³§¤ ­®¨²¤Ǿ ¯¤®¯«¤ ¤­©®¸¨­¦ ³§¤¬²¤«µ¤² ¶§ ³¤µ¤± ³§ ³ ­®¨²¤ ³§¨­¦ ¨² ¦®¨­¦ ³® ¶¤«« ¤·¢¤¤£ ¶§ ³ ³§¤¸Ȍ±¤ ¯±®¯®²¨­¦ ¡¤¢ ´²¤ 39 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ) £® ¨³  «« ³§±®´¦§ ³§¤ ²´¬¬¤± ¥®±   ¢ ³¤±¤±  ­£ ¶¤ ¦¤³ ¢®­²³ ­³ ¢®¬¯« ¨­³² ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ­¤¨¦§¡®±² ³§ ³  ±¤  ¢±¤²  ¶ ¸ ­®³ ­¤·³ £®®±  ¢±¤²  ¶ ¸ȁ Response to Comment H4-4: The proposed action and site plan have been modified during preparation of this FEIS to eliminate outdoor events. All events are proposed to be held indoors within either the hotel or a future enclosed space on the south side of the hotel, adjacent to the proposed pond. Based on the Acoustical Report in Appendix F, the potential noise generation from cumulative sources (including indoor events, traffic, pool, cottages, HVAC, rooftop terrace, and parking lot) will not exceed 5 dBA over background (No Build) sound levels. This will be achieved with building materials and windows with high acoustic performance for noise attenuation, which will be designed as part of site plan review with the Planning Board. Comment H14-3: 7¤«« ¸®´  «²® ² ¸ ³§ ³ ¸®´ ¶¨«« ®¢¢ ²¨®­ ««¸ ´²¤   ³¤­³  ­£ ³§ ³ ³§¤ ³¤­³ ¨³²¤«¥ ¶¨«« ¡¤  ­  ¢®´²³¨¢ « ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ ¡´³ ²´±¤«¸ ¨­ ³§¤ ¬¨££«¤ ®¥ ²´¬¬¤± ­®¡®£¸ ¨² ¦®¨­¦ ³® ¢«®²¤   ³¤­³ ¤­³¨±¤«¸ ®¥¥ ³®  ¨±  ­£ ¡±¤¤¹¤ ²® ) £®­Ȍ³ °´¨³¤ ´­£¤±²³ ­£ §®¶   ³¤­³ ¨² ±¤ ««¸ ¦®¨­¦ ³® ¬¨³¨¦ ³¤ ²®´­£ ¨¥ ³§¤  ¬¯«¨¥¨¤£ ¬´²¨¢ ¨² ®´³£®®±²ȁ )¥ ¨³Ȍ² ¨­£®®±² ¨³Ȍ² ¢®­³±®«« ¡«¤Ǿ ¨¥ ¨³Ȍ² ®´³£®®±² ³§¤±¤  ±¤ ²® ¬ ­¸ µ ±¨ ¡«¤²  ² ¸®´ ª­®¶  ²   ²¯¤¢¨ «¨²³ ¥®±  ¢®´²³¨¢ « ¨²²´¤²ȁ 4§¤ ³¸¯¤ ®¥ ²®´­£ ²¸²³¤¬Ǿ ³§¤ £¨±¤¢³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ ²¯¤ ª¤±²Ǿ ¶§® ¬®­¨³®±² ³§¤ ²¯¤ ª¤±²ȁ !±¤ ¸®´ ¦®¨­¦ ³® § µ¤ ¸®´± ®¶­ ²¸²³¤¬Ȉ )­ ³§¤ $%)3 ¨³  ¢³´ ««¸ ¨­£¨¢ ³¤² ³§ ³ ¸®´Ȍ±¤ ¯±®¯®²¨­¦   ²®´­£ ²¸²³¤¬ ­¤ ± ³§¤ ¯®®«  ²   ¯ ±³ ®¥ ­®±¬ « ¡´²¨­¤²² ®¯¤± ³¨®­²ȁ 4§ ³Ȍ² ­®³   ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤µ¤­³ȁ 3® ¶§ ³ £®¤² ³§ ³ ¬¤ ­Ȉ Response to Comment H14-3: See Response to Comment H4-4 above. The proposed action and site plan have been modified during preparation of this FEIS to eliminate outdoor events and no outdoor amplified music will be permitted. All events will be held indoors either inside the hotel or within the future enclosed space, as illustrated on Proposed Site Plan. Based on the Acoustical Report in Appendix F, the potential noise generation from cumulative sources (including indoor events, traffic, pool, cottages, HVAC, rooftop terrace, and parking lot) will not exceed 5 dBA over background (No Build) sound levels. This will be achieved with building materials and windows with high acoustic performance for noise attenuation, which will be designed as part of site plan review with the Planning Board. See also the Response to Comment H1-5 above. Comment H14-4: !­£ ¸®´ ³ «ª  ¡®´³ ³§¤ ²®´­£ ®±£¨­ ­¢¤ ¶§¨¢§  ³ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ «¨­¤ ¨² ΙΘ £¡ Ǿ ³§ ³Ȍ² ¯±¤³³¸ «®´£ȁ 4§ ³Ȍ² ±¤ ««¸ ¯±¤³³¸ «®´£ȁ ) ¬¤ ­ ³§ ³Ȍ² ®´± ¢®£¤ ¡´³ ³§ ³ £®¤²­Ȍ³ ¬¤ ­ ³§ ³ ¸®´ ¶®´«£­Ȍ³ §¤ ± ¨³ ®­  £© ¢¤­³ ¯±®¯¤±³¨¤²ȁ 3® ¸®´ ª­®¶ ³§ ³Ȍ² ¶ ¸  ¡®µ¤ ¢®­µ¤±² ³¨®­  ­£ ¶§¤­ ¸®´ ¡¤¦¨­ ³® ¯´³ ­®¨²¤ ¥±®¬ ©´²³  ¬¡¨¤­³ ­®¨²¤ ¥±®¬ ¯¤®¯«¤ ¦ ³§¤±¨­¦Ǿ ³ «ª¨­¦  ±®´­£   ²¶¨¬¬¨­¦ ¯®®«Ǿ ª¨£² « ´¦§¨­¦  ­£ ©´¬¯¨­¦ ¨­  ­£ ®´³ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯®®« ¸®´Ȍ±¤ ¦®¨­¦ ³® § µ¤   ¢®¬¡¨­ ³¨®­  «®­¦ ¶¨³§  ££¨³¨®­ « ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¨¬¯ ¢³²ȁ 4§ ³ ¨²   ¢®­¢¤±­ ³® ³§¨² "® ±£ȁ Response to Comment H14-4: The Town, through the Town noise ordinance has deemed 65 dBA to be an acceptable noise level during non-sensitive periods of the day. 65 dB(A) is typically the characteristic sound level of one person talking at a normal speech level. Comment H14-5: 9®´  «²® § µ¤ ¥®´± £¤³ ¢§¤£ ¢®³³ ¦¤²  ­£ ¥ ¬¨«¨¤² ¢®´«£ ¤ ²¨«¸ ¢®¬¤ ¨­ ¶¨³§ ª¨£²  ­£ ¶¨³§ ³§¤¨± ®¶­ ¸®´ ª­®¶ ­®¶ £ ¸² ¶¤ § µ¤ «¨³³«¤ ²¯¤ ª¤±²ȂI³Ȍ² ©´²³   µ¤±¸ ³®´¦§ ¯±®¡«¤¬  ­£ ¨³ ¶®´«£ ¡¤ ³±´¤ ®­  ­¸ ²¨³¤Ǿ  ¢®´²³¨¢²  ±¤  «¶ ¸² µ¤±¸Ǿ µ¤±¸ £¨¥¥¨¢´«³ȁ Response to Comment H14-5: Hotel management will be responsible for ensuring that guests are not utilizing personal speakers or generating noise that may be a nuisance to neighbors or other hotel guests. It is also noted that the four cottages are the most remote structures from the neighboring properties to the east, would 40 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ be to the east of the hotel building. Any noise generated from the cottages and the personal hot tubs would be managed by the hotel staff. Each cottage will be encapsulated with evergreen hedges for visual screening as well as a fence containing an acoustic barrier. Additionally, the proposed landscape design includes, along the eastern property line, a double row of 14-to-16-foot tall mature Leyland Cypress, spaced eight-feet on center, as well as a 6.5-foot wooden stockade fence, to screen the proposed development from the adjacent residential area. Comment H14-6: 7§ ³ ¤· ¢³«¸ ¨² ΙΘ decibels? ,¨ª¤   ©¤³ ²ª¨ ±´­­¨­¦  ³ ¥´«« ²¯¤¤£ ®± Response to Comment H14-6:As indicated in the Response to CommentH14-4above, 65 dB(A) is a typical speech level, which is why most daytime municipal noise codes use 65 dB(A) as a benchmark. There is typically an assumption that during the day, there will be people talking and so other sounds at this level will not be disturbing. Comment H14-8: …7¨³§ ±¤¦ ±£ ³® ³§¤ ¬´²¨¢ ¡¸ ³§¤ ¯®®«Ǿ § µ¤ ¸®´ ¢®­²¨£¤±¤£ ¶§ ³ §®´±² ¸®´ ¶®´«£ ¡¤ ´²¨­¦ ³§¨² music? Response to Comment H14-8: No outdoor amplified music will be permitted. See also the Response to H14-3. Comment H14-9: )¥ )Ȍ¬ ¦®¨­¦ ³®   §®³¤« ) £®­Ȍ³ ­¤¤£ ³® § µ¤ ¬´²¨¢  ±®´­£ ³§¤ ¯®®«ȁ %µ¤±¸¡®£¸ § ² ¤ ±¡´£² ³§ ³ ³§¤¸ ¢ ­ ²³¨¢ª ¨­ ³§¤¨± ¤ ±² ¥®± ¯«¤ ²´±¤ȁ ) ³§¨­ª ¨³ ¬¨¦§³ ©´²³ ¡¤  ­  ££¤£ ­´¨² ­¢¤ ¡¸ § µ¨­¦ ³§¤ ¬´²¨¢Ǿ ²®¬¤³§¨­¦ ³® ¢®­²¨£¤±ȁ Response to Comment H14-9: See Responses to Comments H14-3 and H14-8 above. Comment H14-11: …th¤ ²¨³¤ ¨² ³® ¡¤ ®¯¤± ³¤£ £´±¨­¦ ¡®³§ ¶¤¤ª£ ¸²  ­£ ¶¤¤ª¤­£² ¡´³ ³§¤ ­®¨²¤ ¬®­¨³®±¨­¦ ¨² ®­«¸ ¢®­£´¢³¤£ £´±¨­¦ ®­¤ ²§®±³ ¯¤±¨®£ ¡¤³¶¤¤­ ΔΕ  ­£ Δ¯¬  ­£ ΚȀΗΘ  ­£ Μ¯¬ ®­   4§´±²£ ¸ ¨­ *´«¸ȁ )³Ȍ² ­®³ ¢«¤ ± §®¶ ³§¨² £ ³   £¤°´ ³¤«¸ ¢§ ± ¢³¤±¨¹¤² ³§¤ ¤·¨²³¨­¦ ¶¤¤ª¤­£ ­®¨²¤ ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ ³® ²¤±µ¨¢¤ ³§¤ ¡ ²¤«¨­¤ ¥®± ³§¤ ¶¤¤ª¤­£ ¢®­£¨³¨®­²ȁ )³Ȍ² ¯±¤³³¸ «¨¬¨³¤£ £ ³ Ȃ¨³ ²¤¤¬² ³® ¬¤ ¶¤ § µ¤ «®®ª¤£  ³ ®³§¤± ­®¨²¤ ²³´£¨¤² ³§ ³ § µ¤ ¡¤¤­ ¥ ± ¬®±¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¤£ ¨­ ³¤±¬² ®¥ ³§¤ ­´¬¡¤± ®¥ ¬¤ ²´±¤¬¤­³² ³§¤¸ ³®®ª  n£ ³§¤ ³¨¬¤² ³§¤¸ ³®®ª ³§¤¬Ǿ ³§¤ ­´¬¡¤± ®± £ ¸² ³§¤¸ ³®®ª ³§¤¬  ­£ ³§¨² ¡ ²¨¢ ««¸ ¨² ®­¤ «¨³³«¤ ²­ ¯²§®³ ¨­ ³¨¬¤ȁ 3® ¤µ¤­ ¨¥ ¨³Ȍ² ³®³ ««¸  ¢¢´± ³¤ ¥®± ³§ ³ ²­ ¯²§®³ ¨³ ¬ ¸ ­®³ ¥´««¸  ££±¤²² ³§¤ ¡±® £¤± ¯¨¢³´±¤  ­£ ´­¥®±³´­ ³¤«¸ ¨¥ ¶¤  ²ª¤£ ³® ³±¸ ³® £® ¨³  ¦ ¨­ ³§¤ ¯±®¡«¤¬ ¨² ¶¤  ±¤ ­®¶ ®¥¥ ²¤ ²®­  ­£ ³§¤ ®­«¸ ³¨¬¤ ¸®´± \[sic\] ¦®¨­¦ ³® ¦¤³ ±¤ ««¸ ¤¥¥¤¢³¨µ¤ ±¤ £¨­¦² ¨² ­¤·³ ²´¬¬¤± ²® ³§ ³Ȍ² ²®¬¤³§¨­¦ ³® ³§¨­ª  ¡®´³ȁ Response to Comment H14-11: As explained in the Response to Comment C2-23 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS, SoundSense purposely took ambient readings that were meant to provide a worst-case scenario. This is paramount in determining an optimum solution set. When engineering a solution set to inhibit sounds from traveling to the nearest neighbor or neighborhood and being a disturbance, it is critical to know the quietest background noise level. If the solution set was engineered for the weekend background noise levels, as opposed to the quieter ambient times that SoundSense did the readings, then event sounds not heard during the summer could possibly be significant and perceivable at quieter times. The quieter times are considered worst-case conditions. This is reflected in various municipal noise ordinances that regulate daytime and nighttime noise levels. 41 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Comment C1-27: 4§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸  £©®¨­² ±¤²¨£¤­³¨ ««¸ ¹®­¤£  ±¤ ²  ­£ ­¤¨¦§¡®±¨­¦ §®´²¤²ȁ 0 ±³ ®¥ ³§¤ 3¯¤¢¨ « %·¢¤¯³¨®­ 5²¤ ¢±¨³¤±¨  ±¤°´¨±¤² ³§ ³ ³§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³ £¤¬®­²³± ³¤ ³§ ³ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ´²¤ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¢®¬¯ ³¨¡«¤ ¶¨³§ ¨³² ²´±±®´­£¨­¦  ­£ ­®³ ¢ ´²¤ ­®¨²¤ £¨²³´±¡ ­¢¤²ȁ )³ ¨² ­®³ ¢«¤ ± §®¶ ³§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ³¨®­ § ²  ££±¤²²¤£ ³§¤²¤ ¢±¨³¤±¨  ¦¨µ¤­ ³§¤ ­®¨²¤  ­ «¸²¨² ²´¡¬¨³³¤£ ¡®³§ ¥®± ³¸¯¨¢ « ´²¤  ­£ ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤µ¤­³ ´²¤ȁ 3¯¤¢¨¥¨¢ ««¸Ȁ 4§¤ $%)3 ¨­£¨¢ ³¤² ³§ ³ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ §®³¤« ¶®´«£ ¡¤ ¤·¯¤¢³¤£ ³® ´²¤  ­ ®´³£®®± ²®´­£ ±¤¨­¥®±¢¤¬¤­³ ²¸²³¤¬ ³® ¯« ¸ ¬´²¨¢ ¶¨³§¨­ ³§¤ ¯®®«  ±¤  £´±¨­¦ ±¤¦´« ± £ ¸³¨¬¤ §®´±² ®¥ ®¯¤± ³¨®­ȁ 4§¤ $%)3 ¨­£¨¢ ³¤² ³§ ³   «¨¬¨³¤± ¶®´«£ ¡¤ ¯« ¢¤£ ®­ ³§¨² ²¸²³¤¬ ³® ¤­²´±¤ ³§ ³ ³§¤ ±¤²´«³¨­¦ ²®´­£ «¤µ¤«² ¢ ­­®³ ¤·¢¤¤£ ³§¤ «¨¬¨³² ²¤³ ¨­ ³§¤ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£ .®¨²¤ /±£¨­ ­¢¤ ¥®± ¢®¬¬¤±¢¨ « ¬´²¨¢ȁ )³ ¨² ­®³ ¢«¤ ± ¨¥ ³§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³͖² ­®¨²¤  ²²¤²²¬¤­³ ¤µ «´ ³¤£ ­®¨²¤ ¨¬¯ ¢³² ®¥ ³¸¯¨¢ « ®¯¤± ³¨®­² ¨­¢«´£¨­¦ ¬´²¨¢  ­£ ͗¢±®¶£ ­®¨²¤͗ ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ¯®®«  ±¤ ȁ ͗#±®¶£ ­®¨²¤͗ ¶ ²  «²® ­®³  ²²¤²²¤£ ¥®± ®´³£®®± ²¯¤¢¨ « events. Response to Comment C1-27: Crowd noise and music from the pool were considered in the Acoustic Report. The Proposed Action has been modified to prohibit outdoor large events and no outdoor amplified music will be permitted. See also the Responses to Comments C1-8 and C1-9 in Section 2.3.1, and Comments H4-4, H14- 3 and H14-8 earlier in this section. Comment C1–28: 4§¤ $%)3 ¨­£¨¢ ³¤² ³§ ³ ³§¤ 3T0 ¶¨«« § µ¤  ­ ®£®± ¢®­³±®« ²¸²³¤¬ȁ 4§¤²¤ ²¸²³¤¬s ±¤°´¨±¤ ³§¤ ´²¤ ®¥ ¢®­³¨­´®´²«¸ ±´­­¨­¦ ¥ ­ ³® ®¯¤± ³¤ȁ 4§¤ ­®¨²¤ ±¤« ³¤£ ³® ³§¤ ´²¤ ®¥ ³§¨² ¤°´¨¯¬¤­³ ²§®´«£  «²® ¡¤ ¢®­²¨£¤±¤£ ¦¨µ¤­ ³§¤ ¯±®·¨¬¨³¸ ³® ±¤²¨£¤­³¨ « ´²¤²ȁ Response to Comment C1-28: The proposed equipment for the STP has been evaluated utilizing data for the fans proposed and takes orientation of the STP facility into account as well as penetrations needed for required airflow through louvers. The STP facility is projected to create sound levels below the background sound levels when measured at the nearest neighbor. Upon commissioning of the facility, acoustic readings can be collected to confirm noise levels at the nearest property line. This is detailed in greater detail in the acoustic report in Appendix F of the FEIS. It is also noted that the proposed STP is standard equipment that is utilized across Long Island and permitted by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. No sound attenuation is required for the proposed STP. Once the STP system has been completed, it can be commissioned to ensure that it is compliant with the Noise Code. In addition, while not anticipated to be necessary, the Acoustic Report does outline potential noise mitigation solutions, if required upon commissioning. Comment C2-1: )­ 3¤¢³¨®­ ΕȁΕǾ 4 ¡«¤ ΕȁΕȁΔǾ ³§¤ §¤ £¨­¦Ǿ ͗£" #§ ­¦¤͗ ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ͗£" 2¤£´¢³¨®­͗ȁ /±Ǿ ±¤¬®µ¤ ³§¤ ͗3®´­£ %­¤±¦¸ #§ ­¦¤͗ ¢®«´¬­ ®± ²¤¯ ± ³¤ ³§¤ ³ ¡«¤ȁ ! ¢§ ­¦¤ ¢ ­ ±¤¯±¤²¤­³  ­ ¨­¢±¤ ²¤ ®± £¤¢±¤ ²¤ȁ 4§¤ ͗3®´­£ %­¤±¦¸ #§ ­¦¤͗ ¢®«´¬­ ®­«¸ ¯±¤²¤­³²   £¤¢±¤ ²¤ ¨­ ­®¨²¤ «¤µ¤«ȁ Response to Comment C2-1: The Acoustic Report in Appendix F of this FEIS has been corrected. Comment C2-2: 4§¤ (®´²¨­¦  ­£ 5±¡ ­ $¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³͖² 3¨³¤ !¢¢¤¯³ ¡¨«¨³¸ 3³ ­£ ±£²  ±¤ ¯±¤²¤­³¤£ ¨­ 3¤¢³¨®­ ΕȁΘȁ 4§¤²¤ ²³ ­£ ±£²  ±¤  ¯¯«¨¤£ ³® ¥¤£¤± ««¸ ¥´­£¤£ ¯±®©¤¢³²  ­£  ±¤ ¨­³¤­£¤£ ³® ¯±®³¤¢³ ¯®³¤­³¨ « ±¤²¨£¤­³² ¨­   ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¥¤£¤± ««¸ ¥´­£¤£ ¯±®©¤¢³ ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ¤·¨²³¨­¦ ®± ¤·¯¤¢³¤£ ­®¨²¤ ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ȁ 4§¤¸  ±¤ ­®³ ­®rm ««¸ ¨­³¤­£¤£  ² ²³ ­£ ±£² ³® ¯±®³¤¢³ ­¤¨¦§¡®±¨­¦ ²¤­²¨³¨µ¤ ±¤¢¤¯³®±² ¥±®¬ ­®¨²¤ ¦¤­¤± ³¤£ ¥±®¬ ³§¨² ³¸¯¤ ®¥ ¯±®©¤¢³ȁ 7¨³§ ³§ ³ ² ¨£Ǿ ³§¤ ¯±®©¤¢³ ¬ ¸  £®¯³ ³§¤²¤ ²³ ­£ ±£²  ² ®­¤ ®¥ ³§¤ 0±®©¤¢³ ¨¬¯ ¢³ ¢±¨³¤±¨  ¥®±  £© ¢¤­³ ¯±®¯¤±³¨¤²ȁ (®¶¤µ¤±Ǿ ³§¤ ¯±®©¤¢³ ²§®´«£ ¢«¤ ±«¸ ²³ ³¤ ³§ ³ ³§¨² ¨² ³§¤ ¢ ²¤ȁ 42 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Response to Comment C2-2: The inclusion guidelines were instructional and were intended to help the community and ZBA better understand the different noise levels and how they are perceived as a disturbance. This has been modified in the Acoustic Report to clarify this issue and is included in Appendix F of this FEIS. Comment C2–3:)­ 3¤¢³¨®­ ΖȁΙǾ ³§¤ ³¤·³ ²³ ³¤² Η ¬¨­´³¤² ± ³§¤± ³§ ­ Ι ¬¨­´³¤²ȁ Response to Comment C2-3: The Acoustic Report in Appendix F of this FEIS has been corrected. Comment C2–4: )¥ ³§¤ (5$͖² 3¨³¤ !¢¢¤¯³ ¡¨«¨³¸ 3³ ­£ ±£²  ±¤ ´²¤£Ǿ ³§¤­ ³§¤ $ ¸-.¨¦§³ .®¨²¤ %°´¨µ «¤­³ ,¤µ¤« (Lȩ ­¤¤£² ³® ¡¤  ££¤£ ³® 3¤¢³¨®­ Ζ -$¤¥¨­¨³¨®­²ȁ ,¨² ­®³ ¤°´¨µ «¤­³ ³® , ­£ ¢ ­­®³ ¡¤ ´²¤£interchangeably. dndneq Response to Comment C2-4: As discussed in the Response to Comment C2-2 above, the inclusion of the HUD criteria was instructional and since they were not applied to the project, L was not a criterion used in review dn of the project. Comment C2-5: 4§¤ ¬®­¨³®±¨­¦ ¢®­£¨³¨®­² Ȩ¤ȁ¦ȁ £ ³¤ ®¥ ¬®­¨³®±¨­¦ ¯¤±¨®£Ǿ ¯±¤¢¨¯¨³ ³¨®­Ǿ ¢«®´£ ¢®µ¤±Ǿ  ¨± ¯±¤²²´±¤Ǿ ¶¨­£² ²¯¤¤£²Ǿ ¶¨­£ £¨±¤¢³¨®­Ǿ ¤³¢ȁȩ ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ¤·¯«¨¢¨³«¸ ¯±¤²¤­³¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ ³¤·³ ®¥ 3¤¢³¨®­ Ηȁ )­  ££¨³¨®­Ǿ ¬®­¨³®±¨­¦ ¥®± ¶¤¤ª£ ¸  ­£ ¶¤¤ª¤­£ £ ¸² ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ¢®­£´¢³¤£ £´±¨­¦ ³§¤ ®¯¤± ³¨®­ « §®´±² ®¥ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² ®± ¥®±   ¥´«« ΕΗ- §®´± ¯¤±¨®£ ¨¥ ³§¤ (5$ ¢±¨³¤±¨  ¨² ³® ¡¤ ´²¤£ȁ Response to Comment C2-5: As discussed in the Responses to Comments C2-2 and C2-4, the inclusion of the HUD criteria were instructional only, as the same do not apply to this project. Comment C2–6: 4§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ²¨³¤ ¨² ³® ¡¤ ®¯¤± ³¤£ £´±¨­¦ ¡®³§ ¶¤¤ª£ ¸²  ­£ ¶¤¤ª¤­£²ȁ $¨¥¥¤±¤­³ ­®¨²¤ ¢§ ± ¢³¤±¨²³¨¢² ¥®± ¶¤¤ª£ ¸²  ­£ ¶¤¤ª¤­£ £ ¸²  ±¤ ³§¤ ­®±¬ ± ³§¤± ³§ ­ ³§¤ ¤·¢¤¯³¨®­ȁ .®¨²¤ ¬®­¨³®±¨­¦ ²§®´«£ § µ¤ ¡¤¤­ ¢®­£´¢³¤£ ³® ¢§ ± ¢³¤±¨¹¤£ ¤·¨²³¨­¦ ¶¤¤ª¤­£ ­®¨²¤ ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³  ­£ ²¤±µ¤  ² ³§¤ ¡ ²¤«¨­¤ ¥®± ³§¤ weekend. Response to Comment C2-6: See Responses to Comments C2-23 (Section 2.3.1), H14-11 (Section 2.3.3) and C2- 8 (2.3.3). Comment C2-7: )­ 3¤¢³¨®­ ΘȁΔǾ ³§¤ ±¤¯®±³ ²§®´«£ ¡¤³³¤± ¤·¯« ¨­ ³§¤ ¬¤³§®£®«®¦¸  ­£  ²²´¬¯³¨®­² ´²¤£ ³® ¤·³± ¯®« ³¤ ³§¤ &´³´±¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ­®¨²¤ ¢®­£¨³¨®­ ¡ ²¤£ ®­   «¨­¤ ± ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¦±®¶³§ȁ Response to Comment C2-7: The Acoustic Report in Appendix F has been updated. Comment C2–8: 4 ¡«¤ ΘȁΔȁΔ ±¤¥¤±±¤£ ³® ³§¤ ³¨¬¤²  ² ͗¯¤ ª §®´±͗Ǿ ¸¤³ ¨³ ¶ ² ²³ ³¤£ ³§ ³ ³§¤ ͗°´¨¤³¤²³ ¯¤±¨®£͗ ¶ ² ²¤«¤¢³¤£ȁ 4§¨² ²¤¤¬¤£ ¨­¢®­²¨²³¤­³ȁ !«²®Ǿ ³§¤ 2¤¯®±³ £®¤² ­®³ ¯±¤²¤­³ h®¶ ³§¤ ¯¤ ª §®´±  ­£ °´¨¤³¤²³ ¯¤±¨®£ ¶¤±¤ £¤³¤±¬¨­¤£ ¨¥ ®­«¸ ³¶® ²§®±³ ¯¤±¨®£² ®¥ ³§¤ £ ¸ ¶¤±¤ ² ¬¯«¤£ȁ 4§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³ ²§®´«£ µ¤±¨¥¸ ³§¤ µ «´¤² °´®³¤£ ¨­ 4 ¡«¤ ΘȁΔȁΔ  ² ³§¤ , ­£ , µ «´¤²  ¯¯¤ ± ³® ¡¤ ±¤µ¤±²¤£ȁ 4§¨² ¢®´«£ ­®³ ¡¤ ¢§¤¢ª¤£ ²¨­¢¤ ³§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³ £¨£ ­®³ ΔΓ 90 ¯±®µ¨£¤ ³§¤ ± ¶ £ ³ ȁ Response to Comment C2-8: As indicated in the Response to Comment H14-11 earlier in this section, SoundSense purposely took ambient readings that were used to determine a solution at a time when the higher background sounds typical in the summer were not present. When engineering a solution set to inhibit sounds 43 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ from traveling to the nearest neighbor or neighborhood and being a disturbance, it is critical to know the quietest background noise level. If the solution set was engineered for the summer background noise levels, as opposed to the quieter ambient times that SoundSense did with the readings taken for the proposed development, then event sounds not heard during the summer could possibly be significant and perceivable at quieter times. The quieter times are considered worst conditions. Additionally, by having a quiet time, it allows the signature of a car and various types of cars and truck and other common sounds of the area to be isolated to give a true ambient value at various locations. This, in turn, allows for the applicant’s acoustic engineer, SoundSense, to design for the quietest ambient noise level, which is the worst-case scenario. Comment C2–9:)³ ¨² ­®³ ¢«¤ ± ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ±¤¯®±³ §®¶ ¢§ ­¦¤² ¨­ ,¶¨«« ¡¤ ¦±¤ ³¤± ³§ ­ ³§¤ ,¢§ ­¦¤² ´­£¤± ¥´³´±¤ 9010 ¢®­£¨³¨®­² ¶¨³§ ¨­¢±¤ ²¤£ ³± ¥¥¨¢ȁ )­ ¦¤­¤± «Ǿ ¨­¢±¤ ²¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¶¨«« ±¤²´«³ ¨­ ¦±¤ ³¤± L¨­¢±¤ ²¤² ³§ ­ ,¨­¢±¤ ²¤² 1090 ¡¤¢ ´²¤ ¨­£¨µ¨£´ « µ¤§¨¢«¤ ¯ ²²¡¸²  ±¤  ­ ¨­³¤±¬¨³³¤­³ ¤µ¤­³ȁ 4§¤ , £®¤² ­®³ ±¤¥«¤¢³ ¨­³¤±¬¨³³¤­³ ­®¨²¤  ² ¶¤««  ² 90 Lȁ &®± ¤· ¬¯«¤Ǿ ²¨­¦«¤ °´¨¢ª ¯ ²²¨­¦ «®´£ ³±´¢ª ¶®´«£ «¨ª¤«¸ ­®³ ¨­¢±¤ ²¤ ,£´¤ ³® ³§¤ ²§®±³ £´± ³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ 1090 ¯ ²²¡¸ȁ 4§¨² ¨² ¶§¸ ³§¤ .93 $¤¯ ±³¬¤­³ ®¥ 4± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­͖² ¢±¨³¤±¨  ¥®± ­®¨²¤ ¨¬¯ ¢³ ¨² ¡ ²¤£ ®­ , ®± ,Ǿ ­¤µ¤± 10eq L. 90 Response to Comment C2-9: As described in the updated Acoustic Report, the sound level increases for traffic were considered by the applicant and the projections fall within the NYSDOT criterion of 67 dBA during the loudest period. To evaluate, the measured Leq of 62 dBA at Location 1 was added to the predicted increase of 2.6 dBA at Location 1 during special events. This results in a predicted sound level of 65 dBA, which complies with the 67 dBA criterion. The supporting data for the analysis is included in Appendix F of this FEIS. Comment C2-10: 4§¤ ¤·¯¤¢³¤£ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¦±®¶³§ ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ¯±¤²¤­³¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ ±¤¯®±³  ² ¶¤««  ² ¨­£´¢¤£ ³± ¥¥¨¢ µ®«´¬¤². Response to Comment C2-10: The expected traffic growth was extracted directly from the Traffic Study completed by Dunn Engineering and included in the DEIS. This data is further summarized in Appendix B of the Acoustic Report (Appendix F to this FEIS). See also the Response to Comment C2-23 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS. Comment C2–11: 0 ±ª¨­¦ ­®¨²¤  ¢³¨µ¨³¸Ǿ ´²´ ««¸ £´¤ ³® µ¤§¨¢´« ± ¬®µ¤¬¤­³Ǿ ¨²   ¢®­¢¤±­ ®¥³¤­ ¡±®´¦§³ ´¯ ¡¸ ³§¤ ¯´¡«¨¢  ­£ ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ¯±® ¢³¨µ¤«¸  ££±¤²²¤£ȁ )³ ¨² ­®³ ¢«¤ ± ¶§¤³§¤± 4 ¡«¤ ΘȁΔȁΕ ¨­¢®±¯®± ³¤£ ¯ ±ª¨­¦ «®³  ¢³¨µ¨³¸ȁ )¥ ²®Ǿ ³§¤ ±¤¯®±³ ²§®´«£ ¤·¯« ¨­ ³§¤ ¬¤³§®£®«®¦¸ ¥®± £¤³¤±¬¨­¨­¦ ­®¨²¤ «¤µ¤« ¥±®¬ pa±ª¨­¦ «®³  ¢³¨µ¨³¸ȁ Response to Comment C2-11: The updated Acoustic Report addresses this comment and concern raised by the public. A mathematical analysis has been completed in order to address projections for noise generation in the parking lot. Among the noise sources utilized for simultaneous review were car doors closing, idling engines, cars driving in the parking lot, and voices at a “loud” vocal effort level. The supporting data for the analysis is included in Appendix F of this FEIS. Comment C2-12: 3¤¢³¨®­ ΘȁΕ ±¤¥¤±² ³®  ­ ͗®´³£®®± ²®´­£ ±¤¨­¥®±¢¤¬¤­³ ²¸²³¤¬͗ȁ 4§¨² ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ¢« ±¨¥¨¤£ȁ )­  ££¨³¨®­Ǿ ¢±®¶£ ­®¨²¤ ¨² £´±¨­¦ ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤µ¤­³² ¶ ² ­®³ ¤µ «´ ³¤£ȁ Response to Comment C2-12: Crowd noise during special events was evaluated as part of the DEIS. The FEIS has been revised in order to include amplified sound in addition to crowd noise. 44 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Comment C2–13: 3¤¢³¨®­ ΘȁΕ ±¤¥¤±² ³®   ͗«¨¬¨³¤±͗ ³§ ³ ¢ ­ ¡¤ ´²¤£ ®­ ²®´­£ ²¸²³¤¬² ³® ͗¤­²´±¤ ³§ ³ ³§¤ ±¤²´«³¨­¦ ²®´­£ «¤µ¤«² ¢ ­­®³ ¤·¢¤¤£ ³§¤ «¨¬¨³² ²¤³ ¨­ ³§¤ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£ .®¨²¤ /±£¨­ ­¢¤ ¥®± ¢®¬¬¤±¢¨ « ¬´²¨¢͗ȁ 7¨³§®´³ ¬®±¤ £¤³ ¨«² ®­ ³§¤ £¤µ¨¢¤  ­£ §®¶ ¨³ ¶®±ª²Ǿ ²´¢§   «¨¬¨³¤± ¢ ­­®³ ¡¤  ²²¤²²¤£  ­£ ³§¤±¤¥®±¤ ¨² ¯±®¡«¤¬ ³¨¢ȁ .®¨²¤ «¤µ¤« ¨² §¨¦§«¸ £¤¯¤­£¤­³ ®­ ²¯¤ ª¤± ¯« ¢¤¬¤­³  ­£ ¶§ ³ ¨² ¡¤¨­¦ ³± ­²¬¨³³¤£ȁ ͗-´²¨¢͗ ¨­  ££¨³¨®­ ³® ¢±®¶£ ­®¨²¤ ¢ ­ µ ±¸ ¦±¤ ³«¸ȁ -®±¤ £¤³ ¨« ¨² ±¤°´¨±¤£ ®­ §®¶ ³§¤ ­®¨²¤ «¤µ¤« ¨² ³® ¡¤ ͗²¤³͗ȁ Response to Comment C2-13: See the Response to Comment C2-24 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS. Comment C2–14: )³ ¨² ³§¤ ¢®¬¡¨­¤£ ¨¬¯ ¢³ ®¥ ­®¨²¤ ²®´±¢¤² ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ³§ ³ ¨² ­®³  ««®¶¤£ ³® ¤·¢¤¤£ ³§¤ 4®¶­ .®¨²¤ /±£¨­ ­¢¤ȁ )³ § ² ­®³ ¡¤¤­ ²§®¶­ ³§ ³ ³§¤²¤ ­®¨²¤ ²®´±¢¤² § µ¤ ¢®­²¨²³¤­³ ­®¨²¤ «¤µ¤«²  ­£¬ ¸ ³§¤±¤¥®±¤ ±¤°´¨±¤  £©´²³¬¤­³² ³® ³§¤ «¨¬¨³¤±ȁ 4§¨² ¡±¨­¦² ¨­ ³® \[²¨¢ȭ °´¤²³¨®­ ®¥ ¶§® ¨² ±¤²¯®­²¨¡«¤ ¥®±  £©´²³¨­¦ ³§¤ «¨¬¨³¤±  ­£ ¢§¤¢ª¨­¦ ³§¤ ­®¨²¤ «¤µ¤«  ³ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ «¨­¤ ®¥ ²¤­²¨³¨µ¤ ±¤¢¤¯³®±²ȁ Response to Comment C2-14: See Responses to Comments C1-8 and C1-9, C1-14, and C2-24 in Section 2.3.1, and also Responses to Comments H4-4, H14-3, H14-11, and C2-13 in this section. Comment C2-15: “4§¤ ²¯¤ ª¤± ¤°´¨¯¬¤­³ ²¤«¤¢³¨®­  ­£ « ¸®´³ ¢ ­ ¡¤ ±¤µ¨¤¶¤£ ¡¸  ­  ¢®´²³¨¢ « ¢®­²´«³ ­³ ®­¢¤ ¯±®µ¨£¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ !6 ¢®­²´«³ ­³ȁ” 4§¨² ²³ ³¤¬¤­³ ¨­ 3¤¢³¨®­ ΘȁΕ ¨² ´­¢«¤ ± ®­ ¶§® § ² ³§¤ ¡´±£¤­ ³® £¤¬®­²³± ³¤ ³§¤±¤ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ­® ¨¬¯ ¢³ȁ )³ ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ¬ £¤ ¢«¤ ± ¶§¤³§¤± ³§¤  ¢®´²³¨¢ ¢®­²´«³ ­³ ¨² ¢®­³± ¢³¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ 0±®©¤¢³ ®± ³§¤ 4®¶­ȁ Response to Comment C2-15: The Proposed Action has been modified to prohibit outdoor large events and no outdoor amplified music will be permitted. See also the Responses to Comments C1-8 and C1-9, and Comments H4-4, H14-3 and H14-8. Comment C2–16: 4§¤ 2¤¯®±³ £¨£ ­®³  ££±¤²² ³§¤ ¯®³¤­³¨ « ­®¨²¤ ¨¬¯ ¢³ ®¥ ®³§¤± ¯®³¤­³¨ « ­®¨²¤ ²®´±¢¤² ²´¢§  ²  ­ (6!# system. Response to Comment C2-16: As stated in the Responses to Comments C1-14 and C1-15 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS, although a barrier wall may suffice to prevent a disturbance, a silencer or muffler engineered to meet the Town’s Noise Ordinance, both day and night, will be finalized once the exact make and model numbers are chosen. Also, the HVAC system was addressed in addition to sound levels from indoor events, traffic, pool, cottages, rooftop terrace, and parking lot. As stated in the Responses to C1-18 and C1-15 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS, noise-attenuating enclosures for HVAC equipment would be determined upon review of mechanical equipment and the applicant’s noise consultant (SoundSense) will review all mechanical plans to ensure that the mechanical units meet the Design Maximum Sound Level from Mechanical Equipment with appropriate spacing and mitigation. Comment C2-17: 4§¤ ¨¬¯ ¢³  ²²¤²²¬¤­³ ®¥ 3¯¤¢¨ « %µ¤­³² ¨­ 3¤¢³¨®­ ΘȁΗ ±¤¥¤±² ³®  ­ ͗!µ¤± ¦¤ ²®´­£ «¤µ¤« ²¯¤¢³±  ¥®± ¬ «¤  ­£ ¥¤¬ «¤ ²¯¤ ª¨­¦ µ®¨¢¤²  ³   ± ¨²¤£ µ®¨¢¤ ¤¥¥®±³ «¤µ¤«͗ȁ 4§¤ 2¤¯®±³ ­¤¤£² ³® ¯±¤²¤­³ ³§¤ ±¤¥¤±¤­¢¤ «¤µ¤«  ² ¶¤««  ² ¢¨³¤ ³§¤ ²®´±¢¤. Response to Comment C2-17: The updated Acoustic Report has been modified in order to indicate that the data was published in a study published in May 1977 from the Office of Health and Ecological Effects in the EPA and 45 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ is entitled 3¯¤¤¢§ ,¤µ¤«² ¨­ 6 ±¨®´² .®¨²¤ %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³². The supporting data is included in Appendix F of this FEIS. Comment C2–18: 3¤¢³¨®­ ΘȁΗ  ¦ ¨­ ±¤¥¤±² ³® ³§¤ ´²¤ ®¥   ͗«¨¬¨³¤±͗ ³® «¨¬¨³ ³§¤ ­®¨²¤ ¦¤­¤± ³¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ ²®´­£ ²¸²³¤¬ £´±¨­¦ ³§¤²¤ ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤µ¤­³²ȁ )³ ¨² ´­¢«¤ ± §®¶ ³§¨² «¨¬¨³¤± ¶®´«£ ¶®±ªǾ ¤²¯¤¢¨ ««¸ ¨¥ ®´³²¨£¤ ²®´­£ ¤°´¨¯¬¤­³ ¨² ´²¤£ ± ³§¤± ³§ ­ ³§¤ 0±®©¤¢³͖² ²®´­£ ²¸²³¤¬ȁ Response to Comment C2-18: The Proposed Action has been modified to prohibit outdoor large events and no outdoor amplified music will be permitted. Therefore, the use of auto limiters is no longer being considered for noise mitigation. Comment C2–19: 7§¤­ ²¤³³¨­¦ ³§¤ ͗«¨¬¨³¤±͗Ǿ ³§¤ ­®¨²¤ «¤µ¤« ®¥ ³§¤ ± ¨²¤£ µ®¨¢¤² ¬´²³ ¡¤ ¥ ¢³®±¤£ ¨­ȁ Response to Comment C2-19: The Acoustic Report in Appendix F of this FEIS was revised to analyze crowd noise at a higher vocal effort level. The Acoustic Report has also been revised to account for both crowd noise and amplified sound generation simultaneously. Comment C2-20: )­ £¨²¢´²²¨­¦ ²¯¤ ª¤± ¯« ¢¤¬¤­³Ǿ ­®¨²¤ ¡ ±±¨¤±²Ǿ ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤µ¤­³²Ǿ  ­£ « ­£²¢ ¯¨­¦Ǿ   ²¢ «¤£ £± ¶¨­¦ ¶®´«£ ¡¤ §¤«¯¥´«ȁ Response to Comment C2-20: As the proposed project scope has been modified to relocate all events indoors, this comment is no longer relevant. Comment C2–21: &®± 3¤¢³¨®­ ΙǾ ³§¤ ¬¤³§®£®«®¦¨¤²  ­£ ±¤¥¤±¤­¢¤ ­®¨²¤ «¤µ¤«² ¥®± ³§¤ ¬ ³§¤¬ ³¨¢ « ¢ «¢´« ³¨®­² ¶¤±¤ ­®³ ¯±¤²¤­³¤£ȁ Response to Comment C2-21: The updated Acoustic Report includes the methodologies and reference noise levels. The reference distance for sound pressure levels from speech is 0.4 meter and the methodologies have also been explained in greater detail. The supporting data for the analysis is included in Appendix F of this FEIS. Comment C7-6: 4§¤­ ³§¤±¤͖² ³§¤ ­®¨²¤ ¯®««´³¨®­ȁ 4§¤¸ i­³¤­£ ³® § µ¤ ®´³£®®± ͗²¯¤¢¨ « ¤µ¤­³²͗ȁ 7¤££¨­¦²  ­£ ®³§¤± ¤µ¤­³²Ǿ ¶§¤­ §¤«£ ®´³£®®±²Ǿ ¶¨«« ¢±¤ ³¤  ­®³§¤± 6¨­¤¸ ±£ ΗΛȁ .®¨²¤  ³ ­¨¦§³ ¶¨«« ³± µ¤« ¦±¤ ³ £¨²³ ­¢¤s  ­£ ³§¤±¤  ±¤ ²¤µ¤± « §®¬¤² ¶¨³§¨­ ²§®´³¨­¦ £¨²³ ­¢¤ ®¥ ³§¨² ¯±®¯¤±³¸ȁ 4§¤¸ ² ¸ ­®¨²¤ ¶¨«« ­®³ ¡¤  ´£¨¡«¤ ¡¤¸®­£ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ «¨­¤ȁ (®¶ ¨² ³§ ³ ¯®²²¨¡«¤Ȉ 4§¤ ­®¨²¤ ¥±®¬ 6¨­¤¸ ±£ ΗΛ ±¤²´«³¤£ ¨­ ¢®¬¯« ¨­³² ¥±®¬  «¬®²³ Δ ¬¨«¤  ¶ ¸ȁ Response to Comment C7-6: The proposed project scope has been modified to relocate all events indoors and the potential noise generation from cumulative sources will not exceed 5 dBA over background (No Build) sound levels. Comment C16-10: ! ª¤¸ ¢®­£¨³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ ±¤²®±³ §®³¤« ´²¤ ®­ ³§¨² ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ¨² ³§ ³ ³§¤ §®³¤« ¡¤ ¨­ ´£¨¡«¤  ³ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ «¨­¤ȁ 4§ ³ ¨² ¯« ´²¨¡«¤Ǿ ¤µ¤­ ¶¨³§   ¯®®« ¶¨³§ ¦¤­³«¸  ¬¯«¨¥¨¤£ ¬´²¨¢ ¯®®«²¨£¤Ǿ ¶¨³§ ¯±®¯¤±  ¢®´²³¨¢ £¤²¨¦­  ­£ ­®³ ³®® ¬ ­¸ §´¬ ­²ȁ "´³ ¨³ ¨² ­®³ ¯« ´²¨¡«¤ ¶¨³§  ­ ®´³£®®± ¤µ¤­³ ®¥ ΕΓΓ-ΕΘΓ ¯¤®¯«¤Ǿ ¤µ¤­ ¨¥ ­®³§¨­¦  ¡®´³ ³§¤ ¤µ¤­³ ´²¤£ ¬¨¢±®¯§®­¤² ®± ²¯¤ ª¤±²ȁ 46 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Response to Comment C16-10: As noted in the Response to Comment C7-6 above, the proposed project scope has been modified to relocate all events indoors and the potential noise generation from cumulative sources will not exceed 5 dBA over background (No Build) sound levels. Comment C22-15:$%)3 ­®¨²¤ ¢®­³±®« ¬¨³¨¦ ³¨®­ ¬¤ ²´±¤²  ±¤ ¨­ £¤°´ ³¤ȁ ) §¤ ± ¬¸ ­¤¨¦§¡®±² ¶§¨²¯¤±¨­¦ i­ ³§¤¨± £±¨µ¤¶ ¸ȁ .®³§¨­¦ ³§¤¸ § µ¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£Ǿ ¨­¢«´£¨­¦ ³¤¬¯®± ±¸ ­®¨²¤ ¡ ±±¨¤±²Ǿ ¶¨«« ¤¥¥¤¢³¨µ¤«¸ ¡«®¢ª ¬´²¨¢  ­£ µ®¨¢¤² ¥±®¬ £¨²±´¯³¨­¦ ¬¤ȁ 4§¤ ¤µ¤­³ȝ¶¤££¨­¦ ²¯ ¢¤ ¨² «¨³¤± ««¸ ¨­ ¬¸ ¡ ¢ª¸ ±£ȁ (®¶  ¬ ) ²´¯¯®²¤£ ³® ¬ ¨­³ ¨­ °´ «¨³¸ ®¥ «¨¥¤ ¶§¤­ ³§¤±¤ ¶¨«« ¡¤   « ±¦¤ ¯ ±³¸ § ¯¯¤­¨­¦ ¤µ¤±¸ ¶¤¤ª¤­£Ȉ Response to Comment C22-15:The proposed project scope has been modified to relocate all events indoors and the potential noise generation from cumulative sources willnot exceed 5 dBA over background (No Build) sound levels. Comment C28-5: 7§ ³ ¨² ³§¤ ¯« ­ ³® ¢®­³±®«  ­£ ¤­¥®±¢¤ ³§¤ ³®¶­ ­®¨²¤ ®±£¨­ ­¢e? Response to Comment C28-5: The Acoustic Report indicates that the proposed use will comply with the Town of Southold Noise Ordinance. See also the Responses to Comments H1-5, C1-8 and C1-9 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS. Comment C29–5: 7§ ³ ¨² ³§¤ ¯« ­ ³® ¢®­³±®«  ­£ ¤­¥®±¢¤ ³§¤ ³®¶­ ­®¨²¤ ®±£¨­ ­¢e? Response to Comment C29-5: It is noted that this is the same question as Comment C28-5 above, and is included separately as the comment was submitted under separate correspondence. See Response to Comment C28-5 above. Comment C33-7: )³ ¨² ®´± ´­£¤±²³ ­£¨­¦ ³§ ³  ­¸ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ¨­ ³§¤ ($ £¨²³±¨¢³ ¬´²³ ¢®­¥¨­¤ ­®¨²¤ «¤µ¤«² ³® ³§¤ property «¨­¤  ­£ ³§ ³ ­®³§¨­¦  ´£¨¡«¤ ¬ ¸ ¦® ¡¤¸®­£ ³§ ³ «¨­¤ȁ )³ ©´²³ £®¤² ­®³ ²¤¤¬ ¥¤ ²¨¡«¤ ³§ ³ ­®¨²¤ «¤µ¤«² ¥±®¬ ®´³£®®± ¤µ¤­³² ²´¢§  ² ¶¤££¨­¦² ¶¨³§ ¬´²¨¢  ­£ £ ­¢¨­¦ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¢®­¥¨­¤£ ³® ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ¤µ¤­ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ¯®±³ ¡«¤  ¢®´²³¨¢ ¡ ±±¨¤±² ³§ ³  ±¤ ¡¤¨­¦ ¯±®¯®²¤£ȁ 7§® ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¨­²³ ««¨­¦ȝ¬®µ¨­¦ ³§®²¤ ¡ ±±¨¤±²  ² ­®¨²¤ «¤µ¤«² ¨­¢±¤ ²¤Ȉ 7¨«« ³§¤±¤ ¡¤ ²®¬¤®­¤ ®­-²¨³¤ ¶§® ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¢®­²³ ­³«¸ ¬®­¨³®±¨­¦ ­®¨²¤ «¤µ¤«² ®± ¶¨«« ¨³ ¡¤ ´¯ ³® ­¤¨¦§¡®±² ³® ±¤¯®±³ ­®¨²¤ ³§ ³ ¨² £¨²³´±¡¨­¦ ³§¤¨± ¯¤ ¢¤  ­£ °´¨¤³ ®­   3 ³´±£ ¸ ®± 3´­£ ¸  ¥³¤±­®®­ ®± ¤µ¤­¨­¦Ȉ Response to Comment C33-7: See the Responses to Comments C1-8 and C1-9 in Section 2.3.1, and Response to Comment H1-5 in this section of the FEIS. Comment C34-4: !«« ³§¤ « ­£²¢ ¯¨­¦ ¨­ ³§¤ ¶®±«£ ¶¨«« ­®³ ª¤¤¯ ³§¤ ­®¨²¤ ®¥ ¶¤££¨­¦²  ­£ ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤µ¤­³² ¥±®¬ ¤­¢±® ¢§¨­¦ ®­ ³§¤ ­¤¨¦§¡®±²Ǿ  ­£ ¨­ ¥ ¢³ ³§¤ ¤­³¨±¤ § ¬«¤³ȁ Response to Comment C34-4: The proposed project scope has been modified to relocate all events indoors and the potential noise generation from cumulative sources will not exceed 5 dBA over background (No Build) sound levels. See the Responses to Comments C1-8, C1-9, and C1-19 in Section 2.3.1 and the Responses to Comments C7-6 and C16-10 in this section. Comment C35-6: 3®´­£ ¡ ±±¨¤± – ¥¤­¢¤  ­£ ³±¤¤² ¶¨«« ­®³ ¤ll¨¬ ³¤ Ȭ²¨¢ȭ  ­¸ ­®¨²¤ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ®´³²¨£¤ ¯®®«Ǿ ¬´²¨¢Ǿ ¤µ¤­³²Ǿ ¤³¢ȁ 47 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Response to Comment C35-6: See the Responses to Comments C1-8 and C1-9 in Section 2.3.1 as well as the Responses to Comments C7-6 and C16-10 in this section. Comment C35-9: 0±®¯®²¤£ ΔΕ ¤µ¤­³² ¯¤± ¸¤ ± –¶§¨¢§ ¶¤  «« ª­®¶ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¬ ­¸ ¬®±¤ –¶¤££¨­¦²ȁ ¥´­£ ± ¨²¤±²Ǿ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ¤µ¤­³² ¶¨³§ ¤·¯¤¢³¤£ ΕΓΓ – ΕΘΓ ¦´¤²³² – ­®¨²¤ ¶¨«« ¢¤±³ ¨­«¸ ¤·¢¤¤£ ³§¤ ³®¶­ ­®¨²¤ ¢®£¤ȁ Response to Comment C35-9:The proposed project scope has been modified to relocate all events indoors and the potential noise generation from cumulative sources will not exceed 5 dBA over background (No Build) sound levels. Comment C42-7: ! ²¤¢®­£ «®®ª  ³ ³§¤ ­®¨²¤ ¨¬¯ ¢³Ȁ ®´³£®®± ³¤­³² ¶¨³§ ²®´­£ ²¸²tems. Response to Comment C42-7: The proposed project scope has been modified to relocate all events indoors and the potential noise generation from cumulative sources will not exceed 5 dBA over background (No Build) sound levels. 2.3.4 4± ¥¥¨¢  ­£ Parking Comments related to traffic and parking, and the Traffic Impact Study prepared by Dunn Engineering Associates (“Dunn Engineering”) are addressed in this section of the FEIS. Specifically, the following comments are included: H1-4, H3-3 through H3-7, H5-6, H8-2, H14-13 through H14-18, C1-24 through C1-26, C5-1, C6-2, C7-1, C11-3, C13-1, C15-1, C16-7 through C16-9, C17-3, C20-1, C22-12, C22-13, C22-14, C23-1, C24-7, C25-1, C26-2, C27-5, C28-1, C29-1, C33-5, C33-6, C34-5, C35-10, C36-3, C37-7, C42-1, and C42-6. Comment H1-4: …w§¤­ ) §¤ ±   ¢®¬¬¤­³  ¡®´³ ³§¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ³±¨¯² ³® ³§¤ Κ-%«¤µ¤­  ² ¡¤¨­¦   ±¤«¤µ ­³ ¬¤³±¨¢ ¨³Ȍ² ¯±®¡«¤¬ ³¨¢ ³® ¬¤ ¡¤¢ ´²¤   Κ-%«¤µ¤­ ) ¬¤ ­ ) «¨µ¤ §¤±¤Ǿ ) ¦® ³® Κ-%«¤µ¤­ ¨­ #´³¢§®¦´¤ ®± 3®´³§®«£Ǿ )Ȍ¬ ­®³ ¦¤­¤± ³¨­¦ ³±¨¯² ¡¤¢ ´²¤ ®¥ Κ-%«¤µ¤­ ­¤¢¤²² ±¨«¸  ­¸ ¬®±¤ ³§ ­ ³§¤²¤ ¯¤®¯«¤  ±¤ ¯¤®¯«¤ ¶§®  ±¤ ¢®¬¨­¦ §¤±¤ ³® ¡¤ §¤±¤ȁ 4§®²¤  ±¤ ­¤¶ ¢ ±² £® ¸®´ ª­®¶ ¶§ ³ )Ȍ¬ ² ¸¨­¦Ǿ ¨³Ȍ² £¨¥¥¤±¤­³ȁ 4§¤²¤ ³±¨¯² ³§ ³  ±¤ ¦¤­¤± ³¤£ ¡¸   §®³¤«  ±¤ £¨¥¥¤±¤­³ ³§ ­ ³±¨¯² ¦¤­¤± ³¤£ ¡¸   ¢®­µ¤­¨¤­¢¤ ²³®±¤  ² ³§®´¦§ ¡¤¨­¦ ¬®±¤ ¯¤®¯«¤ȁ Response to Comment H1-4: Based on the Traffic Impact Study, the hotel-based traffic will be new to the area; however, the restaurant-based traffic will depend on residents who live in the area, as it is unlikely that most patrons will travel long distances to a restaurant. It should be noted that there will be interaction between the restaurant and the hotel. The restaurant will draw predominantly from the hotel because of its proximity and the likely unfamiliarity of hotel guests with the surrounding area. Due to the interaction of the hotel and the restaurant on the same site, it is likely that total trip generations for the site will be less than anticipated in the Traffic Impact Study. The large event traffic (i.e., weddings, anniversaries and the like do not meet the definition of “Special Events” under Chapter 205 of the Town Code) is anticipated to be new traffic. It must be noted that large event traffic, while generating higher volumes, will be restricted to 10 large events per year and no more than one per week. Further, arriving traffic will be separated by several hours by departing traffic and both arrivals and departures are likely to occur at off-peak hours when the same can be accommodated readily by existing transportation 48 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ infrastructure. For events held in the off-peak season (late Fall and Winter), the traffic volumes are considerably less and no impacts to the roadways will result. According to the traffic analysis, the restaurant portion of the project is projected to generate more traffic than the hotel portion of the project, with the exception of the weekday AM peak hour and during limited special events. Despite projected new traffic to be generated from the project, the Traffic Impact Study prepared by Dunn Engineering (included in Appendix I of the DEIS with supplemental information included in Appendix E of this FEIS) indicates that the project will have minimal overall impact on traffic in the area of the site. Comment H3-3:4§¤ ®³§¤± ¨²²´¤ ¨² ³§¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ³§ ³ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¦¤­¤± ³¤£ȁ )­ ³§¤ #®¬¯±¤§¤­²¨µ¤ 0« ­ ³§¤ ¯¤®¯«¤ ¶§® «¨µ¤ ¨­ 3®´³§®«£ § ¬«¤³ ¤·¯±¤²²   ¦±¤ ³ £¤²¨±¤ ¥®± ³§¤ ³®¶­ ³® ²®¬¤§®¶ £¨µ¤±³ ³±´¢ª ³± ¥¥¨¢ ³® 2³ȁ ΗΛȁ ) ³§¨­ª ³§ ³ ³§¨² ¢®¬¯«¤· ¶¨««  ££ ²®¬¤ ³±´¢ª ³± ¥¥¨¢ ®­   ¶¤¤ª«¸ ¡ ²¨²  ­£ ¬ ¸¡¤ ¤µ¤­   £ ¨«¸ ¡ ²¨² ³® ²¤±µ¨¢¤ ³§¤ ±¤²³ ´± ­³ ¶§¨¢§ ¨² ­®³ ¦±¤ ³ȁ Response to Comment H3-3: The proposed development is not expected to substantially increase truck traffic on Main Road. Most of the vendors supplying the restaurant are vendors that already serve other restaurants and are expected to be traveling on Main Road. A smaller number of other vendors that are just supplying the restaurant or hotel will use County Road 48 and drop down to Main Road at Youngs Avenue. They will return using the same route. As the use of County Road 48 is quicker than Main Road, trucks will use County Road 48, unless they are making other deliveries on Main Road. Comment H3-4: …) ³§¨­ª ³§ ³ ³§¤ ¤·¨³ ¡¤¨­¦ ±¨¦§³  ¢±®²² ³§¤ ²³±¤¤³ ¥±®¬ ³§¤ 7-%«¤µ¤­ ¨² ¦®¨­¦ ³® ¡¤   ±¤ ««¸ §´¦¤ ¯±®¡«¤¬ ) ¯ ³±®­¨¹¤   «®³ ®¥ ³§¤ ¡´²¨­¤²²¤² ©´²³ ¶¤²³ ®¥ ³§¨² ²¨³¤  ­£ ) ¢ ­ ³¤«« ¸®´ )Ȍµ¤ § £ ­´¬¤±®´² ­¤ ± ¬¨²²¤² ¶¨³§ ¯¤®¯«¤ ¢®¬¨­¦ ¨­  ­£ ®´³ ®¥ ³§¤ Κ-%«¤µ¤­ ¶§¨¢§ ®¥³¤­ £®¤² ­®³ § µ¤ ¤­®´¦§ ¯ ±ª¨­¦ ²¯ ¢¤² ¥®± ³§ ³ ²³®±¤ȁ 3® ³§ ³Ȍ² ¦®¨­¦ ³® ¡¤   ¡¨¦ ¨²²´¤  ­£ ) ³§¨­ª ³§ ³ ³§¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ²³´£¸ ¬ ¸ ­®³ § µ¤ ¢ ´¦§³ ³§ ³ȁ Response to Comment H3-4: The proposed site exit driveway is aligned directly across from the 7-Eleven driveway and is the preferred alignment typically used by Town, County and State authorities. These authorities have found that it is better to align busy driveways rather than creating offset driveways. The analysis of the 7-Eleven driveway and site driveway conducted for the Traffic Impact Study (see Appendix I of the DEIS) considered the two driveways opposite each other on Main Road as a four-legged intersection. Therefore, the Traffic Impact Study fully considered how these driveways will operate together. Comment H3-5: … the ³± ¥¥¨¢ ²³´£¸ ¶ ² £®­¤ ¨­ *´«¸ ®¥ ΕΓΔΛ  ­£ ³§ ³ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ²³´£¸ ¢®­²¨²³¤£ ¨¥ ) ±¤ £ ¨³ ±¨¦§³Ǿ ¬ ­´ « ³´±­¨­¦ ¬®µ¤¬¤­³ ¢®´­³² ¶§¨¢§ ¨² ¥¨­¤ ¡´³   «®³ ®¥ ³§¤ ®³§¤± £ ³  ¨­¢«´£¤£ ±¤¯®±³² ¥±®¬ ΕΓΔΘ ³® ΕΓΔΚ ­®³ ΕΓΔΜȁ 3® ) ¶®´«£ ´±¦¤ ³§ ³ ¬ ¸¡¤   ³± ¥¥¨¢ ²³´£¸ ¡¤ £®­¤ ¨­ !´¦´²³ ¶§¤­ ³§¤±¤Ȍ² ¬®±¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ȁ Response to Comment H3-5: As noted in the Traffic Impact Study, the turning movement counts were taken in July of 2018. These counts were supplemented by additional count data available from the New York State Department of Transportation. The supplemental data provides seven day counts and yearly count data helps identify peak hours and yearly, monthly, and daily trends. While August appears to generate slightly higher volumes then July, the increase is only two percent. Typically, traffic impact studies would be conducted utilizing annual average traffic volumes rather than peak summer conditions. At the request of the Town, and as indicated in the Final Scope for the DEIS, summer (July) counts were used. 49 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Comment H3-6:4§¤ ¢®­¢«´²¨®­ ³§ ³ ³§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³ ¬ £¤ ®µ¤± «« ¨² ³§ ³ ³§¤±¤ ¶®´«£ ¡¤ ­® ´­£´¤ ¨­¢±¤ ²¤ ¨­  ¢¢¨£¤­³² ®­ ³§¤ - ¨­ 2£ȁ ) § ±£«¸ £¨² ¦±¤¤ ¶¨³§ ³§ ³ȁ ) ³§¨­ª ³§ ³Ȍ² ¨¬¯®²²¨¡«¤ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ²¨¹¤ ®¥ ³§¨² ¯±®©¤¢³  ­£ ¨¥ ¸®´ ¥¨¦´±¤ ¨­ ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤µ¤­³² ®­ ¶¤¤ª¤­£² ) ¬¤ ­  «±¤ £¸ ¨¥ ) ¦® ³® ³§¤ 3®´³§®«£ )'! ®­   3 ³´±£ ¸ ®± 3´­£ ¸ ¨­ ³§¤ ²´¬¬¤±³¨¬¤ ) ¢®´«£ ¡¤ ¶ ¨³¨­¦ ¯ ²³ ³§¤ Κ-%«¤µ¤­ ¥®± ³± ¥¥¨¢ ³® ¬®µ¤Ȃ) ³§¨­ª ¶¤ § µ¤ ³® ³§¨­ª µ¤±¸ ²¤±¨®´²«¸  ¡®´³ ¯´³³¨­¦   ¯±®©¤¢³ ¨­ ³§¨² «®¢ ³¨®­  ³ ³§¨² £¤­²¨³¸ȁ %¨¦§³ ³® ³¶¤«µ¤ ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤µ¤­³²  ­£ ³§¤ ¯ ±ª¨­¦ ) § µ¤ ¨²²´¤² ¶¨³§ ³§ ³ȁ Response to Comment H3-6: The conclusion in the Traffic Impact Study that projected that there would be no undue increase in traffic accidents was based on an analysis of the existing accident history and the results of the roadway capacity analysis that was conducted by Dunn Engineering, indicating that there will be minimal traffic impact due to the construction and operation of the project. There is no basis to conclude there will be an increase in traffic accidents in the vicinity of the project, if approved. As with any new unsignalized driveway on a major roadway, there is a potential that new accidents would occur. The same can be said for any new driveway placed on a roadway, but the potential for new accidents is no greater than the potential for accidents at any existing driveway along the same road. The proper design of the new driveway intersection is key to minimizing any accident potential. Access to the site has been split to have a separate entrance and exit to minimize conflicting movements, which will be located directly opposite the Seven-Eleven driveway, and not offset to it, to minimize potential conflicts. Key to the safe operation of all unsignalized intersections is adequate sight distance. Sight distance at the exit driveway is maximized to provide the safest possible operation. Based on the safe design of the access and the relatively minor impact on traffic, as shown in the Traffic Impact Study, there will be no undue increase in accidents. The proposed project will generate 46 trips during the Saturday peak hours of traffic, and this represents a less than four (4) percent increase in traffic on Route 25 in front of the site. The traffic generating density of the project is substantially less than some existing uses in its vicinity. Large events will draw more traffic no more than 10 times between mid-April and mid-October (should the applicant elect to host all large events during the peak season). Also, arrivals to and departures from the site for special events will be separated by the hours the special event is held. Departures from the special event are likely to occur after 4:00 PM, even if the event starts at 1:00 PM. Many of the special events will start after 4:00 PM and with the event ending at 11:00 PM, it is likely that much of the event traffic will not impact the Saturday afternoon peak traffic hours and will occur off-peak when it can be readily accommodated. Additionally, during preparation of this FEIS, the traffic consultants to the ZBA identified a threshold for required traffic control for large events of 100 patrons. Accordingly, for events greater than 100 patrons, the applicant will be required to hire traffic control to guide safe movements to and from the site. Comment H3-7: …the applicant ³ «ª² ¨­ ³§¤ $%)3  ¡®´³ ¸®´ ª­®¶ ¬®²³ µ¨²¨³®±² ¶®´«£ ¯±®¡ ¡«¸ ¶ «ª ³® ³§¤ § ¬«¤³ ³® ´²¤ ³§¤ ¡´²¨­¤²²¤²Ǿ ) £®­Ȍ³ ³§¨­ª ³§ ³Ȍ² ¦®¨­¦ ³® § ¯¯¤­ȁ ) ³§¨­ª ¯¤®¯«¤  ±¤ ¦®¨­¦ ³® ¡¤ £±¨µ¨­¦ȁ 4§¤±¤Ȍ² ¦®¨­¦ ³® ¡¤   «®³ ¬®±¤ ¨­  ­£ ®´³ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¥±®¬ ³§¨² §®³¤« ³§ ­ ³§¤¸ ¤·¯¤¢³ȁ Response to Comment H3-7: The trip generation analysis did not rely on any reduction due to patrons walking off site to lower the estimates of traffic and instead relieved on studies of similar uses published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 50 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Comment H5-6: 4± ¥¥¨¢ ¨­¢±¤ ²¤Ǿ ­®¶ during ³§¤ ²´¬¬¤±  ­£ ¥ ««ȁ )³ ¢ ­ ³ ª¤  ­¸¶§¤±¤ ¥±®¬ ¥¨¥³¤¤­ ³® ³¶¤­³¸ ¬¨­´³¤² ³® ¦¤³ ®´³ ®¥ ®´± £±¨µ¤¶ ¸ȁ Response to Comment H5-6: Most of the traffic generated by the proposed project will use Main Road. However, when disbursed on to Main Road by direction and arriving and departing movements,the small amount of traffic that is projected to be added to the traffic stream will not be noticeable. Traffic associated with large events will be noticeable but should not unduly impact traffic traversing Main Road (Route 25). Large events have been restricted by the ZBA, as Lead Agency, to no more than 10 per year and no more than one per week. Arrivals to the event will be separated by at least several hours up to four or five hours from entering traffic lessening the impact of the event. Based upon the traffic data provided, peak arrivals and departures are likely to occur over less than one hour. It is expected that peak arrivals would occur over a one- half hour period with some of the event participants arriving before the one-half hour peak period and some later. Further, the nature of the events, with valet parking to be provided, will effectively stagger the exiting traffic as attendees await valet attendants to deliver their cars. The expected traffic from a wedding or similar event would occur for two half hour periods, 10 days per year. This is not considered significant and, thus, no adverse impacts are expected to occur. Comment H8-2: Thi² ¨²  «±¤ £¸ µ¤±¸ ´­¢®¬¥®±³ ¡«¤ ³® ¡¤ ¨­ 3®´³§®«£ ¨­ ³§¤ ²´¬¬¤± ¬®­³§² ¡¤¢ ´²¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ȁ 4§¨² ¨² ®­«¸ ¦®¨­¦ ³® ¬ ª¤ ¨³ ¬´¢§ ¶®±²¤ȁ 7§ ³ ) ¶®´«£ ² ¸ ¨² ³§ ³ ) £¨£­Ȍ³ ¬®µ¤ here ³® 3®´³§®«£ ³® ¤­£ ´¯ ¡¤¨­¦ ¨­ (´­³¨­¦³®­, ¶§¤±¤ ) ¢ ¬¤ ¥±®¬  ­£ ³§ ³Ȍ² ¶§ ³ ²¤¤¬² ³® ¡¤ § ¯¯¤­¨­¦ §¤±¤ȁ 7¤ £®­Ȍ³ ­¤¤£ ³§¨² §´¦¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ȁ ) £®­Ȍ³ ­¤¢¤²² ±¨«¸ £¨² ¦±¤¤ ¶¨³§   ²¬ «« §®³¤« ¡´³ ³§¨² ¨²   ¬ ²²¨µ¤ §®³¤«ȁ )³Ȍ² ¦®¨­¦ ³® ¡±¨­¦   §´¦¤  ¬®´­³ ®¥ ¯¤®¯«¤ȁ Response to Comment H8-2: The proposed project consists of a restaurant and hotel on a single site. The restaurant will have 74 seats and generate 15 entering trips and 10 exiting trips during the Saturday peak hours of traffic, according to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). By most standards, the restaurant can be considered small-to-moderate in size. The hotel will have 44 units and is also small in comparison to most hotels. The hotel is anticipated to generate 11 entering and 10 exiting trips during the Saturday peak hours of traffic. The combined entering and exiting traffic of the site during the Saturday peak hours is 46 trips and represents a less than four (4) percent increase in traffic on Route 25. As noted in the Response to Comment H3-6 above, the revised traffic analysis indicates that incoming traffic can be readily accommodated. The traffic analysis of exiting traffic from large events indicates that delays can occur for traffic exiting the site. The analysis does not indicate that there will be an undesirable impact on Route 25; however, traffic exiting the site may encounter undesirable delays when exiting during peak traffic hours and may need assistance. Assistance consists of a traffic control officer to aid traffic exiting for a short period of time, which will be required for large events held at the hotel. Comment H14-13: …d´±¨­¦ ²¯¤¢¨ « \[events\] ¨³ ¨² ¤²³¨¬ ³¤£ ΘΘ µ¤§¨¢«¤² ¶¨«« ¬ ª¤  ­ ¤ ²³¡®´­£ «¤¥³ ³´±­ ¨­³® ³§¤ ²¨³¤ £´±¨­¦ 3 ³´±£ ¸ ¯¤ ª §®´±  ¦ ¨­²³  ­ ¤²³¨¬ ³¤£ ΙΔΕ ¶¤²³¡®´­£ ³§±®´¦§ µ¤§¨¢«¤²ȁ !² - ¨­ 2£ȁ ¨² ®­¤ « ­¤ ¨­ ¤ ¢§ £¨±¤¢³¨®­Ǿ ¤ ²³¡®´­£ «¤¥³ ³´±­ µ¤§¨¢«¤² ¶¨«« § µ¤ ³® ¶ ¨³ ¥®±   ²´¨³ ¡«¤ ¦ ¯ ¨­ ³§¤ ¶¤²³¡®´­£ £¨±¤¢³¨®­ ³® ² ¥¤«¸ ¢®¬¯«¤³¤ ³§¤ «¤¥³ ³´±­ȁ 4§¤²¤ «¤¥³ ³´±­¨­¦ µ¤§¨¢«¤² ¶¨«« ¡«®¢ª ³§¤ ¤ ²³¡®´­£ ³§±®´¦§ µ¤§¨¢«¤² ¢±¤ ³¨­¦ °´¤´¤² ®­ - ¨­ 2£ȁ ( ² ³§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³ ¬¤ ²´±¤£ ¦ ¯² ¨­ ®­¢®¬¨­¦ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ³® ¤­²´±¤ ²´¥¥¨¢¨¤­³ ¦ ¯² ¤·¨²³ ¨­ ³§¤ ¶¤²³¡®´­£ - ¨­ 2£ȁ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ²³±¤ ¬ ³®  ««®¶ ¤ ²³¡®´­£ «¤¥³ ³´±­ µ¤§¨¢«¤² ³® ² ¥¤«¸  ¢¢¤²² ³§¤ ²¨³¤Ȉ 51 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Response to Comment H14-13: An examination of the Highway Capacity Analysis at the site entrance on Main Road indicates that, during special events, the projected 55 vehicles wishing to make a left turn into the site will find adequate gaps in the 612 westbound vehicles (in the peak hour). The movement has a calculated Level of Service of “A” with an average control delay of less than 10 seconds. It should be recognized that the Capacity Analysis methodology calculates the available gaps that will occur in traffic based on the volume and several other factors. Comment H14-14: $´±¨­¦ ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤µ¤­³²  ¡®´³ ΜΔ µ¤§¨¢«¤² ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¤·¨³¨­¦ ³§¤ ²¨³¤ £´±¨­¦ ³§¤ 3 ³´±£ ¸ ¯¤ ª §®´±ȁ !² ³§¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ²§®¶ed ³§¤ ¤ ²³¡®´­£  ¯¯±® ¢§ ¶¨«« ®¯¤± ³¤  ³ ,/3 & Ȩ³§¤ ¶®±²³ «¤µ¤«ȩ ¶¨³§  ­³¨¢¨¯ ³¤£ «®­¦ °´¤´¤² ¨­ ³§¤ ²¨³¤ £±¨µ¤¶ ¸ȁ 4§¤²¤ «®­¦ °´¤´¤² ¶¨«« ¢±¤ ³¤ ®­-²¨³¤ ¢¨±¢´« ³¨®­ ¨²²´¤²  ­£ £¨¥¥¨¢´«³¸ ¥®± ¯ ³±®­² ³® «¤ µ¤ ³§¤¨± ¯ ±ª¨­¦ ²¯ ¢¤²ȁ 7§ ³ ³¸¯¤² ®¥ ¬¨³¨¦ ³¨®­ ¨² ¯±®¯®²¤£ ³®  ££±¤²² ¡®³§ £¤« ¸² £´¤ ³® °´¤´¨­¦ ®­ - ¨­ 2£ȁ  ­£ ®­- ²¨³¤ ¢¨±¢´« ³¨®­Ȉ Response to Comment H14-14: The results of the initial analysis in the Traffic Impact Study indicated that special event traffic can be accommodated on site without causing circulation issues. The analysis was based on the assumption that departures will occur over a one-half hour period. As requested by the Town, the analysis was reevaluated based on the assumption that all departures will occur over a one-half hour period. Under this assumption there can be potential circulation issues on the site. In order to overcome potential issues, traffic control measures for large events will be employed by the applicant, which will consist of hiring traffic control to guide safe movements to and from the site. Comment H14-15: …s¯¤¢¨ « ¤µ¤­³  ­ «¸²¨² ²§®¶² ³§ ³ ³§¤  ­ «¸¹¤£ ¨­³¤±²¤¢³¨®­²  ±¤ ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³«¸ ¨¬¯ ¢³¤£ȁ (®¶¤µ¤±Ǿ ­® ¬¨³¨¦ ³¨®­ ¬¤ ²´±¤²  ±¤ ±¤¢®¬¬¤­£¤£ȁ 7§ ³ ¨² ¯±®¯®²¤£ ³®  ££±¤²² ¨¬¯ ¢³²  ³ ­¤ ±¡¸ ¨­³¤±²¤¢³¨®­²Ȉ Response to Comment H14-15: The Traffic Impact Study did not indicate that the intersections analyzed were significantly impacted. Rather, as fully discussed in the Study, there were decreases in levels of service for northbound Locust Lane and the northbound 7-Eleven driveway only. At the Locust Lane northbound approach, the Level of Service went from LOS “E” to LOS “F” while the control delay went from 45.3 seconds to 57.9 seconds. At the northbound approach at the 7-Eleven Driveway, the Level of Service went from LOS “D” to LOS “E” while the control delay went from 29.2 seconds to 38.4 seconds. At the Southbound Boisseau Avenue approach, the LOS “F” remained in both the No-Build and Build condition, with the control delay increasing from 63.4 seconds to 89.5 seconds. These impacts will last for no more than a half hour as event arrivals and departures occurred. Also, while event arrivals may occur during the Saturday afternoon peak hours, departures are more likely to occur later than the Saturday afternoon peak hours where impacts will be minimal. It must be further understood that these impacts would only occur a maximum of 10 days in between mid-April and mid-October as the number of large events will be restricted to 10 per year and no more than one per week. The impacts will only occur for a period of approximately an hour while patrons of the event leave the subject site. Anticipated traffic for large events were analyzed assuming the peak arrivals and departures occurred at the same time during the peak hour of Saturday traffic. Special event traffic arrivals and departures will be separated by at least several hours with up to four or five hours of separation. Only one arrival and departure occurrence will happen during the peak hour of Saturday traffic. For instance, if the event is held at 4:00 PM, arrivals will not coincide with peak Saturday traffic (i.e., between 12:00 pm and 4:00 pm) and departures will occur during the lighter evening traffic period. If held at 1:00 pm, arrivals may occur during peak Saturday 52 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ traffic, but departures will not. The remainder of the events would be held at time of reduced traffic volumes. So, while the increase in delay from 63.4 second to 89.5 seconds on the southbound approach for Boisseau Avenue, as shown by the analysis, is significant, it is also overstated. The added delay on the southbound approach to Boisseau Avenue will occur only during events and will occur substantially less frequently for short periods of approximately one-half hour in length. Other than traffic control, additional mitigation is not required. Comment H14-16: # ±² ±¤¦´« ±«¸ ¯´«« ¨­  ­£ ®´³ ®¥ ³§¤ Κ-%«¤µ¤­ ²³®±¤ ¶§¨¢§ ¨²  ¢±®²² ³§¤ ²³±¤¤³  ² ¶¤««  ² ®³§¤± ­¤ ±¡¸ ¡´²¨­¤²²¤²ȁ )¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¯±®©¤¢³ ¨² ¢ ´²¨­¦ µ¤§¨¢«¤² ³® °´¤´¤ ®­ - ¨­ 2£ȁ ¢ ±² ¬ ¸ ¡¤ ¡«®¢ª¤£ ¥±®¬ ¤­³¤±¨­¦  ­£ ¤·¨³¨­¦ ³§¤²¤ ¡´²¨­¤²²¤²ȁ ( ² ³§¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢  ²²¤²²¬¤­³ ¢®­²¨£¤±¤£  ­³¨¢¨¯ ³¤£ °´¤´¤ «¤­¦³§²  ­£ §®¶ ³§¤¸ ¬ ¸ ¨¬¯ ¢³ ­¤ ±¡¸ ²¨³¤ £±¨µ¤¶ ¸ «®¢ ³¨®­²Ȉ 4§¤ ¢´¬´« ³¨µ¤ ¤¥¥¤¢³² ®¥ ³§¨² ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¶¨³§ ³§¤²¤ ¡´²¨­¤²²¤² ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ¢®­²¨£¤±¤£ ³® ¤­²´±¤ ¯´¡«¨¢ ² ¥¤³¸  ­£ ³® ¬¨­¨¬¨¹¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¢®­¦¤²³¨®­ȁ Response to Comment H14-16: The analysis conducted for the Traffic Impact Study considered vehicle queuing and the anticipated queue for each movement is calculated. It is shown on each analysis printout. The predicted queue length provided by the analyses has been added to the Capacity Analysis Summary Tables A thru F (see Appendix E of this FEIS). Based on a review of the Summary Tables, it is readily apparent that queuing at the analysis intersections will not be an issue. Comment H14-17: 3¨­¢¤ ®µ¤±¥«®¶ ¯ ±ª¨­¦ ¨² ¡¤¨­¦ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ µ¨¢¨­¨³¸ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ±¤²³ ´± ­³ ¶§¨¢§ ¨²  ­³¨¢¨¯ ³¤£ ³® ¡¤ ®¢¢ ²¨®­ ««¸ ´²¤£ ¡¸ §®³¤« ¦´¤²³\[s\]  ­£ £´±¨­¦ ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤µ¤­³²Ǿ ¯¤£¤²³±¨ ­ ¶ «ª¶ ¸²ȝ²¨£¤¶ «ª shou«£ ¡¤ ¯±®µ¨£¤£ ³® ¢®­­¤¢³ ³§¤²¤ ³¶®  ±¤ ²  ­£ ¯±®µ¨£¤ ² ¥¤  ­£ ¢®­µ¤­¨¤­³  ¢¢¤²². Response to Comment H14-17: It is anticipated that all parking for special events will be accommodated on site. A pathway has been added to the proposed site plan for safe pedestrian circulation. Comment H14-18: …t§¤ ¯« ­² ¨­µ®«µ¤ ³§¤ ¤«¨¬¨­ ³¨®­ ®¥ ²®¬¤ ®­-²³±¤¤³ ¯ ±ª¨­¦ ¨­ ¥±®­³ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ³® ¥ ¢¨«¨³ ³¤  ¢¢¤²²  ­£ ¤¦±¤²² ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ²¨³¤ȁ (®¶ ¬ ­¸ ²¯ ¢¤² ¶¨«« ¡¤ «®²³Ȉ 7¨«« ³§¨²  £µ¤±²¤«¸  ¥¥¤¢³ ³§¤ ¯ ±ª¨­¦ ²´¯¯«¸ ¥®± ³§¤ ®³§¤± ¡´²¨­¤²²¤² ¨­ ³§¤  ±¤ Ȉ Response to Comment H14-18: As indicated in the Response to C1-12 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS, it is anticipated that approximately seven (7) parking spaces will be lost in front of the site in order to maximize sight distance for the site exit driveway. The residential homes located to the east of the site should not be impacted and the commercial uses to the west of the site appear to have adequate on-site parking supply. The one site that may benefit from the on-street parking in front of the subject property is the 7 -Eleven across Main Road. The 7-Eleven has the required on-site parking and utilizing on-street parking on the north side of Main Road encourages pedestrians crossing the street. While maximizing sight distance for the subject site exit is ideal, there is the potential to provide for some on-street parking on the north side of Main Street, if necessary. Comment C1-24: $´±¨­¦ 3¯¤¢¨ « %µ¤­³²Ǿ ¨³ ¨² ¤²³¨¬ ³¤£ ³§ ³ £´±¨­¦ ³§¤ 3 ³´±£ ¸ 0¤ ª §®´±Ǿ ΘΘ µ¤§¨¢«¤² ¶¨«« ¬ ª¤  ­ ¤ ²³¡®´­£ «¤¥³ ³´rn ¨­³® ³§¤ ²¨³¤ ¦®¨­¦  ¦ ¨­²³ ΙΔΕ ¶¤²³¡®´­£ ³§±®´¦§ µ¤§¨¢«¤²ȁ "¤¨­¦ ³§ ³ - ¨­ 2® £ ¨² ®­¤ « ­¤ ¨­ ¤ ¢§ £¨±¤¢³¨®­Ǿ ¤ ²³¡®´­£ «¤¥³ ³´rn µ¤§¨¢«¤² ¶¨«« § µ¤ ³® ¶ ¨³ ¥®±   ²´¨³ ¡«¤ ¦ ¯ ¨­ ³§¤ ¶¤²³¡®´­£ £¨±¤¢³¨®­ ³® ² ¥¤«¸ ¢®¬¯«¤³¤ ³§¤ «¤¥³ ³´rnȁ 4§¤²¤ «¤¥³ ³´±­ µ¤§¨¢«¤² ¶¨«« ¡«®¢ª ³§¤ ¤ ²³¡®´­£ ³§±®´¦§ µ¤§¨¢«¤² ¢±¤ ³¨­¦ «®­¦ °´¤´¤² ®­ - ¨­ 2® £ȁ ! ¦ ¯ ²³´£¸ ­¤¤£² ³® ¡¤ ¢®­£´¢³¤£ ³® ¤­²´±¤ ²´¥¥¨¢¨¤­³ ¦ ¯² ¤·¨²³ ¨­ ³§¤ ¶¤²³¡®´­£ - ¨­ 2® £ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ²³±¤ ¬ ³®  ««®¶ ¤ ²³¡®´­£ «¤¥³ ³´±­ µ¤§¨¢«¤² ³® ² ¥¤«¸  ¢¢¤²² ³§¤ ²¨³¤ȁ 53 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Response to Comment C1-24: An examination of the Highway Capacity Analysis of the site entrance on Main Road indicates that, during special events, the projected 55 vehicles (in the Saturday Peak hour) wishing to make a left turn into the site will find adequate gaps in the 612 westbound vehicles (in the same peak hour). The movement has a calculated Level of Service of “A” with an average control delay of less than 10 seconds. It should be recognized that the Capacity Analysis methodology calculates the available gaps that will occur in traffic based on the volume and several other factors. Note also that the anticipated queue for left turning vehicles during special event arrivals is less than one vehicle with a confidence of 95 percent. In addition, parking is prohibited on the south side of Main Road in the vicinity of the entrance driveway and back to the west to Locust Lane. With the shoulder available, eastbound vehicles may pass the stopped vehicles waiting to make a left turn in the shoulder. Also see the Response to Comment C1-26 below in this section. Notwithstanding the above, a Gap analysis was performed on October 24, 2020 by Stonefield Engineering & Design (see Appendix E of this FEIS). According to the GAP study results, which summarize the total hourly volume of gaps during the middle of the day on October 24, 2020 for left and right turns out of the potential future driveway on the north side of Main Road, indicates that there is no evidence of stop and go traffic. The GAP study demonstrated that both east and westbound traffic flows well, unabated through the area, which is consistent with the Dunn Engineering TIS. Comment C1-25: # ±² ±¤¦´« ±«¸ ¯´«« ¨­  ­£ ®´³ ®¥ ³§¤ 7-%«¤µ¤­ ²³®±¤Ǿ ¶§¨¢§ ¨²  ¢±®²² ³§¤ ²³±¤¤³Ǿ  ² ¶¤l«  ² ®³§¤± ­¤ ±¡¸ ¡´²¨­¤²²¤²ȁ )¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¯±®©¤¢³ ¨² ¢ ´²¨­¦ µ¤§¨¢«¤² ³® °´¤´¤ ®­ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ¢ ±² ¬ ¸ ¡¤ ¡«®¢ª¤£ ¥±®¬ ¤­³¤±¨­¦ȝ¤·¨³¨­¦ ³§¤²¤ ¡´²¨­¤²²¤²ȁ ( ² ³§¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢  ²²¤²²¬¤­³ ¢®­²¨£¤±¤£  ­³¨¢¨¯ ³¤£ °´¤´¤ «¤­¦³§²  ­£ §®¶ ³§¤¸ ¬ ¸ ¨¬¯ ¢³ ­¤ ±¡¸ ²¨³¤ £±¨µ¤¶ ¸ «®¢ ³¨®­²Ȉ 4§¤ ¢´¬´« ³¨µ¤ ¤¥¥¤¢³² ®¥ ³§¨² ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¶¨³§ ³§¤²¤ ¡´²¨­¤²²¤² ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ¢®­²¨£¤±¤£ ³® ¤­²´±¤ ¯´¡«¨¢ ² ¥¤³¸  ­£ ³® ¬¨­¨¬¨¹¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¢®­¦¤²³¨®­ȁ Response to Comment C1-25: The analysis conducted for the Traffic Impact Study considered vehicle queuing and the anticipated queue for each movement is calculated and shown on each capacity analysis printout. The predicted queue length provided by the analyses has been added to the Capacity Analysis Summary Tables A thru F. The revised tables with the queue lengths provided are included in Appendix E of this FEIS. Based on a review of the Summary Tables, it is readily apparent that queuing at the analysis intersections will not be an issue. See also the Response to Comment C1-24 above and C1-26 below. Comment C1-26: 4§¤ 3¯¤¢¨ « %µ¤­³  ­ «¸²¤²  «²® ²§®¶ ³§ ³ ³§¤  ­ «¸¹¤£ ¨­³¤±²¤¢³¨®­²  ±¤ ¨¬¯ ¢³¤£Ǿ ±¤²´«³¨­¦ ¨­ c§ ­¦¤² ³® «¤µ¤« ®¥ ²¤±µ¨¢¤ȁ (®¶¤µ¤±Ǿ ­® ¬¨³¨¦ ³¨®­ ¬¤ ²´±¤²  ±¤ ±¤¢®¬¬¤­£¤£ȁ 4§¤ ¤·¨³ ®¥ ³§¤ ²¨³¤ ²§®¶² ³§ ³  ¯¯±®·¨¬ ³¤«¸ ΜΔ µ¤§¨¢«¤² ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¤·¨³¨­¦ ³§¤ ²¨³¤ £´±¨­¦ ³§¤ 3 ³´±£ ¸ ¯¤ ª §®´±ȁ !² ³§¤  ­ «¸²¤² ²§®¶Ǿ ³§¤ ²®´³§¡®´­£  ¯¯±® ¢§ ¶¨«« ®¯¤± ³¤  ³ ,/3 & ¶¨³§  ­³¨¢¨¯ ³¤£ «®­¦ °´¤´¤² ¨­ ³§¤ ²¨³¤ £±¨µ¤¶ ¸ȁ 4§¤²¤ «®­¦ °´¤´¤² ¶¨«« ¢±¤ ³¤ ®­-²¨³¤ ¢¨±¢´« ³¨®­ ¨²²´¤²  ­£ £¨¥¥¨¢´«³¸ ¥®± ¯ ³±®­² ³® «¤ µ¤ ³§¤¨± ¯ ±ª¨­¦ ²¯ ¢¤²ȁ (®¶ £®¤² ³§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³ ¨­³¤­£ ³® ¬ ­ ¦¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ £´±¨­¦ ³§¤²¤ 3¯¤¢¨ « %µ¤­³² ³® ¬¨³¨¦ ³¤ ¨¬¯ ¢³² ³®  ±¤  ³± ¥¥¨¢  ­£ ®­-²¨³¤ ¢¨±¢´« ³¨®­Ȉ Response to Comment C1-26: See the Response to Comment H14-14. Comment C5-1: 4± ¥¥¨¢ ®­ 2®´³¤ ΕΘȀ ,¨µ¨­¦ ®¥¥ 4®¶­ ( ±¡®± , ­¤Ǿ )  ¬ ¬®²³ ¢®­¢¤±­¤£ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ¨­¢±¤ ²¤ ¨­ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ³§ ³ ³§¨² £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ¨² ¦®¨­¦ ³® ¡±¨­¦ ³®   ²¤¢³¨®­ ®¥ 2®´³¤ ΕΘ ¶§¨¢§ ¨²  «±¤ £¸   ¡®³³«¤-­¤¢ªȁ #®­²¨£¤±¨­¦ ³§¤ ­®±¬ « ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¨­ ²¤ ²®­Ǿ ¯«´² ³±´¢ª² ¯ ±ª¤£ ®­ ¤¨³§¤± ²¨£¤ ®¥ ΕΘ ®¡²³±´¢³¨­¦ µ¨²¨®­ Ȩ£±¨µ¤±² ±´­­¨­¦ ¨­³® ΚȝΔΔȩǾ ¨³ ¨² £¨¥¥¨¢´«³ ³® ¬ ª¤   «¤¥³ ³´±­ ­®¶ȁ !££¨­¦ ΔΓΓ ¢ ±² ¬ ª¨­¦   «¤¥³ § ­£ ¨­³® 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤ ®¯¯®²¨³¤ ¢ ±² ³±¸¨­¦ ³® 54 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ¬ ª¤   «¤¥³ ¡ ­£ ³´±­ ¥±®¬ 4®¶­ ( ±¡®± , ­¤ ¶¨³§ §¤ µ¸ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¢®¬¨­¦ ¥±®¬ ³§¤ % ²³ ¨²  ²ª¨­¦ ¥®±  ­  ¢¢¨£¤­³ȁ !³ ³§¤ ² ¬¤ ³¨¬¤ ¢ ±² ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¢®¬¨­¦ ®´³ ®¥ ΚȝΔΔ ³´±­¨­¦ % ²³  ­£ 7¤²³ ¶§¨«¤ ¢ ±²  ±¤ ¢®¬¨­¦ ®´³ ®¥ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² ³´±­¨­¦ % ²³  ­£ 7¤²³ £¨±¤¢³«¸ ®¯¯®²¨³¤ ³§¤¬ȁ 4§¤ «®¢ ³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ ±® £² ¨­³®  ­£ ®´³ ®¥ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² ¨² unexceptable \[sic\]. Response to Comment C5-1: The vehicles turning into the subject property will be west of Town Harbor Lane and should not interfere with traffic making a left out of Town Harbor Lane onto Main Road. The exit from the subject property is located opposite the 7-Eleven driveway to create a standard four-way intersection as required by both the State and County. The capacity analysis results indicate that the intersections will function as they do now. It should also be recognized that large events will occur a maximum of 10 times per year with the arrival of up to 55 vehicles making a left turn into the site over a period of less than one half hour. Comment C6-2: 4§¤ ²´¬¬¤± ²¤ ²®­ ®¥ ³± ¥¥¨¢Ǿ ¯ ±³¨¢´« ±«¸ ®­ ¶¤¤ª¤­£²  ³ ³¨¬¤² § ² ¡±®´¦§³ ´² ³® ­¤ ± ¦±¨£«®¢ªȁ .®¶ ¨³ § ² ¤·¯ ­£¤£ ³® ³§¤ ²¯±¨­¦  ­£ ¥ «« ²¤ ²®­ ¶¤¤ª¤­£²ȁ )³ ¨² ¡¤¢®¬¨­¦ ¨­³®«¤± ¡«¤ȁ $® ¶¤ ­¤¤£ ³® ¨­µ¨³¤ ¬®±¤Ȉ 7¤ £®­͖³ ³§¨­ª ²®ȁ 0«¤ ²¤ §¤«¯ ´² ¯±®³¤¢³  ­£ ¯±¤²¤±µ¤ ¶§ ³ ¶¤ § µ¤ «¤¥³ȁ Response to Comment C6-2: The Traffic Impact Study used traffic data to replicate peak summer conditions and found the small amount of traffic the site is expected to generate can readily be accommodated by the existing road system. Comment C7-1: 42!&&)#Ȁ 4§¤  ££¤£ ¢ ±  ­£ ³±´¢ª ³± ¥¥¨¢ £¨±¤¢³«¸  ¢±®²² ³§¤ ²³±¤¤³ ¥±®¬   ¡´²¸ ΚȝΔΔ  ­£   ¥¤¶ hundred ¸ ±£² ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ «¨¦§³  ³ 9®´­¦² !µ¤­´¤ ¶®´«£ ¢ ´²¤ «®­¦ ¡ ¢ª-´¯²  ­£ ¨­¢±¤ ²¤ £ ­¦¤±Ǿ ¤²¯¤¢¨ lly ¥®± ³§®²¤ ³±¸¨­¦ ³® ¬ ª¤ «¤¥³ ³´±­²ȁ Response to Comment C7-1: As noted in the Traffic Impact Study in the DEIS, the small addition of site traffic to the analyzed intersections will have a minimal traffic impact. Comment C11-3: 4§¤±¤ ¶®´«£ «¨ª¤«¸ ¡¤ ´­¤­£¨­¦ ³± ¥¥¨¢ i²²´¤² ¨­ ³§¤ ²´¬¬¤±  ­£ ¥ ««ȁ 9®´͖£ ­¤¤£   ³± ¥¥¨¢ «¨¦§³ ³® manage ³§®²¤ ¶ ­³¨­¦ ³® ³´±­ ®´³ ®¥ ³§¤ §®³¤« ³®¶ ±£ '±¤¤­¯®±³  ­£ ³§®²¤ £®¶­ (®±³®­͖² , ­¤ ¶®´«£ ²³±´¦¦«¤ ³® ³´±­ 7¤²³ȁ & ¨«¨­¦ ³§ ³, ¤·¯¤¢³ £¤¬ ­£² ®­ ³§¤ «®¢ « ¯®«¨¢¤ £¤¯ ±³¬¤­³ȁ Response to Comment C11-3: A traffic signal is unwarranted at any of the study intersections including the site driveway. In particular, the site exit driveway generates less than 30 exiting trips during all hours of the day, with the exception of the 10 times per year when large events may be held. The intersection capacity analyses indicate that the driveway will perform well at Level of Service “C” or “D” under all conditions except the limited times during special events. Based on the analyses, the New York State Department of Transportation is not expected to approve the installation of a traffic light at this location. Comment C13-1: )͖µ¤ ±¤ £ ³§¤ $± ¥³ %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ ¥®± ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ §®³¤« ¨­ 3®´³§®«£  ­£ § µ¤ ²¤±¨®´² ±¤²¤±µ ³¨®­² ³§ ³  ­®³§¤± §®³¤« ®¥ ³§¨² ²¨¹¤ ®­ ³§¤ .®±³§ &®±ª ¶¨«« § µ¤  ² ²¬ «« ¨¬¯ ¢³ ®­ ³± ¥¥¨¢  ­£ ±¤²®´±¢¤²  ² ²³ ³¤£ȁ 4± ¥¥¨¢ ¨­ ²¤ ²®­ ®­ ³§¤ - ¨­ 2® £ ¨²  «±¤ £¸ ³®® §¤ µ¸Ǿ  ­£ ³§¨² §®³¤«  ­£ ±¤²³ ´± ­³ ¶¨«« ®­«¸ ¬ ª¤ ¨³ ¶®±²¤ȁ 55 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Response to Comment C13-1: The Traffic Impact Study used traffic data to replicate peak summer conditions and found the small amount of traffic the site is expected to generate can readily be accommodated by the surrounding road system. Comment C15-1:#«¤ ±«¸ ±®´³¤ ΕΘ ¶§¨¢§ ±´­² ³§±®´¦§ ³§¤  ±¤  ¶§¤±¤ ³§¤ §®³¤« ¨² ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¢ ­­®³ ²´¯¯®±³ ³§¤ ¨­¢±¤ ²¤£ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¶¨³§®´³ ¤¦±¤¦¨®´² ³± ¥¥¨¢ © ¬²ȁ !­£ ¨³ ¶¨«« ­®³ ¡¤ ¡¤ \[sic\] ¯®²²¨¡«¤ ³®  ¬¤«¨®± ³¤ ³§¤ ¦±®²² ¨­¢®­µ¤­¨¤­¢¤ ³® ±¤²¨£¤­³²  ­£ ¡´²¨­¤²² ®¶­¤±²  «¨ª¤ ³§ ³ ¶¨«« ±¤²´«³ ¨¥ ³§¨² ¯±®©¤¢³ ¨²  ««®¶¤£ ³® ¬®µ¤ ¥®±¶ ±£ȁ Response to Comment C15-1: See Response to Comment C13-1 above. Comment C16-7:…p´³³¨­¦ ³§¤ ¤·¨³ £¨±¤¢³«¸  ¢±®²² ¥±®¬ Κȝ11͖² ¤­³± ­¢¤ȝ¤·¨³ ¨² ¢± ¹¸ȁ )³ ¶®´«£ ¬ ª¤ ¬´¢§ ¬®±¤ ²¤­²¤ ¥±®¬   - ¨­ 2® £ ¯¤±²¯¤¢³¨µ¤ ¥®± ³§¤ ¤­³± ­¢¤ ³® ¡¤  ¢±®²² ¥±®¬ ΚȝΔΔǾ  ­£ ³§¤ ¤·¨³ ¶§¤±¤ ³§¤ ¤­³± ­¢¤ cur±¤­³«¸ ¨²ȁ 4§¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ²³´£¸  ¢ª­®¶«¤£¦¤² ³§ ³ ͗4¤¤͗ ¨­³¤±²¤¢³¨®­²  ±¤ ¬´¢§ ² ¥¤± ³§ ³ Η-¶ ¸ ¨­³¤±²¤¢³¨®­²Ǿ  ­£ § µ¨­¦ ³§¤ ¤·¨³ ¥ ¢¤ ³§¤ ΚȝΔΔ £±¨µ¤¶ ¸ ¢±¤ ³¤²   Η-¶ ¸ ¨­³¤±²¤¢³¨®­ ´­­¤¢¤²² ±¨«¸ȁ Response to Comment C16-7: T-intersections do generally operate more safely than four-way intersections in isolation. However, with limited street frontage, closely spaced T-intersections interfere with each other and queuing left turns can overlap. In this case, the site exit driveway is aligned directly across from the 7-Eleven driveway and is the preferred alignment typically used by Town, County and State authorities in these situations. These authorities have found that it is better to align busy driveways rather than creating closely spaced offset driveways. The analysis of the 7-Eleven driveway and site driveway conducted for the Traffic Impact Study considered the two driveways opposite each other on Main Road as a four-legged intersection. Therefore, the Traffic Impact Study fully considered how these driveways will operate. Comment C16-8: 4§¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ²³´£¸ ² ¸² ³§ ³ ­® ®­¤ ²§®´«£ ¡¤  ««®¶¤£ ³® ¯ ±ª ®­ - ¨­ 2® £ ¡¤³¶¤¤­ ³§¤ ¤­³± ­¢¤  ­£ ¤·¨³Ǿ  ­£ ®­ ¯ ¦¤ ΗΗǾ ±¤¢®¬¬¤­£² ­® ¯ ±ª¨­¦ ¥®± ΘΓ ¥¤¤³ ³® ³§¤ ¶¤²³ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ȁ Ȩ)­  ­®³§¤± ²¯®³ ¨³ ² ¸² ­® ¯ ±ª¨­¦ ±¤²³±¨¢³¨®­ ¶¤²³ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ¨² ­¤¤£¤£ǿ ²® ¶§¨¢§ ¨² ¨³Ȉȩ '¨µ¤­ ³§ ³ - ¨­ 2® £ ¨²   ²³ ³¤ ±® £Ǿ ¢ ­ ¯ ±ª¨­¦ ¡¤ ¡ ­­¤£  ² ¯±®¯®²¤£Ȉ )¥ i³ ¢ ­ ¡¤  ­£ ¨²Ǿ ¶§ ³ ¨² ³§¤ ¨¬¯ ¢³ ®­ ®³§¤± ¡´²¨­¤²²¤²Ȉ Response to Comment C16-8: The parking restrictions proposed in the Traffic Impact Study are intended to maximize the available sight distance for the site exit driveway. The proposed location of the exit driveway is approximately 35 feet from an adjacent existing driveway to the west. There is room for only one parking space between the two driveways. The space between the two driveways should be restricted and the presence of the existing driveway will extend the restriction to at least 50 feet. The proposed parking restrictions will also benefit the existing driveway by enhancing sight distance to the east to oncoming west bound traffic on Main Road. The New York State Department of Transportation will review the proposed parking restrictions as part of the Highway Access Permit process and there is no reason to anticipate that the same will not be approved. As indicated in this FEIS, it is anticipated that approximately seven (7) parking spaces will be lost in front of the site in order to maximize sight distance for the site exit driveway. The residential homes located to east of the site should not be impacted and the commercial uses to the west of the site appear to have adequate on- site parking and do not appear to use spaces in front of the subject site. The one site that may benefit from the on-street parking in front of the subject site is the 7-Eleven across Main Road from the site. The 7-Eleven has the required on-site parking and utilizing on-street parking on the north side of Main Road unnecessarily encourages pedestrian crossing of the street. 56 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Comment C16-9: 4§¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ²³´£¸  ­£ ³§¤ $%)3 ¨² £¨²¬¨²²¨µ¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ¨£¤  ³§ ³   ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤µ¤­³ ®¥ 200-ΕΘΓ ¯¤®¯«¤ ®­   ¶¤¤ª¤­£ Ȩ®´± ¯¤ ª ³± ¥¥¨¢ ³¨¬¤²ȩ ¶®´«£ § µ¤   ¬¤ ­¨­¦¥´« ¨¬¯ ¢³ ®­ ³± ¥¥¨¢ȁ 3´¢§   ¢« ¨¬ £®¤²­͖³ ¯ ²² ³§¤ ²³± ¨¦§³ ¥ ¢¤ ³¤²³ȁ 3´±¤Ǿ  ² ³§¤ $%)3 ² ¸²Ǿ ²®¬¤ ¦´¤²³² ¶®´«£ ¢ ±¯®®«ȁ 3´±¤Ǿ ²®¬¤ ¶®´«£ ²³ ¸  ³ ³§¤ §®³¤«ȁ "´³  «« ®¥ ³§¤ ¯ ±ª¨­¦ ³§¤ §®³¤« ¡¤«¨¤µ¤² ¨² ­¤¢¤²² ±¸ ³®  ¢¢®¬¬®£ ³¤ ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤µ¤­³² ¬ ª¤² ¢«¤ ± ³§ ³ ³§¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¥±®¬ ®­¤ ®¥ ³§¤²¤ ¤µ¤­³² ¶®´«£ ¡¤ ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ȁ 7§¸ ¤«²¤ ¶®´«£ ΔΕΓ ¯ ±ª¨­¦ ²¯ ¢¤²Ǿ ¶¨³§ ¬®±¤ ¡¸ µ «¤³-  ³®³ « ®¥ ΔΗΓ-¡¤ ­¤¤£¤£ ¥®± ³§¤ ¤µ¤­³²Ȉ Ȩ3¤¤ ¯ȁ ΔΔΙȁȩ (®¶ £®¤² ³§¤ ¢®¬¨­¦  ­£ ¦®¨­¦ ®¥ ´¯ ³® ΔΗΓ ¢ ±² ®­   ²´¬¬¤± ¶¤¤ª¤­£ £ ¸ ®± ¤µ¤­¨­¦Ǿ « ±¦¤«¸ ¨­ ¢«´¬¯²  ²  ­ ¤µ¤­³ ¡¤¦¨­²  ­£ ¤­£²Ǿ ­®³ ¢±¤ ³¤   ³± ¥¥¨¢ ­¨¦§³¬ ±¤Ȉ Response to Comment C16-9: The impacts of special event traffic was fully analyzed as part of the Traffic Impact Study (see Appendix I of the DEIS) and the potential impacts were fully disclosed. It is to be noted that the projected minor impacts identified would only occur during the approximately one-half hour period 10 times per year. Comment C17-3: 4± ¥¥¨¢ )¬¯ ¢³ § ² ­®³ ¡¤¤­ ¥´««¸ ¢®­²¨£¤±¤£ȁ 4§¤ ±¤¯®±³ ¨³²¤«¥ ²§®¶² ³§ ³ ³± ¥¥¨¢ °´ «¨³¸ ¥®± ³§®²¤ attemptin¦ ³® «¤ µ¤ ³§¤ &®´­£¤±² , ­£¨­¦ ­¤¨¦§¡®±§®®£ Ȩ¤¨³§¤± µ¨  ,®¢´²³ , ­¤ ®± 4®¶­ ( ±¡®± , ­¤ȩ  ±¤  «±¤ £¸  ³ ³§¤ ¯®®±¤²³ °´ ­³¨¥¨¤£ °´ «¨³¸ «¤µ¤« Ȩ&ȩ  ­£ ³§´²  ££¨³¨®­ « ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¦¤­¤± ³¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ ¯±®©¤¢³ ͗¶®´«£ ­®³ ¡¤ ­®³¨¢¤ ¡«¤͗ȁ 4® ² ¸ ³§ ³ ³§¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢  ³ ³§¤²¤ ¨­³¤±²¤¢³¨®­² § ² £± ¬ ³¨¢ ««¸ ¢§ ­¦¤£ ®µ¤± ³§¤ ¯ ²³ ¥¤¶ ¸¤ ±² ¶®´«£ ¡¤  ­ ´­£¤±²³ ³¤¬¤­³ȁ ) £®  ¦±¤¤ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ±¤¯®±³ ³§ ³ ³± ¥¥¨¢  ³ ³§¤²¤ ¯®¨­³² ¨²  «±¤ £¸  ³  «« ³¨¬¤ «®¶²ȁ 4§®²¤ ¨­ ¬¸ ­¤¨¦§¡®±§®®£ ®¥³¤­ ¶¤¨¦§³ ¥®± «®­¦ ¯¤±¨®£² ¤²¯¤¢¨ ««¸ ¦¨µ¤­ ³§¤ «®¶ µ¨²¨¡¨«¨³¸  ±®´­£ ¯ ±ª¤£ ¢ ±²  ­£ ³±´¢ª²  ­£ ³§¤ §¨¦§ µ®«´¬¤ ®¥ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¦¤­¤± ³¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤  £© ¢¤­³ Κ-%«¤µ¤­ ¡´²¨­¤²² ®­ - ¨­ 2® £ȁ ) ¬¸²¤«¥ ´²¤   ¡¨¢¸¢«¤ ³® ¦® ³® ³®¶­ ¥®± ¦±®¢¤±¨¤²  ­£ ²¬ «« ¤±± ­£² ¡¤¢ ´²¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ²³ ³¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ȁ 4§¤±¤ ¬ ¸ ­®³ ¡¤   «®¶¤± °´ «¨³¸ ¦± £¨­¦  µ ¨« ¡«¤Ǿ ¡´³ ³® ²´¦¦¤²³ ³§ ³ ³§¤  ££¨³¨®­ « £¤¦± £ ³¨®­ ¶¨«« ͗­®³ ¡¤ ­®³¨¢¤ ¡«¤͗ £®¤² ­®³ ²¤¤¬  ­  ¢¢´± ³¤ ¢®­¢«´²¨®­ȁ )­  ££¨³¨®­Ǿ ) ¡¤«¨¤µ¤ ¨­ « ±¦¤ ¯ ±³ ³§¤  ¢¢¨£¤­³² ¨­ ³§¨² ²¤¢³¨®­ ®¥ ³®¶­ § µ¤ ³® £ ³¤ ¡¤¤­ «¨¬¨³¤£ ¡¤¢ ´²¤ ¬®²³ ®¥ ³§¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¨² ¢®¬¨­¦ ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ²®´³§ ²¨£¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ±® £  ­£ ®­³® ³§¤ ¬ ¨­ ±® £ȁ 3§®´«£ ³§¤±¤ ¡¤  ­  ££¨³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¨² ²¨¹¤ ®¥  ¢³¨µ¨³¸ ®­ ³§¤ ­®±³§ ²¨£¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ±® £Ǿ ®­¤ ¢ ­ ¨¬ ¦¨­¤ ³§¤ ®¯¯®±³´­¨³¸ ¥®± ¢®««¨²¨®­ ¶®´«£ ¡¤ ³§ ³ ¬¨¦§³ §¨¦§¤±ȁ Response to Comment C17-3: The intersection capacity analysis does not indicate that the Locust Lane and Harbor Lane approaches to Main Road operate at Level of Service “F”. They operate at LOS “C” or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours of traffic. During the Saturday peak hours, they do operate at LOS “E” but there is little change between the No Build and Build Scenarios and minimal impact. Comment C20-1: 4§¨² ¨²   ³¤±±¨¡«¤ ¯« ­Ǿ ¢ ´²¤²   £ ­¦¤±®´² ²¨³´ ³¨®­ ¥®± ¯¤£¤²³±¨ ­²  ­£ µ¤§¨¢«¤²ȁ 0¤£¤²³±¨ ­² ¥±®¬ ³§¤ §®³¤« ¶ «ª¨­¦  ¢±®²² ³§¤ ²³±¤¤³ ³® Κ-ΔΔ  ­£ ³® ³§¤ ¡¤ ¢§¤²ȁ )³͖«« ¡¤  ­®³§¤± 3®´­£µ¨¤¶ ²¨³´ ³¨®­ȁ )³͖²  «±¤ £¸ § ±£ ¤­®´¦§ ³® ¦¤³ ¯ ²³ )'!  ­£ #63ȁ )'! ¢ ­͖³  ¢¢®¬¬®£ ³¤ ³§¤ ¨­¥«´· ®¥ ³§¤ ¯®¯´« ³¨®­ ³§ ³ ³§¨² ¶¨«« ¢ ´²¤ȁ 4§¤ ¡´² ³± ¥¥¨¢ ³®  ¢¢®¬¬®£ ³¤ ³§¤ §®³¤« ¯ ³±®­² ¶¨«« ¨­¢±¤ ²¤ȁ )³͖² ¡ £  ««  ±®´­£ȁ Response to Comment C20-1: Patrons of the hotel will have all necessary services available on-site, including access to room service, interior hotel café/bistro, and a full-service restaurant at the front of the property. It is not expected that hotel guests will opt for grocery shopping at the IGA. Additionally, there is no reason to believe that the presence of the hotel will cause inordinate pedestrian traffic crossing Main Road. However, it is expected that hotel patrons will elect to visit the various shops and retailers along Main Road, utilizing existing sidewalks and cross walks. Patrons of the hotel would be expected to arrive either via private automobile or the existing transportation companies and routes (see Response to Comment C1-20 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS). The Traffic Impact Study indicates that the proposal will have minimal traffic impact. 57 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Comment C22-12: $%)3 3³ ³¤² ΗΙ ¢ ±² ¯¤± §®´±  ±¤ ¤·¯¤¢³¤£ ¤­³¤±¨­¦ ³§¤ ²¨³¤Ǿ ®­«¸ ²¤µ¤± « ¥¤¤³ ¥±®¬ ¬¸ «¨µ¨­¦ ±®®¬Ǿ ®­   ³¸¯¨¢ « 3 ³´±£ ¸ ¬®±­¨­¦ȁ 4§ ³ £±¨µ¤¶ ¸ ¶¨«« ²¤¤ ¬®±¤ ¢ ±² ³§ ­ ¬®²³ ±¤²¨£¤­³¨ « ²³±¤¤³² i­ 3®´³§®«£. &®±  ­ ¤µ¤­³ ²´¢§  ²   ¶¤££¨­¦Ǿ ¶§¤±¤  «« ΔΙΓ ¯ ±ª¨­¦ ²¯®³² ®­²¨³¤  ±¤ ¥¨««¤£  ³ ³§¤ ² ¬¤ ³¨¬¤Ǿ ­®³ ®­«¸ ¶¨«« ³§¤±¤ ¡¤   ³± ¥¥¨¢ © ¬ ®­ ³§¤ ¬ ¨­ ±® £Ǿ ³§¤±¤ ¶¨«« ¡¤   ²«®¶ ¬¨¦± ³¨®­ ®¥ ¡´¬¯¤± ³® ¡´¬¯¤± µ¤§¨¢«¤² ­¤·³ ³® ¬¤  ² ) ³±¸ ³® ¤­©®¸ £¨­­¤±  ³ ¬¸ ª¨³¢§¤­ ³ ¡«¤. $¤«¨µ¤±¸ ³±´¢ª² ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¤­³¤±¨­¦ ¡¤¥®±¤  ­£  ¥³¤± ¤µ¤­³² ³® ²¤³ ´¯  ­£ ¡±¤ ª £®¶­ȁ 4§¨² § ¯¯¤­² £´±¨­¦ ¤ ±«¸ ¬®±­¨­¦  ­£ « ³¤ ­¨¦§³ §®´±²ȁ )  ¬  «±¤ £¸ ¶®ª¤­ ¡¸ £¤«¨µ¤±¸ ³±´¢ª² ¯´««¨­¦ ¨­  ­£ ®´³ ®¥ Κ-%«¤µ¤­ȁ .®¶ ) ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¶®ª¤­ ¡¸ £¤«¨µ¤±¸ ³±´¢ª² ¯´««¨­¦ ¨­³® ³§¤ %­¢« µ¤²ȁ 7§¸ ²§®´«£ ) ¯¤±²®­ ««¸ ¡¤ ± ³§¤ ¡´±£¤­ ®¥ ­®¨²¤Ǿ £´²³Ǿ ¤·§ ´²³Ǿ  ­£ §¤ £«¨¦§³² ®¥ ¢ ±²  ­£ £¤«¨µ¤±¸ ³±´¢ª² ²¤±µ¨¢¨­¦ §®³¤« ¦´¤²³²Ȉ ) £® ­®³ ²¤¤  ­¸ ¬¨³¨¦ ³¨®­ ¬¤ ²´±¤² ¨­ ³§¤ $%)3 ±¤« ³¤£ ³® ²´¢§ ¯®««´³¨®­ ¢ ´²¤£ ¡¸ µ¤§¨¢«¤² ¤­³¤±¨­¦ ³§¤ ²¨³¤ȁ Response to Comment C22-12: As indicated in the Traffic Impact Study, the project will have minimal traffic impact. The majority of parking is located on the west and north sides of the property up against other commercial properties and the railroad. Most of the delivery activity will occur at those locations and the properties to the east will be shielded from their noise. It should be noted that in response to comments received during the DEIS review, the applicant modified the project for additional mitigation including: (1) The ingress driveway has been shifted 11 feet to the west and additional landscaping has been incorporated into the land area between the driveway and the eastern property line to provide a 15-foot vegetated buffer, and such vegetation includes 14-to-16-foot tall mature Leyland Cypress; (2) A wooden stockade fence, of 6.5 feet in height, has been added along the eastern and western property lines; and (3) A parapet was added to the hotel to screen the HVAC unit. Also, as indicated in the Response to Comment C1-8 in Section 2.3.1 of this DEIS, the proposed action has been modified to exclude outdoor events on the lawn area. During preparation of the FEIS, the applicant agreed to relocate events to indoor spaces and, as a result, has modified the proposed site plan to include a future event room to the south of the hotel building (on the previously conceived open lawn area). Additionally, the Acoustic Report has been revised to address indoor events such that the potential noise generation from cumulative sources will not exceed 5 dBA over background (No Build) sound levels. This will be achieved with building materials and windows with high acoustic performance for noise attenuation, which will be designed as part of site plan review with the Planning Board. Also, as architectural and MEP design progresses, the applicant’s noise consultant (SoundSense) will review all mechanical plans to ensure that any and all mechanical units meet the Design Maximum Sound Level from Mechanical Equipment, as detailed in the Acoustic Report, with appropriate spacing and mitigation. Accordingly, no adverse noise impacts will occur from the hosting of events indoors on the subject property or from the overall operation of the proposed development. Regarding the impacts associated with dust, it is noted that the applicant has included construction mitigation for dust control in the DEIS. As indicated in Section 1.4.1 of the DEIS, a dust control plan will be implemented if there is any actual or potential visible dust. Dust suppression measures will be employed in accordance with the NYSDEC DER-10 Appendix 1B for Fugitive Dust and Particulate Monitoring. See also, various comments and responses related to dust control included in Section 2.3.10 of this FEIS. Finally, regarding potential impacts associated with exhaust, the DEIS (Section 3.4.2) addressed exhaust from the proposed restaurant. As specified, “\[t\]he potential for odors from the restaurant will be controlled though industry-methods for proper exhaust hoods, grease collection, and ventilation. The design of such systems will be performed as part of the kitchen design. As such, because the proposed restaurant includes exhaust and 58 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ventilation systems, it is not expected that this use will result in any nuisance odors.” There are no projected impacts from exhaust from vehicles. Comment C22-13: 4§¤ «®¢ ³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¤­³±¸  ¢¢¤²² ¶ ¸ ³´±­² ¬¸ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ¨­³®   ¢®±­¤± «®³ ®¥   ¡´²¸ ¨­³¤±²¤¢³¨®­ȁ ) ¤­¢®´± ¦¤ ³§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³ ³® ±¤«®¢ ³¤ ³§¤ £±¨µ¤¶ ¸  ­£ ¯ ±ª¨­¦ ³® ³§¤ ¶¤²³ ²¨£¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ±¤²³ ´± ­³ ®­«¸ ²® ³§ ³ ) £®­͖³ ¯¤±²®­ ««¸ ²´¥¥¤±ȁ Response to Comment C22-13: The entrance driveway is located so that left turns into the site do not interfere with other left turns from Main Road occurring at Locust Lane and at the driveway west of the site. The location of the entrance is best for traffic operations for the site and on Main Road. Also, indicated in the Response to Comment C22-12, the applicant modified the site plan for additional mitigation including: (1) the ingress driveway has been shifted 11 feet to the west and additional landscaping has been incorporated into the land area between the driveway and the eastern property line to provide a 15-foot vegetated buffer, and such vegetation includes 14-to-16-foot tall mature Leyland Cypress; and (2) a wooden stockade fence of 6.5 feet in height will be added along the eastern and western property lines. Comment C22-14: $%)3 ²³ ³¤² ®´³£®®± ¤µ¤­³² ¥®± ´¯ ³® ΕΘΓ ¯¤®¯«¤ ´²¨­¦ ΔΙΓ ¯ ±ª¨­¦ ²¯®³²ȁ 7§ ³ ¨¥ ¤ ¢§ ¢ ± £®¤² ­®³ § µ¤ Ε ®± ¬®±¤ ¯¤®¯«¤ ¨­ ¨³ȁ 4§ ³ ¢®´«£ ¡¤ ´¯ ³® ΔΕΘ ¬®±¤ ¢ ±² ®± ¬®±¤ȁ 7§¤±¤ £® ³§¤¸ ¯ ±ªȈ !«®­¦ ³§¤ ¬ ¨­ ±® £ ¨­ ¥±®­³ ®¥ ¬¸ §®´²¤ ¨­ ¬¸ ¦ ±£¤­Ȉ 7§ ³ ¨² ³§¤ ®µ¤±¥«®¶ ¯ ±ª¨­¦ ¯« ­Ȉ Response to Comment C22-14: It is expected that vehicles arriving for special events are likely to carry more than two passengers per vehicle, but the study opted to take a more conservative approach and assume two. The need for overflow parking is not anticipated. Comment C23-1: )  ¬ ²³±®­¦«¸ ®¯¯®²¤£ ³® ³§¨² (®³¤« ¡¤¨­¦  ««®¶¤£ ³® ¡¤ ¡´¨«³ȁ 4§¨²  ±¤  ®¥ 3®´³§®«£ ¨² µ¤±¸ ²¬ «« ³®  ¢¢®¬¬®£ ³¤ ³§¨² §´¦¤ µ®«´¬¤ ®¥ ¯¤®¯«¤  ­£ ¢ ±² ³§ ³ ¶¨««  ££ ³® ³§¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¯±®¡«¤¬ ¶¤  «±¤ £¸ § µ¤ ¨­ ³§¨²  ±¤  ®­ ³§¤ - ¨­ 2® £ȁ )­ ³§¤ ²´¬¬¤± ¨³ ¢ ­ ³ ª¤ Θ-ΔΓ ¬¨­´³¤² ³® ¬ ª¤   «¤¥³ ®´³ ®¥  ­¸ ®¥ ³§¤ ²³±¤¤³² ®­ #®³³ ¦¤ 0« ¢¤Ǿ ,®¢´²³ ,­  ­£ 4®¶­ ( ±¡®± 2£  ­£ ³§®²¤  ±¤ ³§¤ ®­«¸ ¤·¨³² ®´³ ®¥ ³§¨² ¤­³¨±¤ ­¤¨¦§¡®±§®®£  ² (®¡ ±³ 2£ ¨²   ®­¤ ¶ ¸ ²® ¶¤ ¢ ­­®³ ¤·¨³ ®´³ ®¥ ³§ ³ ¡«®¢ªȁ 7¨³§ §´­£±¤£² ®¥ ¯¤®¯«¤ ¢®¬¨­¦  ­£ ¦®¨­¦ ¥±®¬ ³§ ³ §®³¤« ³§¤ ³®¶­ ¶¨«« ­¤¤£ ³® ¯´³ ´¯   ³± ¥¥¨¢ «¨¦§³ ¥®± ³§¤ ­¤¨¦§¡®±§®®£ ±¤²¨£¤­³² ³® ¡¤  ¡«¤ ³® ¬ ª¤ «¤¥³ ³´±­² ³® ¦¤³ ³® ³§¤ ³®¶­ ²´¯¤±¬ ±ª¤³Ǿ ²¢§®®«² Ǿ¯§ ±¬ ¢¸Ǿ  ­£ «¨¡± ±¸ȁ Response to Comment C23-1: As indicated in the Traffic Impact Study, the project will have minimal traffic impact. The installation of a traffic signal does not appear to be warranted at any of the study intersections. Comment C24-7: ! ³± ¥¥¨¢ ²³´£¸ ¶ ² ¯±¤²¤­³¤£  ³ ³§¤ ¬¤¤³¨­¦Ǿ ¶§¨¢§ ¢¨³¤£ ²®¬¤ §¤ µ¸ ´²¤ ®­  ­ §®´±«¸ ¡ ²¨²ȁ ) ¢ ­­®³ ¨¬ ¦¨­¤ ³§¤  ££¨³¨®­ ®¥ ¢ ±²  ­£ £¤«¨µ¤±¸ ³±´¢ª² ¤­³¤±¨­¦  ­£ ¤·¨³¨­¦ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ¶¨«« ¦® ´­­®³¨¢¤£ ¡¸  ­¸ ®¥ ´² ¶§® £±¨µ¤² £®¶­ 2®´³¤ ΕΘ ®± ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¨¤² ¶§® «¨µ¤  ­£ ®¶­  £© ¢¤­³ ³® ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ²¨³¤ȁ 7¤¤ª¤­£ ³± ¥¥¨¢ i²  «±¤ £¸ ²«®¶  ­£ ¥± ´¦§³ ¶¨³§ ¯®³¤­³¨ «  ¢¢¨£¤­³²  ² £±¨µ¤±² ³±¸ ³® ¤·¨³ ¤ ²³ ¥±®¬   ­®±³§²¨£¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ®± °´¨¢ª«¸ ³´±­ ¨­³® ®± ®´³ ®¥ £±¨µ¤¶ ¸²ȁ 4± ¥¥¨¢ ¶¨«« ¢®¬¤ ³®   ²³ ­£ ²³¨«« \[sic\] £´±¨­¦ §¨¦§ ²¤ ²®­ ¨¥ ³§¤ ´²¤ ®¥ ³§¤ §®³¤«  ­£ ±¤²³ ´± ­³  ­£ ¯« ­­¤£ ¢ ³¤±¨­¦ ¤µ¤­³² ¬ ³¤±¨ «¨¹¤²ȁ Response to Comment C24-7: As indicated in the Traffic Impact Study, the project will have minimal traffic impact. As indicated in the Response to Comment H3-6 in this section of the FEIS, the project will generate less than 50 trips per hour during a peak summer Saturday, which is approximately 28 percent of the volume of 59 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ traffic currently using the existing 7-Eleven during the same time period. The traffic generating density of the project is substantially less than some existing uses in its vicinity. Comment C25-1: -¸ ­ ¬¤ ¨² *®!­­ * §­¢ª¤ȁ )  ¬   ¥´«« ³¨¬¤ ±¤²¨£¤­³ ¨­ 3®´³§®«£ȁ )  ¬ ¶±¨³¨­¦ ³§¨² «¤³³¤± ³® ®¯¯®²¤ ³§¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ®¥ ³§¤ !­¢« µ¤\[sic\]§®³¤«  ­£ ±¤²³ ´± ­³ ¨­ 3®´³§®«£ µ¨«« ¦¤ȁ ) ¡¤«¨¤µ¤ ³§¤ ¢®­²³±´¢³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¨² §®³¤« ¶¨³§ ΗΗ ±®®¬²  ­£   ±¤²³ ´± ­³ ¶¨«« ¨¬¯ ¢³ ®´± °´ ¨­³ «¨³³«¤ ³®¶­ ¨­ ¬ ­¸ ¶ ¸²ȁ $´±¨­¦ ¯¤ ª ³®´±¨²³ ²¤ ²®­Ǿ ³§¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¨­ ³§¤ ¬¨££«¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ³®¶­ § ² ¡¤¢®¬¤  «¬®²³ ¨­³®«¤± ¡«¤ £´±¨­¦ ³§¤ £ ¸ȁ !² ¨³ ¨²Ǿ ¨³ ¨² µ¤±¸ £¨¥¥¨¢´«³ ³® ¥¨­£ ¯ ±ª¨­¦ ®­ - ¨­ ±® £ ¡¤³¶¤¤­ ³§¤ ¤ ²³¤±­ ¡¤¦¨­­¨­¦ ®¥ ³§¤ ³®¶­ µ¨«« ¦¤  ­£ ³® ³§¤ &¤ ³§¤± (¨«« - ««ȁ ) ¡¤«¨¤µ¤ ³§ ³ ¨¥ ³§¤ §®³¤« ¨² ¥´««Ǿ ³§¤±¤ ¶¨«« ¡¤   «®³ ¬®±¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¨¬¯ ¢³¨­¦ ³§¤ ±® £  ­£ ¬ ª¨­¦   «¤¥³ ³´±­ ®­ ³§¤ - ¨­ 2® £ ¶¨«« ¡¤¢®¬¤ ¬®±¤ £¨¥¥¨¢´«³ ³§ ­ ¨³  «±¤ £¸ ¨²ȁ Response to Comment C25-1: See Response to Comment C24-7 above. Comment C26-2: ) ¶®±ª¤£ ¥®± ¥¨¥³¤¤­ ¸¤ ±² ¨­ 3®´³§ ¬¯³®­  ­£ ¶ ² ¢ ´¦§³ £±¨µ¨­¦ ¡®³§ ¶ ¸² ¨­ ³§¤ ͗³± £¤ parade"ȁ )² ³§¨² ¶§ ³ ¶¤ ¶ ­³ ®´± ±® £² ³® ¡¤¢®¬¤Ȉ ) ¶®´«£ mourn ³§¤ £¤²³±´¢³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ §¨²³®±¨¢ ­ ³´±¤ ®¥ - ¨­ Rd. Response to Comment C26-2: As indicated in the Traffic Impact Study, the project will have minimal traffic impact. Comment C27-5: 4± ¥¥¨¢Ȁ !¢¢®±£¨­¦ ³® ³§¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¤±͖² ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¨¬¯ ¢³ ²³´£¸ Ȩ¢®­³ ¨­¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ $%)3ȩǾ £´±¨­¦ ³§¤ 3 ³´±£ ¸ ¯¤ ª §®´±²Ǿ ³§¤ ²³´£¸ ¨­³¤±²¤¢³¨®­² Ȩ¨­ ³§¤ µ¨¢¨­¨³¸ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®©¤¢³ȩ ¨­£¨¢ ³¤ ³§ ³ ²¨£¤ ²³±¤¤³ £¤« ¸  ¢¢¤²²¨­¦ ®± ¢±®²²¨­¦ - ¨­ 2® £ Ȩ2®´³¤ ΕΘȩ ¨²  «±¤ £¸ §¨¦§ ±¤²´«³¨­¦ ¨­ ,¤µ¤«² ®¥ 3¤±µ¨¢¤ Ȩ,/3ȩ ®¥ ͖͖&͖͖  ³ "®¨²²¤ ´ !µ¤­´¤Ǿ ͗%͗  ³ ,®¢´²³ , ­¤Ǿ ͗$͗  ³ ³§¤ 3¤µ¤­ - %«¤µ¤­ $±¨µ¤¶ ¸  ­£ “E”  ³ 4®¶­ ( ±¡®± , ­¤ȁ 4§¤²¤ «¤µ¤«² ®¥ ²¤±µ¨¢¤ Ȩ¯ ±³¨¢´« ±«¸ $Ǿ %Ǿ  ­£ &ȩ  ±¤  «« ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ ¨­ ³§ ³ ³§¤¸ ¨­£¨¢ ³¤  ­ ¨­¢±¤ ²¨­¦«¸ ±¤²³±¨¢³¤£ ¨­³¤±²¤¢³¨®­ ¥«®¶ Ȩ´­£¤± ¢´±±¤­³ ¢®­£¨³¨®­²ȩ ¶¨³§ ¶ ¨³ ³¨¬¤² ³§ ³ ¢ ­ ± ­¦¤ ¥±®¬ ΖΘ ²¤¢®­£² ³® ¶¤«« ®µ¤±   ¬¨­´³¤ ¥®± ¤ ¢§ µ¤§¨¢«¤ ¨­ «¨­¤  ³ ³§¤ ¨­³¤±²¤¢³¨®­ȁ 3´¢§ £¤¢«¨­¨­¦ «¤µ¤«² ®¥ ²¤±µ¨¢¤ Ȩ¤²¯¤¢¨ ««¸ ¨­ ,/3 %  ­£ &ȩ ¢ ­ ¡¤ £¤²¢±¨¡¤£  ² ²¤µ¤±¤«¸ restricte£Ǿ  ­£ ´­²³ ¡«¤Ǿ ¶¨³§ ¨­¢±¤ ²¤£  ¢¢¨£¤­³ ¯®³¤­³¨ «ȁ )­ «¨¦§³ ®¥ ³§¤  ±¤ ͖²  ­³¨¢¨¯ ³¤£ ± ³¤ ®¥ ¦±®¶³§ ¥ ¢³®± ȨΔȁΕΛωȩ  ­£ ¦¨µ¤­ ³§¤ ¯®³¤­³¨ « ¡´¨«£-®´³ ®± ±¤£¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ®¥ ²¤µ¤± « ²¨¹¤ ¡«¤ ­¤ ±¡¸ ¯ ±¢¤«² ³® ³§¤ ¤ ²³  ­£ ¶¤²³ ®¥ ³§¤ ²´¡©¤¢³ ¯±®¯¤±³¸Ǿ ¨³ ¨² ¢±¨³¨¢ « ³§ ³ ³§¤ :"! ¢®­²¨£¤± ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£  ¢³¨®­  ­£ ¯®³¤­³¨ «  «³¤±­ ³¨µ¤  ¢³¨®­² ¨­ ³§¤ ¢®­³¤·³ ®¥ ³§¨²  ±¤ ͖² ¤·¨²³¨­¦ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¯±®¡«¤¬²  ­£ i³² «®­¦-³¤±¬ ¯®³¤­³¨ « ¥®± ¦±®¶³§ ¨­ ¨­¢±¤ ²¨­¦ «¤µ¤«² ®¥ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¢®­¦¤²³¨®­ȁ !² ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ¢®­²¨£¤± ³¨®­ ®¥ ¶ ³¤± ±¤²®´±¢¤²Ǿ ¶¤  «²®  ²ª ³§¤ :"! ³® ¤µ «´ ³¤ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£  ¢³¨®­ ¨­ ³§¤ ¢®­³¤·³ ®¥ ³§¤ ³®¶­͖² ¢®¬¯±¤§¤­²¨µ¤ ¯« ­ ´¯£ ³¤Ǿ ¶§¨¢§ ²¯¤¢¨¥¨¢ ««¸ ²¤¤ª² ³® ͗)¬¯±®µ¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¢®­¦¤²³¨®­  ­£ ² ¥¤³¸Ǿ  ­£ ¤­²´±¤ ¨­¥± ²³±´¢³´±¤ ²´¯¯®±³² ³§¤ ±¤²¨£¤­³²  ­£ ¡´²¨­¤²²¤² ®¥ ³§¤ 4®¶­ȁȐ -®±¤®µ¤±Ǿ ³§¤ :"!͖² ±¤°´¨±¤£ ¢®­²¨£¤± ³¨®­ ®¥  ­¸ 3¯¤¢¨ « 0¤±¬¨³ ¯±®¯®² «͖² ¢®¬¯ ³¨¡¨«¨³¸ ¶¨³§ ­¤ ±¡¸ ´²¤²Ǿ  ­£ ¨³² ¯®³¤­³¨ « ¨¬¯ ¢³ ®­ ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ «³§  ­£ ² ¥¤³¸ ²§®´«£ ¦¨µ¤ ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ ¯ ´²¤ ³®  ­¸ £¨²¢±¤³¨®­ ±¸ ¯±®¯®² « ³§ ³ ¢®´«£ ¤· ¢¤±¡ ³¤ ³§¤ £¤¢«¨­¤ ¨­ ±® £¶ ¸ ®± ¨­³¤±²¤¢³¨®­ ¢ ¯ ¢¨³¸  ­£ȝ®± ¯´³  ­¸ ¬¤¬¡¤± ®¥ ³§¤ ¯´¡«¨¢  ³ ±¨²ª ¨­ ³§¤ µ¨¢¨­¨³¸ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£  ¢³¨®­ȁ Response to Comment C27-5: As indicated in the Traffic Impact Study, the project will have minimal traffic impact when compared to the No-Build Condition. The As-of-Right project generates substantially more traffic during the weekday peak hours and approximately the same traffic on Saturdays. When weighted against an “As-of-Right” project that would not be before the ZBA, the proposed action is projected to have less traffic impact. 60 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Comment C28-1: 3¨­¢¤ - ¨­ 3³±¤¤³ Ȩ2³ ΕΘȩ ¨²   3³ ³¤ (¨¦§¶ ¸Ǿ ¯«¤ ²¤ ¯±¤²¤­³   ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¯« ­  ¯¯±®µ¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ $¤¯ ±³¬¤­³ ®¥ 4± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ ®¥ .¤¶ 9®±ª ¥®± ¬ ·¨¬´¬ ®¢¢´¯ ­¢¸ £´±¨­¦ ¯¤ ª ²¤ ²®­Ǿ ¯ ±³¨¢´« ±«¸ ¶§¤­ ¬ ·¨¬´¬ ®¢¢´¯ ­¢¸ ®¥ ³§¤ ΗΗ ±®®¬ §®³¤«Ǿ ¨­¢«´£¨­¦ ¯±®¯®²e£ ±¤²³ ´± ­³Ǿ  ­£  ³ ¯´¡«¨¢ ¤µ¤­³² ¥®± ³§¤ ²´¡©¤¢³ premise? Response to Comment C28-1: The proposed access plan will be submitted to the New York State Department of Transportation and is expected to be acceptable as it complies with industry standards and practices. It is noted that the Traffic Impact Study has been provided to the New York State Department of Transportation for comment (although generally not required for projects that generated less than 50 trips per hour). No response has been received. Comment C29-1: 3¨­¢¤ - ¨­ 3³±¤¤³ Ȩ2³ ΕΘȩ ¨²   3³ ³¤ (¨¦§¶ ¸Ǿ ¯«¤ ²¤ ¯±¤²¤­³   ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¯« ­  ¯¯±®µ¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ $¤¯ ±³¬¤­³ ®¥ 4± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ ®¥ .¤¶ 9®±ª ¥®± ¬ ·¨¬´¬ ®¢¢´¯ ­¢¸ £´±¨­¦ ¯¤ ª ²¤ ²®­Ǿ ¯ ±³¨¢´« ±«¸ ¶§¤­ ¬ ·¨¬´¬ ®¢¢´¯ ­¢¸ ®¥ ³§¤ ΗΗ ±®®¬ §®³¤«Ǿ ¨­¢«´£¨­¦ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ±¤²³ ´± ­³Ǿ  ­£  ³ ¯´¡«¨¢ ¤µ¤­³² ¥®± ³§¤ ²´¡©¤¢³ premise? Response to Comment C29-1: See Response to Comment C28-1. Comment C33-5: 4± ¥¥¨¢ ¨­ ³§¤  ±¤  ¨²  «±¤ £¸ ´­£¤± ¯±¤²²´±¤ȁ !££¨­¦   £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ³§ ³ ¶¨«« ¢¤±³ ¨­«¸  ££ ²´¡²³ ­³¨ ««¸ ¬®±¤ ¢ ± ³±¨¯² ³®  ­  «±¤ £¸ ¢®­¦¤²³¤£  ±¤  ²¤¤¬² ¢®´­³¤±¯±®£´¢³¨µ¤  ­£ ¢®´­³¤±¨­³´¨³¨µ¤ȁ %µ¤­ ³§®´¦§ ³§¨² ¯±®©¤¢³ ¨² ²¨³¤£ ¨­   § ¬«¤³Ǿ ³§¤±¤  ±¤ ¯«¤­³¸ ®¥ ®³§¤± ®¯³¨®­² ¥®± ²§®¯¯¨­¦Ǿ £¨­¨­¦Ǿ ¤­³¤±³ ¨­¬¤­³  ­£ ±¤¢±¤ ³¨®­ ®´³²¨£¤ ®¥   ¶ «ª ¡«¤ £¨²³ ­¢¤  ­£  ³ «¤ ²³ ΔΓΓ µ¨²¨³®±² ¢®¬¨­¦ ®± ¦®¨­¦ ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ³§±®´¦§®´³ ³§¤ £ ¸ ®± ¤µ¤­ ¶®±²¤ ®­   ¡´²¸ ¶¤¤ª¤­£ ¶¨«« ¢±¤ ³¤ ¬®±¤ ²³± ¨­ ®­ ®´± ±® £²  ­£ ®­ ³§¤ ­¤±µ¤² ®¥ «®¢ « ±¤²¨£¤­³²ȁ Response to Comment C33-5: As indicated in the Response to Comment H3-6 in this section of the FEIS, the results of the capacity analysis that was conducted in the Traffic Impact Study indicated that there would be minimal traffic impact due to the construction and operation of the proposed development. The project is projected to generate less than 50 trips per hour during a peak summer Saturday, which is approximately 28 percent of the volume of traffic currently using the existing 7-Eleven during the same time period. Comment C33-6: ( ² ²³ ¥¥¨­¦ ¡¤¤­ ¥ ¢³®±¤£ ¨­³® ³§¤ ³± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ ¤²³¨¬ ³¤²Ȉ 7§ ³  ¡®´³ ³±´¢ª² ¡±¨­¦¨­¦ ±¤²³ ´± ­³Ǿ §®³¤« ®± ¢ ³¤±¨­¦ ²´¯¯«¨¤² ³® ³§¤ ²¨³¤Ȉ Response to Comment C33-6: The Trip Generation Analysis conducted for the Traffic Impact Study considered all of the traffic expected to arrive and depart the site, including patrons, employees and all deliveries. Comment C34-5: 4§¤ ­´¬¡¤± ®¥ ¢ ±²Ǿ £¤«¨µ¤±¸ ³±´¢ª²Ǿ ¢ ³¤±¨­¦ µ¤§¨¢«¤²Ǿ  ­£ «¨¬®² ¢®¬¨­¦  ­£ ¦®¨­¦ ³§±®´¦§ ³§¤ ®­¤ ²¬ «« £±¨µ¤¶ ¸ ¶¨«« ¨­´­£ ³¤ 2³ȁ ΕΘǾ  ­£ § µ¤   ­¤¦ ³¨µ¤  ¥¥¤¢³ Ȭ²¨¢ȭ ®­ ®³§¤± ¡´²¨­¤²²¤²  ­£ §®¬¤²Ǿ ¯ ±³¨¢´« ±«¸ ³§®²¤ ²®´³§ ®¥ 2³ȁ ΕΘȁ &´±³§¤±Ǿ ³§¤  ²²´¬¯³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®­¤­³² ¨² ³§ ³ ¯¤®¯«¤ ¶¨«« ¢®¬¤ ¡¸ ³± ¨­ ®± ¡´²  ­£ ¶ «ª  ±®´­£ ³®¶­ ³® ³§¤ ®¯¤±  §®´²¤Ǿ ³® ³§¤ "¤ ¢§Ǿ ®± ³® &¤ ³§¤± (¨«« ²§®¯²Ǿ ¨² «´£¨¢±®´²ȁ 4§¤¸ ¶¨«« ¢®¬¤ ¡¸ ¢ ±Ǿ  ­£ ´²¤ ³§¤¨± ¢ ±² ³® ¦® ³® ®³§¤± ²¨³¤² – ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¶¨«« ¡¤¢®¬¤ ¶®±²¤ȁ Response to Comment C34-5: See Responses to Comments H1-4, H14-16, C33-6 and C33-5 in this section. 61 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Comment C35-10: Traffice Ȭ²¨¢ȭ ¨­¢±¤ ²¤ – ­®¶ £´±¨­¦ ³§¤ ²´¬¬¤±  ­£ ¥ «« ¨³ ¢ ­ ³ ª¤ ΔΘ ¬¨­´³¤² ³® ¤·¨³ ®´± driveway\[.\] Response to Comment C35-10: As indicated in the Traffic Impact Study, the proposed project will have minimal traffic impacts on the surrounding roadways. Comment C36-3: 3´¢§   sup¤± ²¨¹¤£ ¯±®©¤¢³ ¶®´«£ ¢±¤ ³¤ ¤·¯®­¤­³¨ «  ­£ ´­­¤¢¤²² ±¸ ³± ¥¥¨¢ µ®«´¬¤  ­£ ³± ¥¥¨¢ § ¹ ±£² ³® ¡®³§ ¯¤£¤²³±¨ ­²  ­£ ¬®³®±¨²³²ȁ 4§¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¢®­¢¤±­Ǿ ¨² ¥´±³§¤± ¤· ²¯¤± ³¤£ ¶§¤­ ¤ ²³¡®´­£ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¡¤¦¨­² ³® ¬ ª¤ «¤¥³ ³´±­² ¨­³® ²´¡©¤¢³ ¯±®¯¤±³¸  ² ¶¤²³ ¡®´­£ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¢®¬¤²  ±®´­£   ¡«¨­£ ³´±­ ®­ - ¨­ 2® £ȁ 4§¤±¤ ¨²  «²®   ¡´²¸ Κ-%«¤µ¤­  ¢±®²² ³§¤ ²³±¤¤³ȁ 4± ¥¥¨¢ ¢±¤ ³¤£ ¡¸ ³§is p±®©¤¢³Ǿ ¢®¬¡¨­¤£ ¶¨³§ ¢´±±¤­³ ¡´²¨­¤²² ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¢®´«£ ²´±¯ ²² ³§¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¨²²´¤²  ³ ³§¤ « µ¤­£¤± ¥ ±¬ ¨­ % ²³ - ±¨®­ȁ 4§¨² ²´±¤«¸Ǿ ¨² ­®³  ­  ¯¯±®¯±¨ ³¤ «®¢ ³¨®­ ¥®±   ¯±®©¤¢³ ®¥ ³§¨² ²¨¹¤ȁ Response to Comment C36-3: As explained in the Response to Comment H3-6 in this section, the proposed project is projected to generate less than 50 trips per hour during a peak summer Saturday, which is approximately 28 percent of the volume of traffic currently using the existing 7-Eleven during the same time period. There is adequate sight distance available to left-turning traffic into the site and, as indicated in the Traffic Impact Study, the project will have minimal traffic impact. Comment C37-7: !² ¤µ¤±¸®­¤ ª­®¶² ³§¤ µ®«´¬¤ ®¥ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ®­ - ¨­ 2® £ ¨² ¬®±¤ ³§ ­ ³§¤ ±® £ ¢ ­ § ­£«¤ȁ (®¶ ¬ ­¸ ¬®±¤ ¢ ±²  ­£ ³±´¢ª² ¶¨«« ¡¤  ££¤£ ¶§¨¢§ ¶¨«« ¨­¢±¤ ²¤ ­®¨²¤  ­£  ¨± ¯®««´³¨®­ ®­ ®´±  «±¤ £¸ ¢®­¦¤²³¤£ roads. Response to Comment C37-7: The proposed project is projected to generate less than 50 trips an hour during a peak summer Saturday dispersed in two directions, while Main Road accommodates over 1,000 trips an hour (see Figure 5 of the Traffic Impact Study included in Appendix I of the DEIS). As such, the projected increase in traffic will be less than five (5) percent. Comment C42-1: )³ ¨² ­®³¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ $± ¥³ %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ ³§ ³ ͗²¨£¤ ²³±¤¤³² ²´¢§  ² "®¨²²¤ ´ !µ¤­´¤Ǿ ,®¢´²³ , ­¤Ǿ  ­£ 4®¶­ ( ±b®± , ­¤ ¶®´«£ ¤·¯¤±¨¤­¢¤ ²®¬¤  ££¨³¨®­ « £¤« ¸  ¢¢¤²²¨­¦ - ¨­ 2® £͗ȁ 0«¤ ²¤ ª¤¤¯ ¨­ ¬¨­£ ³§ ³ £´±¨­¦ ³§¤ ¯¤ ª ²¤ ²®­ ³§¤ £¤« ¸²  ±¤  «±¤ £¸ ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³  ­£  ³ ³¨¬¤² £ ­¦¤±®´²ȁ )³͖² ­ ¨µ¤ ³®  ²²´¬¤ ³§ ³ ¤µ¤­³² ͗± ­¦¨­¦ ¥±®¬ ΕΓΓ-ΕΘΓ ¦´¤²³²͗ ¶¨³§ ͗ΔΙ ¯ ²²¤­¦¤± ²§´³³«¤ µ ­²͗ ¢®¬¨­¦ ¨­  ­£ ®´³ ®¥ ³§¤ £±¨µ¤¶ ¸ ®¥  ­  «±¤ £¸ ¢®­ge²³¤£  ±¤  ¶¨«« ­®³ ¨­¢±¤ ²¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ȁ 4§¤ £± ¥³  «²® ²³ ³¤² ³§ ³ ͗¤·³±¤¬¤ «¤­¦³§ «¨¬®´²¨­¤² ¶®´«£ ­®³ ¡¤ ¯¤±¬¨³³¤£͗ȁ 7¤͖µ¤ ²¤¤­ §®¶ ¤·³±¤¬¤ ³§¤ «¤­¦³§² ®¥ «¨¬®´²¨­¤² § µ¤ ¦±®¶­ ¨­ ±¤¢¤­³ ¸¤ ±²ȁ 7§ ³͖² ³§¤ ¢´³ ®¥¥Ǿ  ­£ ¶§® ¶¨«« ¬®­¨³®± ³§¤²¤ ²³±¤³¢§ «¨¬®² ²³®¯¯¨­¦ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¨­ ®±£¤± ³® ³´±­ ®­³® ΕΘ ¶§¨«¤ ³±¸¨­¦ ³®  µ®¨£ ¯ ±ª¤£ ¢ ±²  ­£ Κ-ΔΔ £¤«¨µ¤±¸ ³±´¢ª² ®­ ¤¨³§¤± ²¨£¤ ®¥ ³§ ³ ²³±¨¯ ®¥ ±® £Ȉ (®¶ ¶¨«« « ±¦¤ ¢®­²³±´¢³¨®­ ¤°´¨¯¬¤­³  ­£ £¤«¨µ¤±¸ µ¤§¨¢«¤² ­ µ¨¦ ³¤ ³§¤ ­ ±±®¶ £±¨µ¤¶ ¸ ®¥ ³§¤ ¤·¨²³¨­¦ ¥®±¬¤± "lj" ³§ ³ ¨² ¨­¢«´£¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ plan? Response to Comment C42-1: An examination was made of traffic conditions that may occur during special events and the potential impacts were fully discussed in the DEIS. As noted, large stretch limousines will not be permitted on the property, so no traffic operational difficulties are anticipated. Deliveries for the 7-Eleven are not likely to occur on Saturday afternoon or Saturday night when the use of shuttle vans is anticipated to serve the limited schedule of special events. The existing driveway that will be used for entering traffic will be improved to better accommodate entering traffic. 62 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Comment C42-6: ! ­¤¶ 4± ¥¥¨¢ )¬¯ ¢³ 3³´£¸ ³§ ³ ²¯¤¢¨¥¨¢ ««¸ £¤³¤±¬¨­¤² ³§¤ ¯¤ ª ²¤ ²®­ȝΚ-ΔΔ ³± ¥¥¨¢ȝ¯ ±ª¨­¦ ®­ ¤¨³§¤± ²¨£¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ²³±¤¤³ȁ Ȩ7¤ ­®³¨¢¤£ ³§¤ ²³´£¸͖² ±¤¢®¬¬¤­£¤£ “¯±®§¨¡¨³¤£ ²³±¤¤³ ¯ ±ª¨­¦”). Response to Comment C42-6: It is anticipated that approximately seven (7) parking spaces will be lost in front of the site in order to maximize sight distance for the site exit driveway. The residential homes located to the east of the site will not be impacted and the commercial uses to the west of the site appear to have adequate on-site parking and do not appear to use spaces in front of the subject site. The one site that may benefit from the on-street parking in front of the subject site is the 7-Eleven across Main Road from the site. 7-Eleven has the required on-site parking and utilizing on-street parking on the north side of Main Road unnecessarily encourages pedestrian crossing of the street. While maximizing sight distance for the subject exit is ideal, some trade off to provide some on-street parking on the north side of Main Street is possible. 2.3.5 3¯¤¢¨ « %µ¤­³² Comments related to special events are addressed in this section of the FEIS. Specifically, the following comments are included: H1-6, H7-6, H14-1, H14-2, H14-7, H14-10, H14-12, H14-20, C22-16, C22-17, C41-2, and C42-3. Comment H1-6: (®¶ £® ¶¤ ª­®¶ ³§ ³ ¨³Ȍ² ¤¨¦§³ ³® ³¶¤«µ¤ ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤µ¤­³² «¨ª¤ ¨­   ¸¤ ±Ȉ 7§¤±¤ £®¤² ¨³ ² ¸ ³§ ³Ȉ ) ¬¤ ­ ¨³Ȍ² ¬ ¸¡¤ ³§¤¨± ¢´±±¤­³ ¨­³¤­³¨®­ȁ 4§¨² ¨²   ¡´²¨­¤²² ±¨¦§³  ­£ ²® ) ¬¤ ­ )Ȍ¬ ©´²³ ² ¸¨­¦ȁ ) £®­Ȍ³ ª­®¶ ³§ ³ ³§ ³ ¨²   ±¤«¨ ¡«¤ £ ³  ¯®¨­³ ´­«¤²² ³§¤±¤ ¨² ²®¬¤ ¶ ¸ ³® ¬ ª¤ ¨³   ±¤«¨ ¡«¤ £ ³  ¯®¨­³ȁ 4® ³§¤ ¤·³¤­³ ¨³Ȍ² ­®³   ±¤«¨ ¡«¤ £ ³  ¯®¨­³ ¶§ ³ ¨² ³§¤ ´¯¯¤± «¨¬¨³ ®± ¨² ³§¤±¤ Ȩ¨­ ´£¨¡«¤ȩ « ¶ȁ ) ¬¤ ­ ¢ ´²¤ ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤µ¤­³² ³§¤¸ ´­£¤±²³ ­£  ±¤ ¢ ³¤¦®±¨¢ ««¸ £¨¥¥¤±¤­³ ¨­ ³¤±¬² ®¥ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¨¬¯ ¢³  ­£ ­®¨²¤ ¨¬¯ ¢³ ±¨¦§³ȁ 3® ¤¨¦§³ ³® ³¶¤«µ¤Ǿ ¶§ ³ £®¤² ³§ ³ ) ¬¤ ­  ­¸¶ ¸ §®¶ £® ) ³±´²³ ³§ ³ ­´¬¡¤±ȁ Response to Comment H1-6: See Response to Comment C1-9 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS. Also, as noted in Section 1.3 of this FEIS, large events will be limited to no more than 10 large events per year and no more than one large event per week. Such large events do not meet the definition of “Special Events” pursuant to Chapter 205 (Public Entertainment and Special Events) of the Town Code and will not be regulated as such. Large events will require advanced notice to the Town and arrangement for traffic control personnel. During preparation of this FEIS, the project scope was modified such that no outdoor events are proposed. All events will be held indoors, either within the hotel or the future enclosed space. Regarding noise impacts, the potential noise generation from cumulative sources (including indoor events, traffic, pool, cottages, HVAC, rooftop terrace, and parking lot) will not exceed 5 dBA over background (No Build) sound levels, which will be achieved with building materials and windows with high acoustic performance for noise attenuation. As noted in Section 1.3 of this FEIS, the future event room will be reviewed by the Planning Board during site plan approval. Regarding potential traffic impacts, the traffic consultants to the ZBA, in coordination with the applicant during preparation of this FEIS, identified required traffic mitigation for large events exceeding 100 patrons, which includes hiring traffic control for safe movements. Accordingly, both noise and traffic impacts were considered by the applicant and the consultants to the ZBA. Comment H7-6: )  ¬ ¢®­¢¤±­¤£  ¡®´³ ³§¤ 3¯¤¢¨ « %µ¤­³² ¤¨¦§³ ³® ³¶¤«µ¤ ³¨¬¤²   ¸¤ ± ¬¤ ­² ¸®´ ª­®¶ ³§ ³ ¢®´«£ ¡¤ ²¯±¤ £ ®´³ ®± ³§ ³ ¢®´«£ ¡¤ ¤µ¤±¸ ²¨­¦«¤ ¶¤¤ª¤­£ ¨­ ²´¬¬¤±  ­£ ³§¨² ¨² ¶§ ³ )Ȍ¬ £¤ «¨­¦ ¶¨³§  «« ­¨¦§³ «®­¦ȁ ) 63 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ¢ ­ ³¤«« ¸®´ ³§ ³ ) § µ¤   § ­£¥´« ®¥ ­¤¨¦§¡®±² ³§ ³ «¨µ¤ ¨­ ³§¤ §®´²¤ ­¤·³ £®®±  ­£ ¶§¤­¤µ¤± ³§¤¸ ¢®¬¤ §®¬¤ ) §¤ ± ³§¤¬ ³ «ª¨­¦ °´¨¤³«¸ ¨­ ³§¤¨± £±¨µ¤¶ ¸ȁ ) ¢ ­Ȍ³ ¨¬ ¦¨­¤ ¶§ ³   ¶¤££¨­¦ ¨² ¦®¨­¦ ³® ²®´­£ «¨ª¤ȁ Response to Comment H7-6: See Response to Comment H1-6 above. Comment H14-1: 4§¤ $± ¥³ %)3 ¨­£¨¢ ³¤² ¯±®©¤¢³² ²¯®­²®±  ­³¨¢¨¯ ³¤² §®²³¨­¦ ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤µ¤­³²  ¯¯±®·¨¬ ³¤«¸ Λ ³® ΔΕ ³¨¬¤² ¯¤± ¸¤ ± Ȩ£´±¨­¦ ³§¤ « ³¤ 3¯±¨­¦Ǿ 3´¬¬¤±  ­£ ¤ ±«¸ & «« ¬®­³§²ȩ ¨² ¶§ ³ ³§¤¸Ȍ±¤ ¯±®¯®²¨­¦ȁ 4§¤¸ ¨­£¨¢ ³¤ ³§ ³ ²´¢§ ¤µ¤­³² ¶®´«£ «¨ª¤«¸ ¢®­²¨²³ ®¥ ¶¤££¨­¦Ǿ ¥´­£± ¨²¨­¦ ¤µ¤­³²Ǿ ¤³¢ȁ  ­£ ³§ ³ « ±¦¤± ¤µ¤­³² ¶¨«« ¡¤ §®²³¤£ ®­ ³§¤ « ¶­  ±¤   £© ¢¤­³ ³® ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¯®­£..ȁ4§¤ $± ¥³ %)3 ­®¨²¤  ­ «¸²¨² ¨­£¨¢ ³¤£ ³§ ³ ¤µ¤­³² ¶®´«£ ¡¤ «¨¬¨³¤£ ³® Ι¯¬ ³® ΔΓ¯¬ ®­ &±¨£ ¸²Ǿ Ε¯¬ ³® ΔΔ¯¬ ®­ 3 ³´±£ ¸²Ǿ Ε¯¬ ³® Ι¯¬ ®­ 3´­£ ¸²ȁ 4§¤ ´²¤ ®¥ ²®´­£ ¡ ±±¨¤±²Ǿ ­®¨²¤ «¨¬¨³¤±² ¤³¢ȁ § ² ¡¤¤­ ¬¤­³¨®­¤£ ¡´³ §®¶ £®¤² ³§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³ ¯±®¯®²¤ ³® ¤­²´±¤ ³§¤ ¤­¥®±¢¤¬¤­³ ®¥ ³§¤ §®´±² ®¥ ®¯¤± ³¨®­ ¨£¤­³¨¥¨¤£  ­£ ¨£¤­³¨¥¨¤£ ­®¨²¤ ¬¨³¨¦ ³¨®­ ¬¤ ²´±¤² ³® ¤­²´±¤ ³§ ³ ³§¤¸  ±¤  £§¤±¤£ ³®Ȉ &®± ¤· ¬¯«¤ ¶§® ¨² ±¤²¯®­²¨¡«¤ ¥®±  £©´²³¨­¦ ³§¤ «¨¬¨³¤±  ­£ ¢§¤¢ª¨­¦ ³§¤ ­®¨²¤ «¤µ¤«  ³ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ «¨­¤ ®¥ ²¤­²¨³¨µ¤ ±¤¢¤¯³®±²Ȉ Response to Comment H14-1: See the Responses to Comments C1-8 and C1-14 in Section 2.3.1 and the Responses to Comments C1-9 in Section 2.3.1, and, C2-15, C2-19, C7-6 and H4-4 in Section 2.3.3 of this FEIS. Comment H14-2: 4§ ³Ȍ² ³±´¤ ³§¤±¤  ±¤ ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤µ¤­³ ¯¤±¬¨³ ¯±®¢¤£´±¤² ³§ ³ ­¤¤£ ³® ¡¤  ¯¯«¨¤£ ¥®± ¡´³ ) ¶¨«« ³¤«« ¸®´ ­®¶Ǿ ¸®´  ±¤ ¯±®¯®²¨­¦ ¤¨¦§³ ³® ³¶¤«µ¤ ¡´³ ³§ ³ £®¤² ­®³ «¨¬¨³ ¸®´ ´­«¤²² ³§¤±¤  ±¤ ¢®µ¤­ ­³²  ­£ ±¤²³±¨¢³¨®­² ®± ®³§¤± ¢®­£¨³¨®­² ´¯®­  ¯¯±®µ « ³§ ³ ¶®´«£ £® ²®…9®´  ±¤ ±¨¦§³ ¨­ ³§¤®±¸ ³§ ³ ¶¤ ¢ ­ ¤­¥®±¢¤ ³§¤²¤ ¡¸ #®£¤ %­¥®±¢¤¬¤­³  ­£ ²® ®­ ¡´³ ¶¤  «« ´­£¤±²³ ­£ ³§ ³ ¶¤ ± ³§¤± § µ¤   ¯±®©¤¢³ ³§ ³ ¨²­Ȍ³ ¦®¨­¦ ³® ¯®³¤­³¨ ««¸ «®®ª ¥®±¶ ±£ ³® ¨²²´¤² ®­ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ȁ 3® «¤³ ¬¤  ²ª ¸®´  ­®³§¤± °´¤²³¨®­Ǿ ³§¤ ²®´­£ ¡ ±±¨¤±² ¸®´Ȍ±¤ ¯±®¯®²¨­¦ ³® ´²¤ ³® ¬¨³¨¦ ³¤ ­®¨²¤ȁ 9®´ ¬¤­³¨®­ ¬®µ ¡«¤ ¥¤­¢¨­¦ ¯±¤²´¬ ¡«¸ ¨­²´« ³¤£ ¶¨³§ ²®¬¤ ²®±³ ®¥  ¢®´²³¨¢ « ¬ ³¤±¨ «Ǿ ¶§ ³Ȍ² ³§¤ ¥¤­¢¤ §¤¨¦§³Ǿ ¶§ ³Ȍ² ³§¤ ¯±®®¥ ®±  ­¸ ¯±®®¥  ³  «« ³§ ³ ³§®²¤  ±¤ ¤¥¥¤¢³¨µ¤ £¤µ¨¢¤²Ȉ Response to Comment H14-2: See also the Responses to Comments C1-8 and C1-19 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS and the Response to Comment H1-6 above. Comment H14-7: …t§¤±¤  ±¤ ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤µ¤­³²  ³ «®³² ®¥ ¯±®¯¤±³¨¤² ®´³ §¤±¤ ¥±®¬ ¶¨­¤±¨¤²  ­£ ¸ ¢§³ ¢«´¡²  ­£ §®³¤«²  ­£ ¨³ ¨² ± ±¤ ³§ ³ ²®¬¤¡®£¸ ¨²­Ȍ³ ¢ ««¨­¦  ­£ ¢®¬¯« ¨­¨­¦  ¡®´³ ³§¤ ­®¨²¤ȁ )³Ȍ² ©´²³   ¥ ¢³   ¥ ¢³ ®¥ «¨¥¤ ²® ) ¶®´«£ ± ³§¤± ³§ ³ ¶¤  «« § µ¤  ­ ®¯¯®±³´­¨³¸ ³®  ££±¤²² ³§¤¬ §¤ £ ®­  ­£ ¢®¬¤ ³® ¦±¨¯² ³® §®¶ ¸®´ ¢ ­ ¯±®¯®²¤ ±¤ ««¸ ²¤±¨®´² ¬¨³¨¦ ³¨®­ ¬¤ ²´±¤² ³§ ³ ¶¨«« ² ³¨²¥¸ ¤µ¤±¸¡®£¸ ³§ ³ ­®¨²¤ ¢ ­ ¡¤ ¯±®¯¤±«¸ ¢®­³ ¨­¤£ ®­ ³§ ³ ¯±®©¤¢³ ¶¨³§®´³ § µ¨­¦ ±¤ ««¸  £µ¤±²¤ ¨¬¯ ¢³² ®­ ¡´²¨­¤²²¤²  ­£ ®­ ³§¤ ²³±¤¤³²¢ ¯¤  ­£ ®­ ®³§¤± ±¤²¨£¤­³¨ « ¯±®¯¤±³¨¤²ȁ ) ¬¤ ­ ¶§ ³  ±¤ ³§¤ ®³§¤± ¬¤ ­¨­¦¥´« ¶ ¸² ³§ ³ ¸®´ ¢ ­ £® ³§ ³Ȉ "¤³¶¤¤­ ¤¨¦§³  ­£ ³¶¤«µ¤ ¨­ ³§¤ ¶ ±¬¤± ¬®­³§² ¢®´«£ ¬¤ ­  ² ®­¤ ¯¤±²®­ ² ¨£ ³§ ³ ®­¤ ®± ³¶® ¬ ©®± ¶¤££¨­¦² ¢ ­ § ¯¯¤­ ¤µ¤±¸ ²¨­¦«¤ ¶¤¤ª¤­£Ǿ ³§ ³Ȍ²   «®³ȁ 4§ ³Ȍ²   ¦®®£ £¤ « ®¥ ¨¬¯ ¢³ ®­   ±¤²¨£¤­³¨ « ¯±®¯¤±³¸ȁ )³ ¨²­Ȍ³ ©´²³ ³§¤ ­®¨²¤Ǿ ¨³Ȍ² ³§¤ ­´¬¡¤± ®¥ ¢ ±² ¢®¬¨­¦ ¨­  ­£ ®´³Ǿ ¨³Ȍ² ³§¤ §¤ £«¨¦§³² ¶¨³§®´³   ¡´¥¥¤± ¦®¨­¦ ¨­ ³® ±¤²¨£¤­³¨ « ³§¤ ¶¨­£®¶²  ­£ ²® ®­Ǿ ¨³Ȍ² ±¤¥«¤¢³¤£ «¨¦§³ȁ 4§¤±¤  ±¤   ­´¬¡¤± ®¥ ¥ ¢³®±²ȁ Response to Comment H14-7: As noted in Section 1.3 of this FEIS, the occurrence of large events (defined as events with 100 to a maximum of 250 persons) has been limited by the Lead Agency to no more than 10 large events per year and no more than one large event per week. Additionally, large events will require advanced notice to the Town. The DEIS and this FEIS evaluated the potential traffic impacts of special events and this FEIS (see Responses to Comments H14-14, C1-24, C1-26 and C6-2 in Section 2.3.4) evaluated additional mitigation for traffic control (see Response to Comments H1-6, H3-6 and H8-2 above). The proposed site plan 64 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ also includes a 15-foot landscape buffer along the eastern property line and 6.5-foot high stockade fence. Finally, the DEIS and this FEIS evaluated the potential noise impacts of special events (see Responses to Comments C1-8, C1-9, and C1-14 in Section 2.3.1, Responses to Comments H4-4 and C2-8 in Section 2.3.3, and Response to Comment H1-6 above). Comment H14-10: 9®´Ȍµ¤  «²® ¨­£¨¢ ³¤£ ²®¬¤ ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤µ¤­³² ¨­£®®±²  ­£ ¸®´Ȍµ¤ £¤²¢±¨¡¤£ ³§¤¬  ² ²¬ ««¤± ³§¨­¦² «¨ª¤ ¥´­£± ¨²¤±²  ­£ ²¬ «« ¯±¨µ ³¤ ¦ ³§¤±¨­¦² ¬ ¸¡¤ ¥¨¥³¸ ¯¤®¯«¤…3® ¢®´«£ ¸®´ ¯«¤ ²¤ £¤²¢±¨¡¤ ³§®²¤ ¨­£®®± ¤µ¤­³² ¨­ ¬®±¤ £¤³ ¨« ¡¤¢ ´²¤ ³§®²¤ ¶®´«£ ­®³ ­¤¢¤²² ±¨«¸ ±¤°´¨±¤ ¯¤±¬¨³²ȁ 4§®²¤  ±¤ ¬®±¤ ®± «¤²² ¯ ±³ ®¥   ¡´²¨­¤²² ¬®£¤«. Response to Comment H14-10:The applicant has modified the project scope to eliminate all outdoor events. Smaller events at the hotel will include local art exhibits, business meetings andsmall conferences. Comment H14-12: ) £® ¶ ­³ ³® ¨­£¨¢ ³¤ ¶¤Ȍ±¤  «²®  ¶ ±¤ ³§ ³ ¸®´Ȍ±¤ ¯±®¯®²¨­¦   ¯®±³ ¡«¤ ² ­¨³ ±¸ ²¸²³¤¬² ¥®± ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤µ¤­³² ®­ ³®¯ ®¥ ³§¤ ®­²¨³¤ 340  ­£ ¶¤Ȍ£ «¨ª¤ ³® ª­®¶   «¨³³«¤ ¡¨³ ¬®±¤  ¡®´³ ³§®²¤ §®¶ ¸®´Ȍ±¤ ¦®¨­¦ ³® £® ² ­¨³ ±¸ ¢®««¤¢³¨®­ £´±¨­¦ ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤µ¤­³²ȁ Response to Comment H14-12: The proposed action has been modified to eliminate outdoor events and, therefore, portable bathrooms will no longer be required or used at the subject property. All events will be held inside the hotel building or in the future enclosed space, and the restrooms inside the hotel will be available to accommodate guests of the event. The STP has been sized to accommodate an event of 250 patrons. Comment H14-20: - ­¸ ¡´²¨­¤²²¤² § µ¤ ² ¨£ ³§ ³ ¶¨³§®´³ ¡¤¨­¦  ¡«¤ ³® ±¤ «¨¹¤ ²®¬¤ ¨­¢®¬¤ ¥±®¬ ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤µ¤­³² ³§¤¨± ¡´²¨­¤²² ¬®£¤« ¨² ­®³ ¦®¨­¦ ³® ¡¤ ²´¢¢¤²²¥´«ȁ (®¶ ¨¬¯®±³ ­³  ±¤ ³§®²¤ ¤µ¤­³² ³® ¸®´± ²´¢¢¤²²¥´« ¡´²¨­¤²²Ȉ Response to Comment H14-20: According to the applicant, the business model was developed without consideration of special events. However, the hosting of special events provides financial assistance to address lower anticipated revenue during the off-season. Comment C22-16: ) ­®³¨¢¤£ ³§¤ ¤µ¤­³ ²¯ ¢¤ ¡¤¨­¦ £¨²¢´²²¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³  ²   ¬¤ £®¶ȁ )­ ®±£¤± ³® ¯¨³¢§   ³¤­³  ­£ § µ¤   ²®«¨£ ¥« ³ ¥«®®±Ǿ ³§¤¸ ¶¨«« § µ¤ ³® ¬®¶ ³§¤¨± ¬¤ £®¶ȁ ! ¬®¶¤£ ¬¤ £®¶ ¨²   ¥ ­¢¸ ³¤±¬ ¥®± ,!7.ȁ 7¨³§ ³§¤¨± ¤·³¤­²¨µ¤ §®²³¨­¦ ®¥ ¤µ¤­³² ®¢¢´±±¨­¦ ¨­ ¯¤ ª ¬¤ £®¶ ¦±®¶³§ ³¨¬¤ Ȩ²¯±¨­¦ȝ²´¬¬¤±ȝ¥ ««ȩǾ ³§¤±¤ ¶¨«« ­¤µ¤± ¡¤   ¬¤ £®¶ȁ Response to Comment C22-16: As indicated in the Response to C1-10 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS, the proposed landscape area exceeds the minimum requirement by 33.62 percent (i.e., 25 percent is required whereas 58.62 percent is provided), and the lot coverage is 23.7 percent less than the maximum permitted under the HB zoning (i.e., 40 percent is the maximum permitted whereas the proposed application includes only 16.3 percent). For the plan, inclusive of the future potential event room, the proposed landscape continues to exceed the requirement by 31.3% and the lot coverage continues to be considerably less than that permitted (18.6% proposed; 40% permitted). Finally, the proposed height is less than permitted (i.e., 35 feet maximum and 32.93 feet is proposed). Comment C22-17: )  ¬ ¤·³±¤¬¤«¸ ¢®­¢¤±­¤£ ³§ ³ µ¤¦¤³ ³¨µ¤ ¡´¥¥¤± ¶¨«« ­®³ ¯±¤µ¤­³ ®¯¯®±³´­¨²³¨¢ ¶¤££¨­¦ ¦´¤²³²  ¥³¤±   ¥¤¶ £±¨­ª² ¥±®¬ ¶ «ª¨­¦ ²³± ¨¦§³ ¨­³® ¬¸ ¸ ±£ȁ 4§¤±¤ ­¤¤£² ³® ¡¤   ²³±®­¦¤± ¯±®³¤¢³¨µ¤ ²®«´³¨®­ ¯´³ ¨­ ¯« ¢¤ 65 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ¡¤³¶¤¤­ ³§¤¨± ®´³£®®± ¤µ¤­³ ²¯ ¢¤  ­£ ¬¸ ¸ ±£ȁ 7§® ¨² «¨ ¡«¤ ¶§¤­   £±´­ª ¶¤££¨­¦ ¦´¤²³ ³±¤²¯ ²²¤²  ­£ ¥ ««² ¨­ ¬¸ ¸ ±£Ȉ )² ¨³ ¬¤ ®± ¨² ¨³ *®§­ 4¨¡¡¤³ Ȭ²¨¢ȭ  ­£ !­£±¤¶ '¨ ¬¡¤±³®­¤Ȉ Response to Comment C22-17: The project scope has been modified to eliminate all outdoor events. See Response to Comment C1-8 in Section2.3.1 and Response toComment H1-6 above. Comment C41-2: .®¨²¤  ­£ ³± ¥¥¨¢Ȁ ) ²§´³³¤± Ȭ²¨¢ȭ  ³ ³§¤ ³§®´¦§³ ®¥   ¬¨­¨¬´¬ ®¥ ΔΕ ®´³£®®± ¤µ¤­³² ¶§¨¢§ ¶¤  «« ª­®¶  ±¤ ¶¤££¨­¦²ȁ ( µ¤ ¶¤ ­®³ «¤ ±­¤£   ³§¨­¦ ²¨­¢¤ µ¨­¤¸ ±£ ΗΛȈ 7§¤­ «¨µ¨­¦  ³ ΔΛΘΘ $¤¯®³ , ­¤Ǿ ¶¤ §¤ ±£ ³§¤ ¬´²¨¢ ¥±®¬ µ¨­¤¸ ±£ ΗΛȅ %µ¤±¸ ¶¤¤ª¤­£ȅ .® ²®´­£  ¡²®±¡¨­¦ ¡ ±±¨¤±² ¶¨«« ¤µ¤± ²® ª ´¯ ³§¤ ²®´­£ ²® ¨³ ¶¨«« ­®³ ¤¥¥¤¢³ Ȭ²¨¢ȭ the °´ «¨³¸ ®¥ «¨¥¤ ¥®± §´­£±¤£² ®¥ ­¤¨¦§¡®±²ȁ ,¤³͖² ­®³ ¥®±g¤³ ³§¤ £±´­ª²Ǿ ³± ¥¥¨¢Ǿ  ­£ £±´­ª² £±¨µ¨­¦ ¨­ ³§¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢Ǿ ³±¸¨­¦ ³® ¤­³¤±  ­£ ¤·¨³ ³§¤ §®³¤«  «®­¦ ¶¨³§ ®³§¤± ¦´¤²³²Ǿ ²´¯¯«¸ ³±´¢ª²Ǿ ¦ ±¡ ¦¤Ǿ «¨­¤­Ǿ ¥®®£Ǿ ¡¤µ¤± ¦¤Ǿ ³®¨«¤³²Ǿ ¢«¤ ­¨­¦Ǿ ¢ ³¤±¤±²Ǿ ³¤­³ ±¤­³ «Ǿ ¡ ­£²Ǿ ¥«®¶¤±², ¯§®³®¦± ¯§¤±²Ǿ ¤¬¯«®¸¤¤²Ǿ « ­£²¢ ¯¤±²Ǿ ¶ ¨³²³ ¥¥Ǿ ¤³¢ȁȁȁ  ­£ ³§¤ ,)-/3ȁȁ 4§ ³’² ©´²³ ¥®± ¤µ¤­³² ­®³ ¤µ¤­ ³ ª¨­¦ ¨­³®  ¢¢®´­³   ΗΗ ±®®¬ §®³¤«  ­£ ΚΘ ²¤ ³ ±¤²³ ´± ­³ȁ Response to Comment C41-2: The project scope has been modified to eliminate all outdoor events. The potential noise, traffic and parking impacts of special events were addressed in the DEIS and further analyses were performed in this FEIS in responses to comments. See Sections 2.3.3 and 2.3.4 of this FEIS. Comment C42-3: ͗3¯¤¢¨ « %µ¤­³² ± ­¦¨­¦ ¥±®¬ ΕΓΓ-ΕΘΓ ¦´¤²³² ¨­  ­ ®´³£®®± ²¯ ¢¤ ¡¤³¶¤¤­ ³§¤ §®³¤«  ­£ ±¤²³ ´± ­³ ͗³± ­²« ³¤² ³® ¬´²¨¢  ­£ ¤­³¤±³ ¨­¬¤­³ȁ !¢¢®±£¨­¦ ³® 5²¤ 2¤¦´« ³¨®­ 280-ΖΘȝΗ¢ ³§¤ ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤·¢¤¯³¨®­ ²³ ³¤²Ȁ ͗.® ¬´²¨¢Ǿ ¤­³¤±³ ¨­¬¤­³ ®± «®´£²¯¤ ª¤± ²¸²³¤¬ ²§ «« ¡¤  ´£¨¡«¤ ¥±®¬ ¡¤¸®­£ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ «¨­¤ȁ͗ (®¶ £®¤² ³§¤ ³®¶­ ¨­³¤­£ ³® ¤­¥®±¢¤ ³§ ³Ȉ Response to Comment C42-3: As indicated in the Response to Comment C2-22 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS, while Section 280-35(B)(4)(c) provides, in connection with a hotel use, that no music, entertainment or loudspeaker system shall be “audible” beyond the property line, the term “audible” is not defined by this Section of the Code. Nevertheless, the Town Code does have a Noise Ordinance (Chapter 180) which regulates the decibel level of sound produced on a parcel, whether through human voice, instrument or amplified sound (See. Sec. 180-4 “Noise Pollution”). Also, see the Response to Comment H1-5 in Section 2.3.3 regarding audibility as a criterion. 2.3.6 , ­£ 5²¤  ­£ :®­¨­¦ Comments related to land use and zoning are addressed in this section of the FEIS. Specifically, the following comments are included: H1-3, H3-1, H3-2, H3-9, H6-1, C5-4, C7-8, C10-2, C10-3, C17-5, C27-1, C27-4, C27-7, C33-1, and C36-4. Comment H1-3: /­¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯¤®¯«¤ ¬¤­³¨®­¤£ ³§ ³ ¤µ¤±¸³§¨­¦ ¢®¬¯«¨¤² ¶¨³§ ¤µ¤±¸ ¢®£¤ȁ 4§ ³ ± ¨²¤²   ¢±¤£¨¡¨«¨³¸ ¨²²´¤ ©´²³ § µ¨­¦ ±¤ £ ¨³ ¡¤¢ ´²¤  ² ¸®´  «±¤ £¸ ¯®¨­³¤£ ®´³ ³§¤±¤Ȍ²   ²¢±¤¤­¨­¦ µ¨®« ³¨®­  ² ³§¤±¤ ¨²   ²¨³¤ ¯« ­Ȃ 7¤«« ¨³Ȍ²  ­ ¨²²´¤ ³§ ³ ¬¨¦§³ ±¤°´¨±¤   µ ±¨ ­¢¤Ȃ4§¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¨² ®¡µ¨®´²«¸   ¬ ©®± ¢®­¢¤±­Ȃ Response to Comment H1-3: The site plan, as presented in the DEIS, complies with the minimum side yard setback for the HB zoning district. Subsequent to the DEIS hearing, the proposed site plan was modified to create a minimum of 15-foot landscape buffer along the entirety of the eastern property line (see Appendix C). 66 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ See Section 2.3.4 of this FEIS for comments and responses related to traffic and parking, as well as Section 3.2 and Appendix I of the DEIS. Comment H3-1: …t§¤±¤  ±¤ ³¶® ¨²²´¤² ³§ ³ ) ¶ ­³ ³® ¡±¨­¦ ³® ³§¤ "® ±£Ȍ²  ³³¤­³¨®­ȁ 4§¤ ¥¨±²³ ®­¤ ¨² ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ¢§ ± ¢³¤± ¶§¨¢§ ¨² µ¤±¸ § ±£ ³® £¤¥¨­¤  ­£ )  «²® ¶ ­³ ³® ¡±¨­¦ ´¯ ³§¤ ¥ ¢³ ³§ ³ ¶¤Ȍµ¤ ©´²³ ¡¤¤­ ³§±®´¦§  ¡®´³ ³¤­ ¸¤ ±² ®¥   ¢®¬¯±¤§¤­²¨µ¤ ¯« ­ ¯±®¢¤²²  ­£  «³§®´¦§ ³§¤ ¯« ­ § ² ­®³ ¡¤¤­ ¥®±¬ ««¸  £®¯³¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ 4®¶­ "® ±£Ǿ ¤µ¤±¸ ²¨­¦«¤ § ¬«¤³ ¨­ ³§¨² ³®¶­ § ² ¬¤³ ­´¬¤±®´² ³¨¬¤²  ­£ ¦¨µ¤­ ³§¤¨± ³§®´¦§³² ³® ³§¤ 0l ­­¨­¦ "® ±£ ¶§¨¢§ § ² ¯´³ ¤µ¤±¸³§¨­¦ ¨­³® ®´± $± ¥³ #®¬¯±¤§¤­²¨µ¤ 0« ­ ¶§¨¢§ ¨² ®­ «¨­¤ȁ 4§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³ § ² ­®³ ±¤¥¤±±¤£ ³® ³§ ³  ³  «« ¯±®¡ ¡«¸ \[be\]¢ ´²¤ ¨³ £®¤²­Ȍ³ § µ¤ ³® «¤¦ ««¸ȁ (®¶¤µ¤± ) £® ³§¨­ª ³§¤ "® ±£ ²§®´«£ ³ ª¤ ³§ ³ ¨­³® ¢®­²¨£¤± ³¨®­ ¥®± ³§¤ ¥®««®¶¨­¦ ±¤ ²®­²ǿ ³§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³ § ² ´²¤£ §¨²³®±¨¢ « ±¤¥¤±¤­¢¤² ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ΕΓΓΘ ( ¬«¤³ ²³´£¸  ­£  ­ ´¯£ ³¤ ¨­ ΕΓΓΚ  ² ¶¤««  ²   3®´³§®«£ 3´¡ 7 ³¤± 3§¤£ 0« ­ ¥±®¬ ΕΓΔΖȁ 4® ¬¸ ¬¨­£ ³§®²¤  ±¤ ®«£  ­£ ®´³£ ³¤£ȁ Response to Comment H3-1: The scope of the DEIS was determined by the Town of Southold Board of Zoning Appeals (with the assistance of its independent consultants, Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC and RTP Environmental Associates, Inc), through the issuance of a Final Scope dated April 19, 2018. Specifically, as stated in the Final Scope, “, ­£ ´²¤ ¯« ­² ³§ ³ ¯¤±³ ¨­ ³® ³§¤ ¯±®©¤¢³ ²¨³¤  ­£ ±¤«¤µ ­³ ³® ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ « ­£ ´²¤ ¶¨«« ¡¤ £¤²¢±¨¡¤£  ­£ ¶¨«« ¨­¢«´£¤ ³§¤ ΕΓΓΘ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£ ( ¬«¤³ 3³´£¸ǿ 3¢¤­¨¢ 3®´³§®«£ #®±±¨£®± - ­ ¦¤¬¤­³ 0« ­ǿ ³§¤ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£ ,®¢ « 7 ³¤±¥±®­³ 2¤µ¨³ «¨¹ ³¨®­ 0±®¦± ¬ Ȩ,720ȩǿ  ­£ ,®­¦ )²« ­£ .®±³§ 3§®±¤ Heritage !±¤  - ­ ¦¤¬¤­³ 0« ­ȁ #®­²¨²³¤­¢¸  ­ «¸²¤² ¶¨³§ ² ¨£ ¯« ­² ¶¨««  «²® ¡¤ ¨­¢«´£¤£ȁ” Accordingly, the DEIS complied with the Final Scope, as issued. See also the Response to Comment C18-2. Also, as indicated in the Responses to Comments C1-9, C1-10, C18-1, and Table 3 of this FEIS (see Section 2.3.1), Response to Comment C33-2 (Section 2.3.11), and evaluated in Section 3.1 of the DEIS, the proposed action is fully compliant with the purpose, bulk and dimensional requirements for the HB zoning district as well as the Special Exception Use Permit criteria set forth at §280-142 and §280-143, and supplemental landscaping regulations set forth in Article XX of the Town Zoning Code. As evaluated in the Response to Comment C18-1, the proposed action is also consistent with the economic development goals set forth in the updated Comprehensive Plan. Comment H3-2: 4§¤ #®¬¯±¤§¤­²¨µ¤ 0« ­…¨³Ȍ²   «¨³³«¤ ²³±®­¦¤± ­®¶  ­£ ³§¤ #®¬¯±¤§¤­²¨µ¤ 0« ­ ®µ¤± «« ¥®± ³§¤ ¤­³¨±¤ ³®¶­ ² ¸² ³§ ³ ³§¤ ±¤²¨£¤­³² §¤±¤ ¶ ­³ ³® ¬ ¨­³ ¨­  ­£ ¤­§ ­¢¤ ®´± ¢®¬¬´­¨³¨¤² ²¤­²¤ ®¥ ¯« ¢¤. Response to Comment H3-2: See Responses to Comments H3-1 (above), C18-1, C18-2, and H5-8 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS. Comment H3-9: …o­¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ¢®­¢«´²¨®­² ³§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³ ¢®¬¤² ³® ¨² ³§ ³ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ §®³¤« ¶®´«£ ²¤±µ¨¢¤   ¢ ³ «¸²³ ¥®± ¤·¨²³¨­¦ ¡´²¨­¤²²¤² ³® ¤·³¤­£ ¤µ¤­¨­¦ ®¯¤± ³¨­¦ §®´±²  ­£ ¤­¢®´± ¦¤£ ³§¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ®¥ ­¤¶ ¡´²¨­¤²²Ǿ ¶¤«« )Ȍ¬ ²´±¤ ¨³ ¶®´«£ ¡´³ )Ȍ¬ ­®³ ²´±¤ ³§¨² ¨² ³§¤ ³¸¯¤ ®¥ ¡´²¨­¤²² ³§ ³ ¶¤ ¶ ­³ ³® ²¤¤ ¨­ ³§¤ § ¬«¤³ȁ Response to Comment H3-9: The DEIS evaluated the 2005 Southold Hamlet Study, as required in the Final Scope. As explained in the DEIS (page 94): “The Hamlet Study indicated that stakeholders thought the lack of evening vibrancy was a weakness within the hamlet.” In response to this identified weakness, the DEIS explained that the “proposed restaurant would increase evening dining options while the proposed hotel would attract visitors that would seek out area shops and businesses within walking distance of the hotel. It would be expected that the proposed hotel would serve as a catalyst for existing businesses to extend evening operating hours and potentially encourage the development of new businesses.” 67 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Comment H6-1: ) £®­Ȍ³ ­¤¤£ ³® ³¤«« ¸®´ £® ¶¤ ­¤¤£   ¥®±³¸ ¥®´± ±®®¬ §®³¤« ¨­ ³§¤ ¬¨££«¤ ®¥ ®´± ³®¶­Ȉ ) £®­Ȍ³ ³§¨­ª ²®ȁ 4§¤  ±¢§¨³¤¢³ ±¤¥¤±±¤£ ³® ³§¤ ¥±®­³ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ °´¨³¤   ¥¤¶ ³¨¬¤²  ²   ¡¤£  ­£ ¡±¤ ª¥ ²³ ±¤¥¤±±¨­¦ ³§ ³ ¨³ ¶ ²  «±¤ £¸ «®£¦¨­¦  ­£ ¨³ ¨² ­®³ȁ )³ ¨²   ±¤­³ «  ­£ ) ¡¤«¨¤µ¤ ¨³Ȍ² ²³¨«« ¡¤¨­¦ ±¤­³¤£ȁ 3® ¨³ ¨² ­®³   ¡¤£  ­£ ¡±¤ ª¥ ²³  ­£ ¨³Ȍ² ­®³ ³± ­²¥¤± ¡«¤ ³® ³§¤ ­¤¶ ®¶­¤±² ²® ©´²³ ³® ¢« ±¨¥¸ ³§ ³ȁ Response to Comment H6-1: Section 1.1.2 of the DEIS (see page 1), acknowledges its current and former uses as follows: “The existing on-site development is limited to a two-story, single-family residence with accessory structures (detached garage and two sheds). It is noted that the existing residence used to be the “Hedges Bed and Breakfast” and is now used for residential purpose.” Pursuant to §280-45A (8) of the Zoning Code, the proposed restaurant is a permitted use. Section 280-45(B) sets forth land uses that are permitted in the HB zoning district by special exception by the Board of Appeals. Relevant to the proposed application, §280-45B (2) permits by special exception, “Motel and hotel uses as set forth in and regulated by § 280-35B (4) of the Resort Residential (RR) District, except that minimum lot size shall be three acres.” As indicated in the Responses to Comments C1-9, C1-10, C18-1, and Table 3 of this FEIS (see Section 2.3.1), Response to Comment C33-2 (Section 2.3.11), and evaluated in Section 3.1 of the DEIS, the proposed action is fully compliant with the purpose, bulk and dimensional requirements for the HB zoning district as well as the Special Exception Use Permit criteria set forth at §280-142 and §280-143, and supplemental landscaping regulations set forth in Article XX of the Town Zoning Code. As evaluated in the Response to Comment C18-1, the proposed action is also consistent with the economic development goals set forth in the updated Comprehensive Plan. Comment C5-4: 4§¤ ¬¤¤³¨­¦ « ²³ ­¨¦§³ ¶ ² µ¤±¸ ¨­¥®±¬ ³¨µ¤ȁ )³ ¶ ² ®¡µ¨®´² ³§ ³ ³§®²¤ ¨­µ®«µ¤£ ¨­ ³§¨² £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ¶¤±¤ ¥®± ¨³  ­£ ¤µ¤±¸®­¤ ¶§® «¨µ¤² ­¤ ± ¨³  ­£ ³§®²¤ ¶§® ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¤¥¥¤¢³¤£ Ȭ²¨¢ȭ ¡¸ ¨³Ǿ  ±¤  ¦ ¨­²³ ¨³ȁ Thi² ¯ ±¢¤« ¬ ¸ ¡¤ ¹®­¤£ ¢®¬¬¤±¢¨ « §®¶¤µ¤± ¨³ ¨² ²³¨«« ¨­  ­  ±¤  ¶§¨¢§ ¨² µ¤±¸ ±¤²¨£¤­³¨ «ȁ (®¶ ¬ ny §®´²¤² ¶®´«£ ¡¤  ««®¶¤£ ®­ ΙȁΚΘ  ¢¤²Ȉ Th¨² £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³  ² ¨³ ²³ ­£² ¨² ³®® ¡¨¦ ¥®± ³§¤  ±¤ . Response to Comment C5-4: While the HB zoning of the property allows for both single family and multifamily uses as-of-right, the applicant does not wish to construct a residential development. In addition, a prior application was made on this property for a multifamily residential project which was ultimately denied by the Town. This previous denial factored into the proposal for this project and decided to forego another multifamily development. Comment C7-8: 7§¸  ««®¶   ¯±®©¤¢³ ³§ ³ ¢®nt± £¨¢³² ²® ¬ ­¸  ²¯¤¢³² ®¥ ³§¤ #®¬¯±¤§¤­²¨µ¤ 0« ­ ¶§¨¢§ ¯¤®¯«¤ § µ¤ ¡¤¤­ ²³±¨µ¨­¦ ³®  ¢¢®¬¯«¨²§ ¥®± ²® «®­¦Ȉ 7§ ³ ¯±¤¢¤£¤­³ ¶¨«« ³§¨² ²¤³ ¥®± ³§¤ ®³§¤± § ¬«¤³²Ȉ )¥ ³§¤ ¹®­¨­¦ ¤²³ ¡«¨²§¤£ ¡ ¢ª ¨­ ³§¤ ΔΜΛΓ²  ««®¶² ²®¬¤³§¨­¦ «¨ª¤ ³§¨² ³® § ¯¯¤­Ǿ ³§¤­ ³§¤ ¹®­¨­¦ ­¤¤£² ³® ¡¤ ¢§ ­¦¤£ȁ !«« ³§¤ § ¬«¤³²  ±¤ ¦ «µ ­¨¹¤£  ¦ ¨­²³ « ±¦¤ ¯±®©¤¢³² ®¥ ³§¨² ª¨­£ ®­ ³§¤ .®±³§ &®±ªȁ 4§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³²  ±¤ «®®ª¨­¦  ³ ³§¤ ¬®­¤¸Ǿ ¡´³ ³§¨² ¨²   ¬´¢§ « ±¦¤± ¯¨¢³´±¤ȁ #®¬¬´­¨³¸ ±¨¦§³²  ±¤  ² ¨¬¯®±³ ­³  ² ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ±¨¦§³²ȁ Response to Comment C7-8: The comment is noted. See Response to Comment C18-2. Comment C10-2: 7¨«« %­¢« µ¤ ¦´¤²³² § µ¤  ¢¢¤²² ³® ³§¤ 0 ±ª $¨²³±¨¢³  ¬¤­¨³¨¤² ²´¢§  ² 4®¶­ ( ±¡®± , ­¤ "¤ ¢§ and &®´­£¤±͖² , ­£¨­¦ 0 ±ªȈ )¥ ²®Ǿ ¶§ ³ ¨² ³§¤ ¡ ²¨² ¥®± %­¢« µ¤͖² 0 ±ª $¨²³±¨¢³ ³ ·  ²²¤²²¬¤­³ lj ´²¤ ²¨­¢¤ ¦´¤²³²  ±¤ ­®³ ±¤²¨£¤­³²Ȉ Response to Comment C10-2: The parks and beaches within the Southold Park District (“Park Facilities”) are private property and may be used by the residents who reside within the Park District. Park Facilities may be 68 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ used free of charge by residents of the Southold Park District and their guests. The Enclaves property is located within the Southold Park District and its owners and registered guests are permitted, by rule, to utilize Park Facilities. Notwithstanding the Town’s beautiful Park Facilities, the Hotel will have its own amenities, as noted on the proposed site plan, and many of the Hotel guests would be expected to remain on the grounds to utilize same. For guests who wish to visit local parks or beaches, a shuttle van operated by the Hotel would be offered as a convenience service. This would limit the use of private vehicles and for-hire services (such as Uber or Lyft). This would also eliminate the need to walk to area beaches. Comment C10-3: )¥ %­¢« µ¤ ¨²  ¯¯±®µ¤£Ǿ ³§¨² «¤¦ « ¯±¤¢¤£¤­³ ¶¨«« ¦¨µ¤ ®³§¤± £¤µ¤«®¯¤±² ³§¤ ±¨¦§³ ³® ¢®­²³±´¢³  ­ ¤·¢¤²² ®¥ ²¨¬¨« ± ¯±®©¤¢³² ³§ ³ ¶¨«« £¤¦± £¤ ®´± °´ «¨³¸ ®¥ «¨¥¤ȁ 2¤²¨£¤­³² £®­͖³ ¶ ­³ ³® £¤²³±®¸ ®´± ³®¶­ ¥®±   °´¨¢ª ¡´¢ª  ² ¤«²¤¶§¤±¤ ®­ ,®­¦ )²« ­£ȁ Response to Comment C10-3: As indicated in the Response to Comment H6-1 in this subsection, the proposed restaurant is a permitted use pursuant to §280-45A (8) of the Zoning Code. Regarding the proposed hotel, Section 280-45(B) sets forth land uses that are permitted in the HB zoning district by special exception by the Board of Appeals, including motel and hotel uses (§280-45B \[2\]). As indicated in the Response to Comment C1-9 and C18-1 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS, the proposed action is consistent with the special exception use permit criteria set forth at Section 280-142 and Section 280-143 (see also Appendix I of this FEIS). Furthermore, as indicated in the Responses to Comments C1-10, C18-1, and Table 3 of this FEIS (see Section 2.3.1) and Response to Comment C33-2 (Section 2.3.11), and also evaluated in Section 3.1 of the DEIS, the proposed action is fully compliant with the purpose, bulk and dimensional requirements for the HB zoning district, and supplemental landscaping regulations set forth in Article XX of the Town Zoning Code. As evaluated in the Response to Comment C18-1, the proposed action is also consistent with the economic development goals set forth in the updated Comprehensive Plan. Comment C17-5: !­¸ ͗²¯¤¢¨ « ¢®­²¨£¤± ³¨®­²͗ ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ¬ £¤ ®­«¸ ³® ¯±®©¤¢³² ³§ ³ ¢ ­ ¯±®µ¤ ³§¤¨± ¢®­³±¨¡´³¨®­ ³® ¤­§ ­¢¨­¦ ³§¤ «®¢ « ¤¢®­®¬¸Ǿ ¡¤­¤¥¨³¨­¦ ³§¤ ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³Ǿ  ­£  ££¨­¦ µ «´¤ ³® ³§¤ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ȁ )¥ ³§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³ ¢ ­­®³ ¯±®µ¤ ³§¨²Ǿ ¨³ ¬ ª¤² ¢«¤ ± ³§ ³ ³§¤ ¯±®©¤¢³ ²®«¤«¸ ¡¤­¤¥¨³² ³§¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¤±Ǿ  ­£ ³§¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¤±͖² ¯ ±³¨¤²ȁ 4§¤²¤  ±¤ ­®³ ±¤ ²®­² ¥®± ´² \[to\] ¦± ­³ ²¯¤¢¨ « ¢®­²¨£¤± ³¨®­Ǿ ¨­£¤¤£ ¨³ ²§®´«£ ¡¤ °´¨³¤ ³§¤ ®¯¯®²¨³¤ȁ )³ ¨² ®´± ±¤²¯®­²¨¡¨«¨³¸  ² ¬¤¬¡¤±² ®¥ ³§¨² ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ³® ¤­²´±¤ ³§ ³ ³§¤ «®¢ « ¢®£¤²  ­£ ¹®­¨­¦  ±¤ ¯±®³¤¢³¨­¦  ­£ ¤­§ ­¢¨­¦ ®´± ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ȁ ) ¶±¨³¤ ³§¨² «¤³³¤±  ² ¯ ±³ ®¥ ¬¸ ¢®¬¬¨³¬¤­³  ­£ ±¤²¯®­²¨¡¨«¨³¸ ³®   ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ) «®µ¤Ǿ  ­£ ) ´±¦¤ ¸®´ ³® ¢®­²¨£¤± ¸®´± ±¤²¯®­²¨¡¨«¨³¸ ³® £® ³§¤ ² ¬¤ȁ 4§¤²¤  ±¤ ­®³ ¬¨²³ ª¤² ³§ ³ ¢ ­ ¡¤ ¤ ²¨«¸ ´­£®­¤ȁ Response to Comment C17-5: The proposed application is seeking a Special Exception Use Permit from the ZBA. As defined in the Town Zoning Code (§280-139), the purpose of the special exception use permit procedure is “to provide for administrative review of selected types of proposed land uses. Certain uses which are allowable under zoning are nevertheless so likely to significantly affect their surroundings that they require individual review to assure compatibility with existing land use patterns, community character and the natural environment before being permitted to come into existence. Similarly, certain authorized uses may take on such diverse forms in their actual implementation that it is wise to review and pass upon the adherence of each individual proposal to standards and guidelines previously established for the use involved. Finally, the case- by-case review achieved by use of the special exception approval mechanism can increase the flexibility and appropriateness of local development review and better enable local officials to avoid negative consequences which sometimes arise from the otherwise lawful development or use of a particular site.” Furthermore, the Town Zoning Code sets forth General Standards (see §280-142) and Matters to Be Considered (§280-143), to 69 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ which this application is subject to (as well as all other special exception use permit applications in the Town of Southold). Accordingly, the lead agency is thoroughly evaluating the proposed development in accordance with the regulations and standards for special exception uses in the Town of Southold. Finally, a revised analysis of the project’s consistency with the criteria for the issuance of a special exception use permit has been prepared for the proposed action without outdoor events and the mitigation developed during this FEIS (see Appendix I of this FEIS). Based on this analysis, the project is consistent with all criteria for the issuance of said permit. See also the Responses to Comments C1-9, C1-10, and C18-1 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS and Response to Comment C33-2 in Section 2.3.11 of this FEIS. Comment C27-1:" ²¤£ ®­ ®´± ±¤µ¨¤¶ ®¥ ³§¤ ¥¨«¤  ­£ $%)3 ¥®± ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£  ¢³¨®­Ǿ ¶¤ ¥¨­£ ³§¤ ²¨¹¤  ­£ ²¢ «¤ ®¥ ³§¨² ¯±®¯®² « ³® ¡¤ §¨¦§«¸ ¨­¢®­²¨²³¤­³ ¶¨³§   µ ²³ ¬ ©®±¨³¸ ®¥ ¢®­²¤±µ ³¨®­  ­£ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ¯« ­­¨­gg® «² £¤µ¤«®¯¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ 4®¶­  ­£ ¨³² ±¤²¨£¤­³² ®µ¤± ³§¤ ¢®´±²¤ ®¥   £¤¢ £¤-«®­¦ ¢®¬¯±¤§¤­²¨µ¤ ¯« ­ ´¯£ ³¤ ¯±®¢¤²²ȁ !²   ±¤²´«³ ®¥ ³§¤²¤ ¨­¢®­²¨²³¤­¢¨¤² ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ³®¶­͖² ¶¤««-¤²³ ¡«¨²§¤£ ¤¥¥®±³² ³® ±¤£´¢¤ ®µ¤±£¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³Ǿ ¢®­²¤±µ¤ ¶ ³¤± ±¤²®´±¢¤²Ǿ ¯±®³¤¢³ ­ ³´± « § ¡¨³ ³²Ǿ ±¤£´¢¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¢®­¦¤²³¨®­Ǿ ¯±®³¤¢³ ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ «³§  ­£ ² ¥¤³¸Ǿ  ­£ ¯±®¬®³¤ ³§¤ ®±£¤±«¸  ­£ ¡ « ­¢¤£ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ®¥  £© ¢¤­³ ¯±®¯¤±³¨¤²Ǿ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£  ¢³¨®­ Ȩ¨­ ¨³² ¢´±±¤­³ ¥®±¬ȩ ¢ ­­®³ ¢®­¥®±¬ ³® ³§¤ ²³ ­£ ±£²  ­£ ¢®­²¨£¤± ³¨®­² ²¤³ ¥®±³§ ®­ ³§¤ 3®´³§®«£ 4®¶­ :®­¨­¦ #®£¤ ´­£¤± ȷΕΛΓ-ΔΗΕ  ­£ §280-143. &®± ³§¤²¤ ±¤ ²®­²Ǿ ¶¤  ²ª ³§¤ :"! ³® ±¤©¤¢³ ®± ²¤¤ª ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ ¬®£¨¥¨¢ ³¨®­² ³® ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£  ¢³¨®­ ³§ ³ ¢®´«£ ¡±¨­¦ ³§¤ ²´¡©¤¢³ ¯±®¯®² « ®±  ­  «³¤±­ ³¨µ¤ ¯±®¯®² « ¨­³® ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³«¸ §¨¦§¤± ¢®­¥®±¬¨³¸ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ³®¶­͖² ¢®¬¯±¤§¤­²¨µ¤ ¯« ­­¨­¦ ¦® «²  ­£ i³² ²¯¤¢¨ « ¯¤±¬¨³ ±¤°´¨±¤¬¤­³²  ­£ ¢®­²¨£¤± ³¨®­²ȁ Response to Comment C27-1: See Responses to Comments H3-1 (above), C1-9, C1-10, C18-2, and C22-1 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS. Comment C27-4: '¨µ¤­ ³§¤ ¥ ¢³ ³§ ³ 3®´³§®«£͖² ¢®¬¯±¤§¤­²¨µ¤ ¯« ­ ´¯£ ³¤ § ² ¢«¤ ±«¸ ²³ ³¤£ ³§¤ ³®¶­͖² i­³¤­³ ³® ͗³® ¯±®³¤¢³  ­£ ¤­§ ­¢¤ ³§¤ ­ ³´± « ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ ®¥ ³§¤ ³®¶­”  ²   ¯±¨¬ ±¸ ¯« ­­¨­¦ ¦® « ¥®± ³§¤ ¥´³´±¤Ǿ ³§¤ :"! ¬´²³ ¢ ±¤¥´««¸ ¢®­²¨£¤± ³§¤ ¢®­²¨²³¤­¢¸ ®¥ ³§¤ ²´¡©¤¢³ ¯±®¯®² « Ȩ®± ¨³²  «³¤±­ ³¨µ¤²ȩ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ¢«¤ ±«¸  ±³¨¢´« ³¤£ ±¤°´¨±¤¬¤­³² ®¥ ³§¤ ¤·¨²³¨­¦ 4®¶­ #®£¤  ­£ ³§¤ ¢®¬¯±¤§¤­²¨µ¤ ¯« ­­¨­¦ ¦® «² ®¥ ³§¤ ³®¶­͖² ¢®¬¯±¤§¤­²¨µ¤ ¯« ­ update. Response to Comment C27-4: See Responses to Comments H3-1 and C27-1 (above), and C1-9, C1-10, C18-1, C18-2, and C22-1 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS and Response to Comment C33-2 in Section 2.3.11 of this FEIS. Comment C27-7: !²   ±¤²´«³ ®¥ ¨³² ²¨¹¤  ­£ ²¢ «¤Ǿ ¶¤ £® ­®³ ¡¤«¨¤µ¤ ³§ ³ ¯±®¯®² « ¢ ­ ¢®­¥®±¬ ³® ³§¤ 3¯¤¢¨ « 0¤±¬¨³ ±¤°´¨±¤¬¤­³² ®¥ ³§¤ 4®¶­ #®£¤Ǿ  ­£ ¶¤ ±¤¢®¬¬¤­£ ³§ ³ ³§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³ ¡¤ £¨±¤¢³¤£ ³® ±¤¢®­²¨£¤±   ¯±®©¤¢³ ³§ ³ ¨² ¬®±¤ ¢®­²¨²³¤­³ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ «®­¦²³ ­£¨­¦ ¢®­²¤±µ ³¨®­  ­£ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ¯« ­­¨­¦ ¦® «²  ±³¨¢´« ³¤£ ¨­ 3®´³§®«£ 4®¶­͖² #®¬¯±¤§¤­²¨µ¤ 0« ­ 5¯£ ³¤ȁ Response to Comment C27-7: See the Responses to Comments C10-3 and C17-5 in this subsection. Comment C33-1: 3®´³§®«£ 4®¶­  ­£ ¨³² ±¤²¨£¤­³² § µ¤ ¢®¬¬¨³³¤£ ®µ¤±   £¤¢ £¤ ®¥ ³¨¬¤  ­£ ±¤²®´±¢¤² ³® ³§¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ®¥   ¢®¬¯±¤§¤­²¨µ¤ ¯« ­ ¥®± ®´± ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ȁ 7¤  ±¤  ³   ¢±¨³¨¢ « ©´­¢³´±¤ ¨­ ³§¨² ¯±®¢¤²²  ­£ ¨³ ²¤¤¬²  ² ³§®´¦§ ³§¤ ²¨³¨­¦  ­£ ¨­³¤­²¨³¸ ®¥ ´²¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¯±®©¤¢³ ¢®´«£ § µ¤   £¤³±¨¬¤­³ « ¨¬¯ ¢³ ®­ ®´± ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸͖² ¢§ ± ¢³¤±  ­£ ±¤²®´±¢¤²Ǿ ¦®¨­¦  ¦ ¨­²³ ³§¤ ²®®­-to-be- £®¯³¤£ ¦® «² ®¥ 3®´³§®«£ 4®¶­͖² µ¨²¨®­ ¥®± ¨³² ¥´³´±¤ȁ 9¤²Ǿ ¶¤ ­¤¤£ ¡´²¨­¤²²  ­£ ¤¢®­®¬¨¢ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ¨­ ®´± § ¬«¤³ £¨²³±¨¢³² ¡´³ ¨³ ²¤¤¬² ³§¤ ¯±®©¤¢³Ǿ  ² 70 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ¢´±±¤­³«¸ ¯±®¯®²¤£Ǿ ¶®´«£ ¤·¤±³ ¤·¢¤²²¨µ¤ ¯±¤²²´±¤ ®­ ³§¤ § ¬«¤³͖² ±¤²®´±¢¤²  ­£ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ¢§ ± ¢³¤± ³§±®´¦§ ¨³² ¨­³¤­²¨³¸ ®¥ ´²¤ȁ Response to Comment C33-1: See Responses to Comments H3-1 (above) and C18-2 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS. Comment C36-4: 7¤  «²® ¡¤«¨¤µ¤ ¨­ , ­£ ®¶­¤±² ±¨¦§³² ³® ¬ ¨­³ ¨­ ®± ±¤­®µ ³¤ ¢´±±¤­³ ²³±´¢³´±¤²ȁ "´³ ³§ ³ ¡¤¨­¦ ² ¨£Ǿ £®¤² ­®³ ¦¨µ¤ ³§¤¬ ³§¤ ±¨¦§³ ³® ¢®¬¡¨­¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¨¤² ¥®± ²¯¤¢¨¥¨¢ ´²¤ ®´³²¨£¤ ³§¤ «®­¦ ¤²³ ¡«¨²§¤£ ¹®­¨­¦ « ¶ ¨­ ¤¥¥¤¢³ȁ #§ ­¦¤² ¨­ ¹®­¨­¦ ²§®´«£ ¡¤ £¨²¯¤­²¤£ ©´£¨¢¨®´²«¸  ¥³¤± ¢ ±¤¥´«  ­£ ³§®±®´¦§ ¢®­²¨£¤± ³¨®­  ­£ ´³¨«¨¹¤£ ³® ¯±®µ¨£¤ ±¤«¨¤¥ ³®   ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ®¶­¤±ȁ .®³ ³® ¢®¬¡¨­¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¨¤²ȁ :®­¨­¦ ¢§ ­¦¤² ²§®´«£ ­®³ ¡¤ ¦¨µ¤­ ³® ¤­ ¡«¤ ¤­³¨³¨¤² ³® ´²¤ ³§¤¬  ²   ¬¤³§®£ ®¥ ®¯¤± ³¨®­Ǿ ®± ³® ¢±¤ ³¤  ­ ¤²³ ¡«¨²§¬¤­³ ³§ ³  «³¤±² ³§¤ ¤·¨²³¨­¦ ¢§ ± ¢³¤± ®¥   ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ¨­   ­¤¦ ³¨µ¤ ¶ ¸ȁ Response to Comment C36-4: The subject property is one parcel and is identified as Suffolk County Tax Map No: District 1000 - Section 63 - Block 3 - Lot 15. The proposed application does not include a request for a change of zone. The proposed application includes a permitted land use that is subject to certain criteria as a special exception use. The applicant has prepared a revised analysis of the project’s consistency with the criteria for the issuance of a special exception use permit to address the project scope changes (i.e., elimination of outdoor events and mitigation measures developed during this FEIS) and this analysis is included in Appendix I of this FEIS. Based on this analysis, the project is consistent with all criteria for the issuance of said permit. See Response to Comment C17-5 above, as well as C1-9, C1-10, C22-1, C18-1, and C18-2 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS and Response to Comment C33-2 in Section 2.3.11 of this FEIS. 2.3.7 Visual/AestheticsǾ #®¬¬´­¨³¸ #§ ± ¢³¤±  ­£ ,¨¦§³¨­¦ Comments related to visual and aesthetic resources, neighborhood or community character and the lighting impacts of the proposed development are addressed in this section of the FEIS. Specifically, the following comments are included: H4-1, H4-5, H5-7, C7-2, C22-10, C24-10, C34-3, C35-11, C35-12, C36-2, C41-1, C41-10, C42-2, and C42-5. Comment H4-1: 4§ ³ ¨² § «¥¶ ¸ £®¶­ ­®³ ¤µ¤­ ®­ ¬¸ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ³® ²§®¶ ³§ ³ ³§ ³Ȍ²   µ¤±¸ ¨­ ¢¢´± ³¤ ¯¨¢³´±¤ȁ (¤ ³®®ª ³§¤ ¡¤²³ ¯®²²¨¡«¤ ¯¨¢³´±¤ ®¥ ³§¤ £¤¡±¨²  ­£ ³±¤¤² ³§ ³  ±¤ ¡¤§¨­£ ³§ ³ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ «¨­¤ȁ )¥ §¤ ®± ³§¤ ¢±¤¶ § £ ³ ª¤­   ¯¨¢³´±¤ ¥±®¬ ¬¸ ²¨£¤ ¨³ ¨²  «« ¡ ±¤ ®¯¤­  ­£ £¤ £ ©´²³ ³® ¯®¨­³ ³§ ³ ®´³ȁ Response to Comment H4-1: The project architect assembled and presented views from accessible locations. It is standard practice to not trespass on private property, and thus, the elimination of views from private property was not intended to exclude any select view. See Appendix D of this FEIS. Comment H4-5: …³§®²¤ ³±¤¤² Ȩ¨­ ´£¨¡«¤ȩ ¥®±³¸ ³® ¥¨¥³¸ ¥¤¤³ ³ ««  ±¤ ­®³ ¦®¨­¦ ³® ¡«®¢ª ³§¤ µ¨¤¶ ³§ ³ )Ȍ¬ ¦®¨­¦ ³® ²¤¤ȁ 4§¤ ¬¨±±®± ²§¨­¤ ³§ ³ ¬¨¦§³ ¢®¬¤ ³§±®´¦§ ³§¤²¤ ³±¤¤²  ±¤ Ȩ¨­ ´£¨¡«¤ȩ ´­³¨« ³§¤¸Ȍ±¤ ¶¤«« £¤µ¤«®¯¤£ ³§ ³ ¢ ´²¤  ­ ¨²²´¤. Response to Comment H4-5: See Response to C1-2 in Section 2.3.2 of this FEIS. Comment H5-7: 4§¤ «¨¦§³¨­¦ ¨² ®¡µ¨®´²«¸ ¦®¨­¦ ³® ¡¤ ¨­¢±¤ ²¤£ ®µ¤± ³§¤±¤ȁ )³Ȍ² ¦®¨­¦ ³® ¡¤ µ¤±¸ «¨³ ´¯ ³§ ³ ¶§®«¤ area. 71 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Response to Comment H5-7: All lighting will be down-lit and shielded to prevent light trespass, and has been designed in accordance with the Town Code. Moreover, the proposed development includes the required minimum 15-foot transition buffer along the entire eastern property line and on-site screening would primarily consist of a double row of 14-to-16-foot tall mature Leyland Cypress, spaced eight-feet on center to screen the proposed development from the adjacent residential area. A 6.5-foot wooden stockade fence has also been included along the eastern and western property lines. See also the Responses to Comment C1-19 and C1-6 in Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 of this FEIS, respectively. Comment C7-2:#/--5.)49 #(!2!#4%2Ȁ )³ ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ®¡µ¨®´² ³® ¤µ¤±¸®­¤ ³§ ³   ¯±®©¤¢³ ®¥ ³§¨² ²¨¹¤ ¶®´«£ £¤³± ¢³ ¥±®¬ ³§¤ §¨²³®±¨¢ ²¬ ««-³®¶­  ¬¡¨ ­¢¤ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£ 6¨ll ¦¤ȁ 3®¬¤³§¨­¦ «¨ª¤ ³§¨² ¬¨¦§³ ¡¤ ¬®±¤  ¯¯±®¯±¨ ³¤ ®­ 2®´³¤ ΗΛ ¡´³ ¨² ­®³  ¯¯±®¯±¨ ³¤ ®­ ³§¤ - ¨­ 2® £ȁ Response to Comment C7-2: See the Responses to Comments C1-9, C1-10, C1-19, C18-1, and C18-2 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS, and C33-2 in Section 2.3.11 of this FEIS. See also the post-development viewshed renderings from Main Road in Appendix D. Comment C22-10: 4§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¡´¨«£¨­¦²  ±¤ ¡´««¸¨­¦ ³® ²´±±®´­£¨­¦ ²³±´¢³´±¤²  ­£ £® ­®³ ¥¨³ «®¢ « ¢®­³¤·³ ®± ±¤¯±¤²¤­³ 3®´³§®«£ ¢§ ± ¢³¤±ȁ 4§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³ ¢« ¨¬² ³§¤ ²³±´¢³´±¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ­¤¶«¸ ¡´¨«³ §®³¤« ¶¨«« ­®³ ¡¤  ¡«¤ ³® ¡¤ ²¤¤­ ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ±® £ȁ 4§¤ ¤«¤µ ³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯¨³¢§¤£ ±®®¥ ²´¦¦¤²³² ®³§¤±¶¨²¤ȁ 4§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ « ­£²¢ ¯¤ ¡´¥¥¤±ȝ§¤£¦¤ ¨²  «²® ­®³ adequate enough ³® ¡«®¢ª ³§¨² §´¦¤ ²³±´¢³´±¤. Response to Comment C22-10: According to the renderings included in the DEIS and Appendix D of this FEIS, for the portion of the site that is visible, the architectural style is traditional and contextual. Also, the proposed hotel will be barely visible with the proposed landscaping and building setback. Comment C24-10: T§¤ %­¢« µ¤ ¯« ­² ¯±¤²¤­³¤£  ±¤ °´¤²³¨®­ ¡«¤  ² i³ ±¤« ³¤² ³® ³§¤ ±¤²³®± ³¨®­ ®± £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ®¥ ­¤¶ ¯±®¯¤±³¨¤² ¨­ 3®´³§®«£ȁ )¥ ) ±¤¬¤¬¡¤± ¢®±±¤¢³«¸Ǿ ) ¡¤«¨¤µ¤ ³§¤  ±¢§¨³¤¢³ ¬¤­³¨®­¤£ ³§¤ ´²¤ ®¥ ²®¬¤ ¬¨±±®±¤£ ¤·³¤±¨®± ¶ ««² ³® ±¤¥«¤¢³ ³§¤ ²´±±®´­£¨­¦ ¯« ­³¨­¦²ȁ 3¤³³¨­¦  ²¨£¤ ³§¤ ®¡µ¨®´² ¢®­¢¤±­ ³® ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸͖² ­¤¨¦§¡®±²  ­£ ¨¬¯ ¢³ ³® ¶¨«£«¨¥¤Ǿ ) ¢®´«£ ­®³ ¨¬ ¦¨­¤  ­¸ ®¥ ´² ±¤²³®±¨­¦ ®´± §®¬¤² ®± ¡´²¨­¤²²¤² ¶¨³§   ¥¨­¨²§ ³§ ³ £®¤² ­®³ ±¤¯±¤²¤­³ ®± ¢®¬¯«¨¬¤­³ ³§¤ ³®¶­² \[sic\] §¤±¨³ ¦¤ȁ .¤¶ ¢®­³¤¬¯®± ±¸  ±¢§¨³¤¢³´±¤ ¢ ­ ±¤²¨£¤  «®­¦²¨£¤ ³§¤ ³± £¨³¨®­ « ²³¸«¤£ §®¬¤² ³§ ³ ¤·¨²³ ®­ ³§¤ .®±³§ &®±ª  ­£ ) ²´¯¯®±³ ³§ ³Ǿ §®¶¤µ¤±Ǿ £¤²¨¦­² ®± ¯« ­² ²§®´«£ ¤­§ ­¢¤Ǿ ¢®¬¯«¨¬¤­³ ®± ¡«¤­£ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ¢´±±¤­³ ¢§ ± ¢³¤± ®¥ ³§¤ .®±³§ &®±ª « ­£²¢ ¯¤  ­£ ®´± §¨²³®±¨¢ ¡´¨«£¨­¦²ȁ 4§¤ §¨²³®±¸ ®¥ ®´± ¤·¨²³¨­¦ ¡´¨«£¨­¦²  ­£ ­¤¶¤±  ±¢§¨³¤¢³´±¤  ±¤ ¯ ±³ ®¥ ¶§ ³ ª¤¤¯² ³§¤ .®±³§ &®±ª   £¤²¨± ¡«¤ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ³® ¨­µ¤²³Ǿ «¨µ¤ ¨­  ­£ ³± µ¤« ³®ȁ Response to Comment C24-10: As indicated in Response to Comment H5-8 in the 2.3.1 of this FEIS, the residential properties to the east were considered in the project evaluation and mitigation to reduce impacts on the adjacent properties was summarized in Section 3.1.3 of the DEIS. The mitigation included the following: a landscaping plan that includes retaining select trees, grass seeding and the planting of native species and ornamental species; the planting of substantial and mature trees on the eastern and western property lines to provide early effective screening and this planting would occur early in the construction process to provide additional time for growth; and the installation of lighting that is down-lit and shielded to prevent light trespass. In response to comments received during the DEIS review, the applicant modified the project for additional mitigation including: (1) The ingress driveway has been shifted 11 feet to the west and additional 72 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ landscaping has been incorporated into the land area between the driveway and the eastern property line to provide a 15-foot vegetated buffer; (2) A wooden stockade fence, of 6.5 feet in height, has been added along the eastern and western property lines; (3) A parapet was added to the hotel to screen the HVAC unit; and (4) The dumpster pad for the proposed hotel has been relocated from the northeast portion of the site to the northwest corner. The proposed location now includes a fenced enclosure which provides for easier access for trash pick- up and also relocates the dumpster away from the residential properties to the east. See also the Response to Comment C7-2 above. Comment C34-3: 4§¤ ¥ ¢³ ³§ ³ ³§¨² ¨² §¨££¤­ ¡¤§¨­£ ³§¤ §¨²³®±¨¢ §®¬¤Ǿ ¶¨³§ ­® ¨­³¤­³¨®­ ³® ±¤¯«¨¢ ³¤ ³§¤ ²³¸«¤ ®¥ ³§¤ §®¬¤Ǿ ¨²  ­ ¨­£¨¢ ³¨®­ ³§ ³ ³§¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¤±² ª­®¶ ³§¨² £®¤² ­®³ ¥¨³ ³§¤ ±¤²³ ®¥ ³§¤ § ¬«¤³Ȃ 4§¤ ¢§ ± ¢³¤± ®¥ ³§¤ § ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£ ¶¨«« ­®³ ®­«¸ ¡¤ ¢§ ­¦¤£Ǿ ¨³ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¯¤±¬ ­¤­³«¸ £ ¬ ¦¤£ȁ Response to Comment C34-3: The intent of the proposed design was to screen the hotel from view from Main Road, as well as screen Main Road from the hotel guests. The post-development viewshed renderings are included in Appendix D of this FEIS. Comment C35-11: Lighting Response to Comment C35-11: See Responses to Comment C1-19 and C1-6 in Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 of this FEIS, respectively, and the lighting plan in Appendix C of this FEIS. Comment C35-12: 0§®³®Ȍ² ±¤¥¤±±¤£ ³® ¨­ ³§¤ £± ¥³ ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « ¨¬¯ ¢³ ²³ ³¤¬¤­³ Ȩ$%)3ȩ ­¤µ¤±Ǿ ­®³ ®­¢¤ ²³± ­¦¤«¸ ®± ¡¤³³¤± ¸¤³ ®­ ¯´±¯®²¤ ±¤¥¤±² ®± ²§®¶² ³§¤ ±¤²¨£¤­³¨ « ®¢¢´¯¨¤£ §®¬¤² ¤ ²³ ®¥ ² ¨£ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ –  £© ¢¤­³ ³® ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ «¨­¤ȁ ) ¢¤±³ ¨­«¸ °´¤²³¨®­ ³§¤ ¬®³¨µ¤ ®¥ ³§¨²  ¢³¨®­ȁ Response to Comment C35-12: See the Response to Comment H5-8 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS. Comment C36-2: 7¤  ±¤ ®¶­¤±²  ­£ £¤µ¤«®¯¤±² ®¥ ¢®¬¬¤±¢¨ « ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ¥®± ¬®±¤ ³§ ­ ³§¨±³¸ ¸¤ ±²Ǿ  ­£ ¶¤ ´­£¤±²³ ­£ ³§¤ ¨¬¯®±³ ­¢¤ ®¥ ¹®­¨­¦ ±¤¦´« ³¨®­² ®­ ¬ ¨­ ³§®±®´¦§¥ ±¤² ¨­ § ¬«¤³ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¨¤²ȁ 7¤ § µ¤ ¦± µ¤ ¢®­¢¤±­ ¶§¤­ ¤­³¨³¨¤² ¯´±¢§ ²¤ ¬´«³¨¯«¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¨¤² ³® ¢®¬¡¨­¤ µ ±¨®´² ¯ ±¢¤«² ®¥ « ­£ ³® ¢±¤ ³¤   ²´¯¤± ²¨¹¤£ \[sic\] ¯±®©¤¢³ȁ "´¸ \[sic\] ¯¤±¬¨³³¨­¦ ³§¨² ¯±®©¤¢³ ³® ¬®µ¤ ¥®±¶ ±£Ǿ ³§¤ ¢§ ± ¢³¤± ®¥ - ¨­ 2® £ ¶i«« ¯¤±¬ ­¤­³«¸ ¡¤ ¢§ ­¦¤£  ­£ ±¤²¤¬¡«¤ - ¨­ 2® £ ¨­ 2¨µ¤±§¤ £. Response to Comment C36-2: The proposed application does not include combining parcels. As indicated in the Response to Comment C36-4 in Section 2.3.6 of this FEIS, the subject property is one parcel and is identified as Suffolk County Tax Map No: District 1000 - Section 63 - Block 3 - Lot 15. It is also noted that an as-of-right plan was evaluated in the DEIS (Section 5.2), which includes the conversion of the existing residence to a 74- seat restaurant use (similar to the proposed action) and the construction of a one-story, 30,650 SF non-medical office building. The As-of-Right Plan includes dedicated on-site parking for each land use, including 38 spaces for the restaurant and 309 paved spaces for the office building. The area of impervious surface would be increased by 3.555± acres (from 0.125± acre to 3.68± acre), while the area of lawn and landscaping would also increase by 1.36± acres (from 0.936± acre to 2.295± acres). As indicated in the DEIS, this as-of-right plan would introduce a larger population to the hamlet during the weekday business hours, while leaving the site largely vacant or vacant during the weekend days/times, which is not consistent with the goals and initiatives of the 73 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ΕΓΓΘ ( ¬«¤³ 3³´£¸. The introduction of an as-of-right office building was also determined to generate significantly more traffic than the proposed action. Regarding community character, as discussed in the Response to Comment C18-1 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS, the intent of the proposed design was to screen the hotel from view from Main Road, as well as screen Main Road from the hotel guests, and the additional viewsheds prepared for this FEIS (see Appendix D) demonstrate that the proposed hotel would not be visible from Main Road. Also, the proposed development is consistent with the purpose of the HB Zoning District (see the Response to Comment C-33-2 in Section 2.3.11) and a revised analysis of the project’s consistency with the criteria for the issuance of a special exception use permit was prepared and included in Appendix I of this FEIS. Comment C41-1: 4§¨² ¯±®©¤¢³ £®¤² ­®³ ¡¤«®­¦ ¨­ ®´± 3®´³§®«£ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ȁ 4§¨² ¯±®©¤¢³ £®¤² ­®³ comp«¨¬¤­³ ³§¤ ¢§ ± ¢³¤± ®¥ ®´± ¢®¬¬´­¨³yȂ¨¥ ³§¤¸ § £ ³§¤ ¢®­²¨£¤± ³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸  ³ §¤ ±³Ǿ ³§¨² ¯±®©¤¢³ ¶®´«£ § µ¤ ¡¤¤­ ¯±¤²¤­³¤£  -«®³ £¨¥¥¤±¤­³«¸  ­£ ®­   ¬´¢§ ²¬ ««¤± ²¢ «¤ȁ Response to Comment C41-1: The comment is noted. Comment C41-10: Li¦§³ pollution Response to Comment C41-10: See Responses to Comment C1-19 and C1-6 in Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 of this FEIS, respectively, and the lighting plan in Appendix C. Comment C42-2: 7§¨«¤ ¡® ²³¨­¦ ΗΗ ±®®¬²Ǿ ¨³ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ³§¤ « ±¦¤²³ ±¤¢¤­³«¸ ¡´¨«³ §®³¤« ¨­ ³§¤  ±¤  Ȩ( ±¡®±Front-ΖΘ ±®®¬²Ǿ -¤­§ £¤­-ΔΙ ±®®¬²Ǿ !¬¤±¨¢ ­ "¤¤¢§-ΔΔ ±®®¬²ȩȁ 4§¤ ¬¤±¤ ²¢ «¤ ®¥ ³§¨² ¯±®©¤¢³ ¨² ¢®¬¯«¤³¤«¸ ®´³ ®¥ ¢§ ± ¢³¤± ¥®± ³§ ³ ¯ ±³¨¢´« ±  ±¤  ®¥ 3®´³§®«£ȁ Response to Comment C42-2: The proposed application complies with the bulk and dimensional requirements for the HB zoning district. Of importance, the HB Zoning District permits a lot coverage (total building area) of 40 percent; however, the subject application, inclusive of the restaurant and hotel combined, has a lot coverage of only 16.3% (and 18.6% with the future potential event space). Also, it is noted that a total of 49 hotel units are permitted under the prevailing regulations for hotel use (RR Zoning District), however, the subject application includes only 44 hotel units or five less than that which is permitted. See also the Response to Comment C1-10 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS. Comment C42-5: &¨­ ««¸Ǿ  ­£ ¬®²³ ¨¬¯®±³ ­³«¸Ǿ ¨² ®´± £¤²¨±¤ ³® ¯±¤²¤±µ¤ ³§¤ ¢§ ± ¢³¤±  ­£ ¨­³¤¦±¨³¸ ®¥ ®´± ¡¤ ´³¨¥´«Ǿ ´­¨°´¤Ǿ  ­£ §¨²³®±¨¢ ³®¶­ȁ /´± ­¤¨¦§¡®±§®®£Ǿ  £© ¢¤­³ ³® ³§¨² ¯±®¯®²¤£ « ±¦¤ ¢®¬¬¤±¢¨ « £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³Ǿ ¨² ¶§¤±¤ ®´± ¥®´­£¤±² ¥¨±²³ « ­£¤£ ¨­ 3®´³§®«£  ­£ § ² ²®¬¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ®«£¤²³ §®´²¤² ¨­ ³®¶­ȁ )³Ȍ² °´¨¤³ « ­¤²  ­£ ²¬ «« ²¢ «¤  ±¤ ¶§ ³ ¬ ª¤ ¨³ £¤²¨± ¡«¤ ¥®± ³§¤ ³¤ ¢§¤±²Ǿ ¢®¯²  ­£ ±¤³¨±¤¤² ¶§® ¢ «« ¨³ §®¬¤ȁ 4§¨² ¯±®©¤¢³ § ² ³§¤ «®®ª  ­£ fee« ®¥ ³§¤ 3®´³§ &®±ª – ¬®±¤ £¨²¢® ³§ ­ ®«£ .¤¶ %­¦« ­£ µ¨«« ¦¤ȁ )¥ ¡´¨«³  ² ¯±®¯®²¤£Ǿ ¨³ ¶¨«« ¥®±¤µ¤± ¢§ ­¦¤ ³§¤ ¢§ ± ¢³¤± ®¥ ®´± § ¬«¤³Ǿ ¶¨³§®´³  ­¸ £¨²¢¤±­¨¡«¤ ¡¤­¤¥¨³² ¥®± ´² ±¤²¨dents. Response to Comment C42-5: As indicated in Section 3.5 of the DEIS, the proposed renovations to the residence for its reuse as a restaurant includes design mitigation that addressed the comments of the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) and resulted in a Determination of No Adverse Impact from 74 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ OPRHP. See also the Responses to Comments H5-8, C1-10, C1-19, C2-22 and C18-1 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS, as well as the Response to Comment C2-22 in Section 2.3.2 of this FEIS. 2.3.8 GroundwaterǾ 3³®±¬¶ ³¤±  ­£ 7 ³¤± 3´¯¯«¸ȝ5² ¦¤ Comments related to groundwater, stormwater as well as water supply and usage are addressed in this section of the FEIS. Specifically, the following comments are included: H3-8, C3-1, C5-3, C7-3, C7-4, C13-2, C16-3 through C16-5, C19-1, C22-8, C22-9, C26-1, C30-3, C33-3, C33-4, C37-2 through C37-4, C41-5, C41-7 and C41- 12. Comment H3-8:4§¨² ¯±®©¤¢³Ȃ¨² ¦®¨­¦ ³® ´²¤  ­ ¤­®±¬®´²  ¬®´­³ ®¥ ¶ ³¤±  ­£ ¨³ ¨­¢«´£¤²   ¯®®«ȁ 4§¤ ¶ ³¤± £¤¬ ­£ ¶®´«£ ¨­¢±¤ ²¤  ­£ ³§¨² ¨² ¨­ ³§¤ $%)3 ¡¸  ¯¯±®·¨¬ ³¤«¸ ΛǾΘΕΓ ¦ ««®­² ¯¤± £ ¸ ±¨¦§³ ­®¶ ¨³Ȍ² ´²¨­¦ ΖΓΓȁ 2¤¢¤­³ ±¤¯®±³ £®­¤ ¡¸ 0¤¢®­¨¢ '±¤¤­ '±®¶³§ ²§®¶² ³§ ³ 3®´³§®«£Ȍ²  °´ ¥¤± \[sic\] ¨² ¨­ £ ­¦¤±ȁ )¥ ¶¤ § µ¤   ¥´³´±¤ £±®´¦§³ ¶¤ ¢®´«£ ¡¤ «®®ª¨­¦  ³ ±¤ « ³±®´¡«¤ ¶¨³§ ®´± ¶ ³¤± ²¸²³¤¬ȁ 3® ³§¨² ¶®´«£ ´²¤   §´¦¤  ¬®´­³ ®¥ ¶ ³¤± ¤µ¤±¸ £ ¸ ¥±®¬ ®´±  °´ ¥¤±  ­£ ) ³§¨­ª ³§ ³ ¢®´«£ ¡¤  ­ ¨²²´¤ȁ Response to Comment H3-8: As indicated in the Response to Comment C27-2 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS and the Response to Comment C3-1 below, the SCWA issued a letter of water availability for the proposed action. A copy was provided in Appendix K of the DEIS. An updated letter was sent to the SCWA on March 22, 2021 for the increase in demand from the potential future event space and associated changes and a letter of water availability dated April 6, 2021 was received (see Appendix K). The proposed action also includes water conservation measures, including: Low flow plumbing fixtures. Planting of drought-tolerant landscape species. Use of a smart irrigation control system to reduce or eliminate the use of the irrigation system during periods of rain. Contracting laundry service for both the restaurant and hotel. It is noted that there is a small laundry room to be provided in the basement which will be available for guest laundry and incidental laundry for the hotel. Comment C3-1: )­ !´¦´²³ ΕΓΔΚ 3#7! ±¤« ¸¤£ ¢®­¢¤±­²  ¡®´³ ³§¤  ¬®´­³ ®¥ ¯®³ ¡«¤ ¶ ³¤± ³® ¡¤ ´²¤£ ¥®± ¨±±¨¦ ³¨®­ ¯´±¯®²¤²  ­£ ±¤¢®¬¬¤­£¤£ ³§ ³  ­ ¨±±¨¦ ³¨®­ ¶¤«« ¡¤ ´²¤£ ¥®±  «« ¨±±¨¦ ³¨®­ ­¤¤£²ȁ 3#7!  «²® ±¤¢®¬¬¤­£¤£ ³§¤ ´²¤ ®¥ ²¬ ±³ ¨±±¨¦ ³¨®­ ¢®­³±®« ²¸²³¤¬²  ­£ ³§¤ ´²¤ ®¥ £±®´¦§³ ³®«¤± ­³ ¯« ­³² ³® ¯±®¬®³¤ ¢®­²¤±µ ³¨®­ȁ 4§¤ $%)3  ² ²´¡¬¨³³¤£ ¨­£¨¢ ³¤² ³§ ³ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ¶¨«« ´³¨«¨¹¤  ­ ¤·¨²³¨­¦ ¨±±¨¦ ³¨®­ ¶¤«« ¨¥ µ¨ ¡«¤Ǿ ®± ¨­²³ ««   ­¤¶ ¨±±¨¦ ³¨®­ ¶¤«« ¨¥ ­¤¤£¤£ȁ 4§¤ £®¢´¬¤­³  «²® ¢®­µ¤¸² ³§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³͖² £¤²¨±¤ ³® ´²¤ ²¬ ±³ ¨±±¨¦ ³¨®­ ¢®­³±®«²  ­£ £±®´¦§³ ³®«¤± ­³ ¯« ­³²ȁ /´±  ¦¤­¢¸ ¨² ¯«¤ ²¤£ ³§ ³ ³§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³ ¨² ¥®««®¶¨­¦ ³§±®´¦§ ®­ 3#7!͖² ±¤¢®¬¬¤­£ ³¨®­²  ­£ ±¤°´¤²³ ³§ ³ ³§¤ ¯±®©¤¢³ ´²¤ «®¶ ¥«®¶ ¯«´¬¡¨­¦ ¥¨·³´±¤² ³® ¥´±³§¤± ®´± ¢®­²¤±µ ³¨®­ ¤¥¥®±³²ȁ Response to Comment C3-1: The proposed development will include low flow plumbing fixtures in the restaurant and hotel. All fixtures will comply with the NYS Plumbing Code (2017 PCNYS Table 604.4). Comment C5-3: %·³±¤¬¤ ´²¤ ®¥ ¶ ³¤±Ȁ -¸ ­¤¨¦§¡®±²  ­£ ) ®­ \[at\] 4®¶­ ( ±¡®± 4¤±± ¢¤ £¤¯¤­£ ®­ ®´± ¶¤««² ¥®± ¶ ³¤±ȁ $´±¨­¦   £± ´¦§³ ¯¤®¯«¤ ¶¨³§ ³®¶­ ¶ ³¤±  ±¤  ²ª¤£ ³® ¢®­²¤±µ¤ ¨³ ¶§¨«¤ ¡¤¨­¦  ««®¶¤£ ³® ´²¤ ¶¤«« ¶ ³¤± ³® 75 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ¶ ³¤± ³§¤¨± « ¶­²ȁ 7§ ³ ¶ ³¤± ¶¨«« 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤ ¡¤ ´²¨­¦ ³® ¶ ³¤± ³§¤¨± §¤£¦¤²Ǿ « ¶­²Ǿ ¦ ±£¤­²  ­£ ²¤±µ¨¢¤ ³§¤¨± ¯®®«² ¯ ±³¨¢´« ±«¸ £´±¨­¦   draught.. .®³ ¶¤«« ¶ ³¤±ȅ Response to Comment C5-3: The project will utilize an on-site irrigation well for all irrigation needs for the property.The proposed swimming poolswill utilize potable water to maintainwater levels throughout the year. The decorative pond will be filled with either potable water or via water delivery service. See the Response to Comment H3-8 in this section. Comment C7-3: .!452!, 2%3/52#%3ȝ%.6)2/.-%.4Ȁ 7 ³¤± ´² ¦¤ ¶ ² ´­£¤±²³ ³¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ $%)3ȁ ( µ¤ ³§¤¬ µ¤±¨¥¸ ³§¤ ­´¬¡¤±²ȁ )³ ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ¢«®²¤± ³® ΔΖǾΓΓΓ ¦ ««®­² ¯¤± £ ¸ ¥®± ¡®³§ ³§¤ ±®®¬²  ­£ ³§¤ ±¤²³ ´± ­³ȁ 4§¨² £o¤² ­®³ ¨­¢«´£¤ ¶ ³¤± ´²¤£ ¥®± ¨±±¨¦ ³¨®­ȁ Response to Comment C7-3: The projected water usage was calculated utilizing the SCDHS design flow factors, which equates to a total of 10,695 gallons per day of flow. The SCWA has also reviewed the proposed project and has issued a service availability letter. An updated request for availability was sent on March 22, 2021 reflecting the increase in demand and a letter of water availability dated April 6, 2021 was received (see Appendix K). See also the Response to Comment C3-1 included earlier in this section. Comment C7-4: 3³®±¬ ¶ ³¤± ±´­®¥¥ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ ¶§¤­ ³§¤¸  ²¯§ «³  ¡®´³ Ζ  ¢±¤²Ǿ  ­£ ¢ ´²¤ ¥«®®£¨­¦ ¤ ¢§ ³¨¬¤ ¶¤ § µ¤   ± ¨­¥ «« ¦±¤ ³¤± ³§ ­ Ε ¨­¢§¤²ȁ 4§¤²¤  ±¤ § ¯¯¤­¨­¦ ¬®±¤ ®¥³¤­ ¶¨³§ ¢«¨¬ ³¤ ¢§ ­¦¤ȁ Response to Comment C7-4: The stormwater drainage system has been designed in accordance with Town Code. In addition, to compliance with Town Code a SWPPP will be prepared for the site which includes stormwater design requirements for 1-, 10- and 100-year storm events. The proposed drainage system will comply with the SWPPP requirements to ensure that stormwater will be retained on-site and not contribute or cause off-site flooding. Comment C13-2: 7§¨«¤ ) ±¤ £ ¢´±±¤­³ ­¤¶²  ±³¨¢«¤² ³§ ³ ³§¤ ²§¤««¥¨²§ £¨¤-®¥¥ ¬ ¸ ¡¤   ±¤²´«³ ®¥ ¶ ±¬¨­¦ ¶ ³¤±² ®± ­¨³±®¦¤­ ±´­®¥¥Ǿ ) ¢ ­ ®­«¸ ¶®­£¤± ³§ ³ ³± ¥¥¨¢Ǿ ¶ ³¤± ¢®­²´¬¯³¨®­  ­£ ²¤¶ ¦¤ ³±¤ ³¬¤­³ ¥±®¬  ­®³§¤± « ±¦¤ ¥ ¢¨«¨³¸ ¶¨«« ®­«¸ \[serve\] ³® ¤· ¢¤±¡ ³¤ ³§¤ ²³± ¨­  «±¤ £¸ ¯« ¢¤£ ®­ ®´± ±¤²®´±¢¤²ȁ Response to Comment C13-2: Shellfish die-offs are results of multiple environmental issues, including warming waters, nitrogen loading, algae blooms, etc. With respect to the recent Peconic Bay Scallop dieoff in 2019, it appears that a parasite along with warmer waters and low dissolved oxygen as discussed in the Friday, January 31, 2020 press release from the NYSDEC, titled DEC Announces Detection of Parasite in Peconic Bay Scallops. With respect to the nitrogen loading, a BURBS nitrogen loading model was prepared which showed that the impacts of nitrogen from the proposed development are less than an as-of-right development and, therefore, will have less impact on the environment. Other issues such as legacy nitrogen in the groundwater stem from the current nitrogen inputs from the surrounding residential and commercial properties, from both fertilizer applications and wastewater, and past agricultural practices in the area. These issues are beyond the control of the applicant and are currently being targeted by Suffolk County as part of their Subwatershed Wastewater Plan. The applicant will install an on-site STP which will reduce nitrogen in effluent to the greatest extent possible with respect to wastewater. Also, an organic approach would be taken to landscaping and fertilizing to the greatest extent possible to further reduce the project impacts on the surrounding environment. 76 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Comment C16-3: )͖µ¤ ±¤ £ ³§¤ $%)3 ¢ ±¤¥´««¸  ­£  ² ¥ ±  ² I ¢ ­ ³¤«« ³§¤ §®³¤«͖² « ´­£±¸ ¥ ¢¨«¨³¨¤²Ǿ  ­£ ¢ ¥éȝ¡ ± Ȩ¨­¢«´£¨­¦ ¨³² £¨²§¶ ²h¨­¦ȩǾ  ±¤ ­®³ ¨­ ³§¤ ¶ ²³¤¶ ³¤±ȝ¶ ³¤± ´² ¦¤ ¢ «¢´« ³¨®­²ȁ )¥ ³§¤¸  ±¤Ǿ I  ¯®«®¦¨¹¤ȁ "´³ ) ­®³¤ 0 ¦¤ ΖΗ ² ­¨³ ±¸ ¥«®¶ £®¤²­͖³ ¢®´­³ ³§¤ « ´­£±¸ ¥ ¢¨«¨³¨¤²Ǿ ¶§¨¢§  ¢¢®±£¨­¦ ³® ¯ȁ ΔΖ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ®­ ³§¤ «®¶¤± «¤µ¤«ȁ 4§¤ ¥«®¶ ¢ «¢´« ³¨®­ ¨² ¡ ²¤£ ¯´±¤«¸ ®­ ³§¤ ±®®¬ ®¢¢´¯ ­¢¸ȁ .®³¨¢¤ §®¶ ¥®®³­®³¤ Δ ¡±¤ ª² ®´³ ³§¤ ±¤²³ ´± ­³ ¯¤±-²¤ ³ was³¤¶ ³¤± ¢ «¢´« ³¨®­ ³® ¢«¤ ±«¸ ¬ ±ª ¶§ ³ ¨²  ²²®¢¨ ³¤£ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ª¨³¢§¤­ȁ 4§¤ §®³¤« ­´¬¡¤±  ¯¯¤ ±² ³® ¡¤ ¯´±¤«¸ ³¨¤£ ³® ³§¤ ¦´¤²³ ±®®¬²Ǿ ¶¨³§®´³ ¨­¢«´£¨­¦ ³h¤ « ´­£±¸Ǿ ¡ ±Ǿ ®± ¢ ¥éȁ !«²® ¬¨²²¨­¦ ¨²  ­¸ ¢®­³r¨¡´³¨®­ ¥±®¬ ³§¤ µ¨²¨³¨­¦ ¥±¨¤­£² ®¥ ¦´¤²³²Ǿ ¤²¯¤¢¨ ««¸ £uri­¦ ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤µ¤­³ȁ 7§¨«¤ ¯®±³  ¯®³³¨¤²  ±¤ ¯±®µ¨£¤£ £´±¨­¦ ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤µ¤­³Ǿ ¤µ¤­ ³§¤ $%)3  ¢ª­®¶«¤£¦¤² ²®¬¤ ´² ¦¤ ¥±®¬ ³§¤²¤ ¯¤®¯«¤ ¨­ ³§¤ ­ ±± ³¨µ¤ȁ "´³ ¨³ £®¤²­͖³  ¥¥¤¢³ ³§¤ £¤²¨¦­ ­´¬¡¤±ȁ !«²®Ǿ ¶§¤±¤ £®¤² ³§¤ ¶ ³¤± ¥®± ³§¤ ²¶¨¬¬¨­¦ ¯®®« ¢®¬¤ ¥±®¬Ȉ 7§ ³  ¡®´³ ³§¤ ¶ ³¤± ¨­ ³§¤ §®³ ³´¡² ¨­ ¤ ¢§ ¢®³³ ¦¤Ȉ Ȩ4§¤ §®³ ³´¡²  ±¤ ²§®¶­ ®­ ³§¤ ²¨³¤ ¯« ­ ¯ ¦¤ ΖǾ ¡´³ ³§¤ $%)3 £®¤² ­®³ § µ¤ ³§¤ ¶®±£² ͗§®³ ³´¡͗ ¨­ ¨³ȁȩ 7§ ³  ¡®´³ ³§¤ ²¯  ¥®± ¦´¤²³² ³§ ³͖² ¡¤¨­¦ ¢®­²¨£¤±¤£Ǿ  ¢¢®±£¨­¦ ³® ³§¤ $%)3ǿ ¶§ ³͖²   ²¯ ͖² ¶ ³¤± ´² ¦¤Ȉ Response to Comment C16-3: The flow rate per hotel unit, as established by the SCDHS Commercial Standards, includes accessory uses associated with the hotel such as laundry, café/bar, and spa. With respect to the laundry, the majority of the items (sheets, towels, bedding) will be outsourced to a third-party laundry vendor. The laundry room in the basement will be utilized as a guest laundry and incidental laundry for the hotel. As indicated in Section 1.3 of this FEIS, to accommodate indoor events, the former prep kitchen in the proposed hotel has been modified to a full kitchen capable of food preparation for indoor events. This full kitchen will also support room service, as well as the internal hotel café/bistro, and small lobby bar. The proposed action has been modified to eliminate outdoor events and, therefore, portable bathrooms will no longer be required or used at the subject property. Events will be held inside the hotel building or in the future enclosed space and the restrooms inside the hotel will be available to accommodate event guests. The swimming pools and hot tubs will be filled with potable water supplied by either the SCWA or via water delivery service. The swimming pools and hot tubs will not be emptied and refilled on a regular basis; therefore, the water consumption related to the pool and hot tubs will be minimal. The proposed spa is for overnight hotel guests only and has therefore been considered in the design flow numbers associated with the hotel. Comment C16-4: .¨³±®¦¤­ «® £¨­¦ ¨² ¨¬¯®±³ ­³ ³® ¬¨­¨¬¨¹¤Ǿ  ² ³§¤ $%)3  ¢ª­®¶«¤£¦¤² ¤µ¤­ ³§®´¦§ ¨³ ¯±®´£«¸ ¢®¬¯ ±¤² ¨³²¤«¥ ³® ³§¤ ¤¢®­®¬¨¢ ««¸ ¨­¥¤ ²¨¡«¤  ²-of-±¨¦§³ ¯±®©¤¢³ ³® ¢« ¨¬ ¨³² ­¨³±®¦¤­ ¨¬¯ ¢³ ¨² «®¶ȁ "´³ ³§¤ ¯« ­ £®¤² ­®³ ¢®­²¨£¤± ®­¤ ®¡µ¨®´² ¶ ¸ ³® ¡®³§ ±¤£´¢¤ ³§¤ ¯±®©¤¢³͖² ´²¤ ®¥ ¥±¤²§¶ ³¤± ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ²¨³¤  ­£ ³® ±¤£´¢¤ ¨³² ­¨³±®¦¤­ «® £¨­¦-­ ¬¤«¸Ǿ ´²¨­¦ ³±¤ ³¤£ ¶ ²³¤¶ ³¤± ¥®± ¨±±¨¦ ³¨®­ȝ¥¤±³¨«¨¹ ³¨®­ȁ '®«¥ ¢®´±²¤²Ǿ ³§®²¤ ¯« ¢¤² ®¡²¤²²¤£ ¶¨³§ §®¶ ³§¤¨± ¯« ­³² ¦±®¶Ǿ ´²¤ ³±¤ ³¤£ ¶ ²³¤¶ ³¤± ¶¨³§ ±¤¦´« ±¨³¸ǿ ¶§¸ £®¤²­͖³ ³§¤ %­¢« µ¤²Ȉ )² ¨³ ¥¤ ²¨¡«¤Ȉ 7§ ³ ¶®´«£ ³§¤ ¢§ ­¦¤ ¨­ ­¨³±®¦¤­ «® £¨­¦ ¡¤ ¨¥ ³§¨²  ¯¯±® ¢§ ¶ ² ³ ª¤­Ȉ '¨µ¤­ §®¶ ¢«®²¤ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ¨² ³® ³§¤ ¢±¤¤ªǾ ³§¤ ¥¤±³¨«¨¹¤±  ¢±®²² ³§¤ « ­£²¢ ¯¨­¦ ¶®´«£ ±¤« ³¨µ¤«¸ ± ¯¨£«¸ ±¤ ¢§ ³§¤ ¢±¤¤ªȁ Response to Comment C16-4: The reuse of treated effluent for irrigation requires additional filter, treatment, and storage. The effluent requires UV disinfection such that it could be utilized for unrestricted irrigation use. As mentioned in the comment, this has been done at golf courses where the irrigation demand is far greater than what is currently proposed. Further, the additional storage and treatment will add additional costs to the STP. The project will utilize an organic approach to fertilization and attempt to reduce the overall amount of nitrogen fertilizer used on the property. Comment C16-5: 4§¤ $%)3 ² ¸² ³§¤ ²³®±¬ ¶ ³¤± ¬ ­ ¦¤¬¤­³ ¯« ­ ¨² ¡ ²¤£ ®­   Ε͗ ± ¨­¥ «« ¨­ ΕΗ §®´±²Ǿ  ­£ ²³ ³¤ ³§ ³ 3®´³§®«£ 4®¶­ ±¤°´¨±¤² ­® ¬®±¤ ³§ ­ ³§ ³ȁ !²   3®´³§®«£ 4®¶­ ±¤²¨£¤­³Ǿ )͖¬ £¤¤¯«¸ £¨²³´±¡¤£ ³® «¤ ±­ ³§ ³ 77 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ¡¤¢ ´²¤   µ¤±¸ ¶¤«« £®¢´¬¤­³¤£ ¢®­²¤°´¤­¢¤ ®¥ ¢«¨¬ ³¤ ¢§ ­¦¤ ¨²  ­ ¨­¢±¤ ²¤ ¨­ ¨­³¤­²¤ ± ¨­¥ ««ȝ²­®¶¥ «« ¨­ ³§¤ .®±³§¤ ²³Ȃ2 ¨­¥ «« ®¥ Ε͗ ¨² ¡¤¢®¬¨­¦ ¬®±¤ ¢®¬¬®­Ǿ  ­£ Ε͗ ¨² ­®¶§¤±¤ ­¤ ± ³§¤ ¬ ·¨¬´¬ ¯« ´²¨¡«¤ ²³®±¬ ³®³ «  ­¸¬®±¤ȁ 5­«¤²² ³§¤ ²¨³¤ ¨² £¤²¨¦­¤£ ³® ¬ ­ ¦¤ ²³®±¬ ¶ ³¤± ru­®¥¥  ³   ¦±¤ ³¤± ΕΗ §®´± «¤µ¤«Ǿ ³§¤ ¬ ²²¨µ¤ ¨­¢±¤ ²¤ ¨­ ¨¬¯¤±¨®´² ²´±¥ ¢¤² ¶¨«« ¢®­³±¨¡´³¤ ³® ¥«®®£¨­¦ ¨­ ³§¤  ±¤ ȁ 4® ³§¤ ¤·³¤­³ ³§ ³ ¢®­³ ¬¨­ ³¤£ ²®¨« ¨² ¤·¯®²¤£ȝ²®¨« ¬¨¦± ³¨®­ ¯±¤µ¤­³¨®­ ¤¥¥®±³²  ±¤ ª¤¸¤£ ³®   Ε͗ ± ¨­¥ ««Ǿ ³§¨² £¤²¨¦­ ¢®­²³± ¨­³ ¢ ­ ¥´¤« ³§¤ ²¯±¤ £ ®¥ ³§¤ ²¨³¤͖² ³®·¨­²ȁ Response to Comment C16-5: See Response to Comment C7-4 in this section. With respect to the site toxins, according to the project soil management plan, areas of contaminated soil will be capped in accordance with NYSDEC requirements. Comment C19-1:/µ¤± «« ³§¤ ¨²²´¤ ¥®± ¬¤ ¨² ¯´¡«¨¢ ­£ ¤¢®«®¦¨¢ « §¤ «³§ ´­£® § ±¬ȁ )­ ®±£¤± ³® maintain³§¤ « ­£²¢ ¯¨­¦ ®­ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ²¨³¤Ǿ ³§¤±¤ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ ´²¤ ®¥ ­¨³±®¦¤­-¡ ²¤£ ¥¤±³¨«¨¹¤±²  ­£ ¨±±¨¦ ³¨®­ȁ 7§¤­ ¶¤ § µ¤   ² ­£¸ ¶¤««-£± ¨­¨­¦ ²®¨« ¢®¬¯®²¨³¨®­  ² ¶¤ £® §¤±¤ ®­ ³§¤ ¤ ²³ ¤­£ ³§¤ ­¨³±®¦¤­ ¥¤±³¨«¨¹¤±² ¨­ ¢®¬¡¨­ ³¨®­² ¶¨³§ ±¤¦´« ± ¨±±¨¦ ³¨®­ «¤¤¢§¤² ¤·¢¤²² ­¨³±®¦¤­ ¨­³® ®´± ¶ ³¤±¶ ¸² ¢ ´²¨­¦ § ±¬¥´«  «¦ « ¡«®®¬² Ȃ) ¡¤«¨¤µ¤ ¨­ ®±£¤± ¥®±   ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤·¤¬¯³¨®­ ³® ¡¤ ¦± ­³¤£ ³§¤ ¡´±£¤­ ®¥ ¯±®®¥ ¥®± ´­£´¤ § ±¬ ®­³® ³§¤ ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ «³§Ǿ ecologi¢ « §¤ «³§  ­£ ²®¢¨ « ¤¢®­®¬¨¢ §¤ «³§ ¬´²³ ¡¤ ³§¤ ±¤²¯®­²¨¡¨«¨³¸ ®¥ ³§¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¤±  ­£ ¯ ± ¬®´­³ ³® ³§¤  ««®¶ ­¢¤ ®¥ ²´¢§  ­ ¤·¤¬¯³¨®­ȁ ) ¡¤«¨¤µ¤ ³® ¦± ­³ ³§¨² ¤·¤¬¯³¨®­ ²¤³²   ¯±¤¢¤£¤­³ȁ ) ¡¤«¨¤µ¤ ¨³ ¤·¢¤¤£² ³§¤ ¯±¤¢ ±¨®´² ³§±¤²§®«£ «¨¬¨³ ¶¤  «±¤ £¸  ±¤ ¥ ¢¨­¦ ¨­ ®´± ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ £´¤ ³® ³§¤ §¨¦§ ´²¤ ®¥ ­¨³±®¦¤­ ¥¤±³¨«¨¹¤±² ¥±®¬ ¤·¨²³¨­¦  ¦±¨¢´«³´±¤ȁ "¤¢ ´²¤ ¶¤ £®­͖³ § µ¤ ²´¥¥¨¢¨¤­³ «¤¦¨²« ³¨®­ ±¤¦´« ³¨­¦ ³§¤ ´²¤ ®¥ ­¨³±®¦¤­ ¡ ²¤£ ¥¤±³¨«¨¹¤±² ¶¤ ¢ ­­®³  ¥¥®±£ ³®  ««®¶ ¤·¤¬¯³¨®­² ¥®± ³§¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ®¥ ¯±®¯¤±³¨¤² ³§ ³ ¶¨«« ¥´±³§¤± ¢®­³±¨¡´³¤ ³® ³§¨² ¯±®¡«¤¬ȁ &´±³§¤±¬®±¤\[,\] ³§¤ ¯±¤²¤±µ ³¨®­ ®¥ ¤²³ ¡«¨²§¤£ ³±¤¤ ¯®¯´« ³¨®­² ¢±¤ ³¤   ±®®³ ¬ ²² ³§ ³ ¨­£¨µ¨£´ « ²¯¤¢¨¬¤­² ¢ ­ ¢®¬¯ ±¤ ¶¨³§ « ±¦¤ ¤²³ ¡«¨²§¤£ ±®®³ ¬ ²²¤² Ȩ«¨ª¤ ³§¤ ®­¤² ¤·¨²³¨­¦ ®­ ³§¤ ¢´±±¤­³ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ³§ ³ ¨² ¡¤¨­¦ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¥®± £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ȩ  ±¤ ²´¡³ ­³ « \[sic\]  ««¨¤² ³® ¬¨³¨¦ ³¤ ±´­®¥¥ ®¥ ­¨³±®¦¤­ ¨­³® ®´± ¶ ³¤±¶ ¸²ȁ ³§¤±¤  ±¤ ¬ ­¸ ®³§¤± ¤¢®«®¦¨¢ « ¥´­¢³¨®­² ¤·¨²³¨­¦ ³±¤¤ ¦±®¶³§ ¯±®µ¨£¤²Ǿ ¥®± ³§¤ ¯´±¯®²¤ ®¥ ³§¨² «¤³³¤± ³§¤ ¬®²³ ¨¬¯®±³ ­³ ¨² ³§¤ ¤·¨²³¨­¦ ¬¨³¨¦ ³¨®­ ³§¨² § ¡¨³ ³  «±¤ £¸ ¯±®µ¨£¤² ¥±®¬ (!"͖² ¢ ´²¤£ ¥±®¬ ¤´³±®¯§¨¢ ³¨®­ȁ Response to Comment C19-1: The DEIS evaluated the potential impacts to groundwater resources and ecological resources and it was determined, based on the project design, impact analyses and identified mitigation, that the proposed action would not result in significant adverse impacts. Comment C22-8: 3³®±¬¶ ³¤± 2´­®¥¥ ¢ «¢´« ³¨®­²  ±¤ ²¤µ¤±¤«¸ ´­£¤±±¤¯±¤²¤­³¤£ȁ 5²¨­¦   Ε͗ ± ¨­¥ «« ¥®± ²³®±¬¶ ³¤± ¢ «¢´« ³¨®­² ¨² ­® «®­¦¤± ²¤¤­ ¨­ ³§¤ ¯±®¥¤²²¨®­ ®¥  ±¢§¨³¤¢³´±¤ ®± « ­£²¢ ¯¤  ±¢§¨³¤¢³´±¤  ²  £¤°´ ³¤ȁ 4§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³ ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ¢ «¢´« ³¨­¦ ¥®± ± ¨­¥ «« ¤µ¤­³² ¢®­²¨²³¤­³ ¶¨³§ ¢«¨¬ ³¤ ¢§ ­¦¤ ²³ ­£ ±£² ±¤¦ ±£«¤²² ®¥ ¶§¤³§¤± 3®´³§®«£ ³®¶­ ¢®£¤ ¨² ´¯ ³® £ ³¤ ®­ ³§¨²ȁ Response to Comment C22-8: See Response to Comment C7-4 in this section. Comment C22-9: )¬¯¤±µ¨®´² ²´±¥ ¢¤² ¨­ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¯« ­ ¨­¢±¤ ²¤ ¥±®¬ ΓȁΔ  ¢±¤² ¤·¨²³¨­¦ ³® ΕȁΜΜϋ ¢±¤² ±¤²´«³¨­¦ ¨­ ΗΗȁΖω ®¥ ²¨³¤ ¡¤¨­¦ ¨¬¯¤±µ¨®´²ȁ 4§ ³͖² ­¤ ±«¸ Ζ ¥´««  ¢±¤² ®¥ ­®­-perm¤ ¡«¤ ²´±¥ ¢¤² ¨­¢«´£¨­¦ ¯ µ¤£  ¢¢¤²² ¶ ¸²Ǿ ¯ ±ª¨­¦ ²¯ ¢¤²  ­£ ¡´¨«³ ²³±´¢³´±¤²ȁ '±¤¤­ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ¬¤ ²´±¤² ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ´²¤£  ­£ ¢®´«£ ¨­¢«´£¤ ¯¤±¬¤ ¡«¤ ¯ µ¨­¦  ­£ ¦±¤¤­±®®¥ \[sic\]  ±¤ ² ³® ¤­§ ­¢¤ ²³®±¬¶ ³¤± ¬ ­ ¦¤¬¤­³ ¯± ¢³¨¢¤² ®­²¨³¤ȁ Response to Comment C22-9: See Responses to Comments C1-7 and C18-5 (Section 2.3.1) and C7-4 in this section. 78 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Comment C26-1: *´²³ ¶§¤­ ¶¤  ±¤ ³±¸¨­¦ ³® ±¤£´¢¤ ¦±®´­£¶ ³¤± £± ¶ ³® ¨±±¨¦ ³¤ « ¶­² ®¥ ¯±¨µ ³¤ ±¤²¨£¤­¢¤²Ǿ ³§¨² ¯±®©¤¢³ ¢®¬¤²  «®­¦  ­£ ¶¨«« ´­£® ³§¤ ²¬ «« ²³¤¯² ¶¤ § µ¤ ¬ £¤ȁ ΖȁΕ ¬¨««¨®­ ¦ ««®­² ¯¤± ¸¤ ± ®¥ ²¤¶ ¦¤ ³±¤ ³¬ent ¶ ³¤± ¯´¬¯¤£ ¨­ ³® Ȭ²¨¢ȭ ®´±  °´¨¥¤± ¨² ´­ ¢¢¤¯³ ¡«¤ȁ Response to Comment C26-1:Recharge from wastewater systems is critical to recharging the aquifer. In addition to recharging the 3.9 million gallons of treated wastewater (10,695 gpd x 365 days = 3,903,675 gallons), the site will also recharge stormwater to the aquifer. The overall volume of stormwater recharged from the proposed site, can be calculated utilizing the parameters outlined in the BURBS model as well as the proposed site plans. As indicated in the BURBS model, the average rainfall amount is 47 inches per year for Long Island. The following percentages of rainfall are recharged for the various coverage types associated with the project, roof/impervious areas - 100%, landscape areas - 75% and natural areas - 50%. Utilizing these factors and the average rainfall of 47 inches, the total recharge from stormwater to the aquifer is calculated to be approximately 7,293,433 gallons. Comment C30-3: )  «²® § µ¤ ¢®­¢¤±­²  ¡®´³ ¯®««´³¤£ ±´­®¥¥  ­£ ¨­¢±¤ ²¤£ ­¨³±®¦¤­ ¥¨­£¨­¦ ³§¤¨± ¶ ¸ ¨­ ³® Ȭ²¨¢ȭ ®´± «®¢ « ¶ ³¤±¶ ¸²  ²   ±¤²´«³ ®¥ ³§¨² ¯±®¯®²¤£ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ȁ 4§¨² ¸¤ ±͖² ¯®®± ²¢ ««®¯ § ±µ¤²³ ²³ ­£²  ²   ²³ ±ª ¶ ±­¨­¦ ³® ¡¤ ¬¨­£¥´« ®¥ ³§¤ §¤ «³§ ®¥ ®´± ¶ ³¤±¶ ¸²ȁ -®±¤ ¯ µ¤¬¤­³Ǿ «¤²² ³±¤¤²  ­£ ¦± ²²  ­£ §¨¦§ £¤­²¨³¸ ²¤¶ ¦¤ ³±¤ ³¬¤­³ ¥±®¬ ³§¨² ¯±®©¤¢³  ±¤ ´­«¨ª¤«¸ ³® § µ¤ ¹¤±® ­¤¦ ³¨µ¤ ¨¬¯ ¢³ ®­ ®´± ²´±±®´­£¨­¦ ¡ ¸²  ­£ ¢±¤¤ª²ȁ Response to Comment C30-3: The proposed development has both a stormwater drainage system and STP designed in accordance with Town, County and State requirements to mitigate runoff and nitrogen discharge. The project will include native species in the landscape plan and will utilize an organic approach to fertilization to reduce the overall amount of nitrogen fertilizer used on the property. As per the BURBS model developed for the site, the proposed use would generate less nitrogen than proposed as-of-right alternative. Additionally, the proposed project complies with Article VI of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code which permits the development of properties with sewage treatment plants. The County’s Subwatershed Wastewater Plan promotes the use of sewage treatment to reduce nitrogen discharge into the groundwater. The Suffolk County Sanitary Code and the Subwatershed Wastewater Plan were developed to mitigate the impacts of development on the environment. Comment C33-3: !²   ±¤²´«³Ǿ ³§¤±¤ ¨²   §´¦¤ ¨­¢±¤ ²¤ ¨­ ³§¤ ¨­³¤­²¨³¸ ®¥ ³§¤ ´²¤ ®¥ ¦±®´­£¶ ³¤± ¨­ ³§¤  ±¤  ²¨­¢¤  ¯¯±®·¨¬ ³¤«¸ ΔΓΓǾΓΓΓ ¦ ««®­² ¯¤± ¶¤¤ª ¶¨«« ¡¤ £± ¶­ ®­-²¨³¤ ¥®±  ¯¯±®·¨¬ ³¤«¸ ΕΙ ¶¤¤ª² ²®«¤«¸ ¥®± ¨±±¨¦ ³¨®­ ¯´±¯®²¤²ȁ 4§¤±¤ ¨² ­® ¬¤­³¨®­ ®¥ §®¶ ³§¤ ²¶¨¬¬¨­¦ ¯®®« ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¥¨««¤£  ­£ ¶ ³¤± «¤µ¤«² ¬ ¨­³ ¨­¤£ ­®± §®¶ ³§¤ ͗£¤¢®± ³¨µ¤ ¯®­£͗ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¥¨««¤£  ­£ ¶ ³¤± «¤vels maintained. Response to Comment C33-3: See Response to Comment C16-3. The swimming pool levels will be maintained by an automatic fill system as per Article 16 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code and Subpart 6-1 of the NYS Sanitary Code. This fill system will be supplied with potable water from the SCWA. This automatic fill will only be used to mitigate loss of pool water due to evaporation. The decorative pond will be filled with either potable water or via water delivery service. After its initial filling, water lost due to evaporation will be replaced via an automatic fill system supplied by the irrigation well. Comment C33-4: 3 ­¨³ ±¸ ¥«®¶ § ² ¡¤¤­ ¤²³¨¬ ³¤£ ³® ¡¤ ΛǾΛΕΓ ¦ ««®­² ¯¤± £ ¸ ¥®± ¡®³§ ³§¤ ±¤²³ ´± ­³  ­£ §®³¤« ¶¨³§ ¶ ³¤± ¡¤¨­¦ ²´¯¯«¨¤£ ¡¸ 3´¥¥®«ª #®´­³¸ 7 ³¤± !´³§®±¨³¸ȁ 4§¤±¤ ¨² ­® ¬¤­³¨®­ ®¥ ² ­¨³ ±¸ ¥«®¶ ¡¤¨­¦ ¥ ¢³®±¤£ ¨­ ¥®± ®­-²¨³¤ ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤µ¤­³ ¥®®£ ²¤±µ¨¢¤ ¯´±¯®²¤² Ȩ¥®± ´¯ ³® ΕΘΓ ¯¤®¯«¤ȩǾ ¥®± ³§¤ « ´­£±¸ ®¥ ³®¶¤«²  ­£ «¨­¤­² ¥®± 79 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ¦´¤²³² Ȩ¯¤±§ ¯²   ¬¨­¨¬´¬ ®¥ ΔΓΓ  ³   ³¨¬¤ȩ  ­£ ¥®± « ´­£±¸ ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ±¤²³ ´± ­³ȁ 4§¤ ¥¨¦´±¤ ®¥ ΛǾΛΕΓȝ¦¯£ ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ²¢±´³¨­¨¹¤£ ¢ ±¤¥´««¸ȁ /³§¤± ¥ ¢³®±² ²§®´«£ ¨­¢«´£¤ ³§¤ ¥ ¢³ ³§ ³ ¡¤ ¢§¦®¤±² ³¤­£ ³® ²§®¶¤± ¬®±¤ f±¤°´¤­³«¸Ǿ ±®®¬² ¶¨«« ¡¤ ² ­¨³¨¹¤£ ®­   £ ¨«¸ ¡ ²¨²  ­£ ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤µ¤­³ ¦´¤²³² ¬ ¸ ¡¤ ´²¨­¦ ±¤²³±®®¬²  ­£ ®³§¤± ¥ ¢¨«¨³i¤² ¤µ¤­ ¨¥ ³§¤¸  ±¤ ®­«¸ £ ¸ ¦´¤²³²ȁ Response to Comment C33-4: As indicated in the Response to C16-3 above, the majority of the laundry for the hotel and restaurant will be performed by a third-party vendor off-site. The flow per hotel unit accounts for showers for hotel guests. It is likely that beach goers will also shower at the beach which will not impact the proposed project’s water flow usage. With respect to the special events, the proposed action has been modified to eliminate outdoor events and, therefore, portable bathrooms will no longer be required or used at the subject property. All events will be held inside the hotel building or in the future enclosed space and the restrooms inside the hotel will be available to accommodate guests of the event. Overall, based on a flow of 5 gpd/person, the proposed indoor event space will increase water usage by 1,250 gpd (for event days only). Comment C37-2: (®¶ ¬´¢§ ¶ ³¤± ¶¨«« ¡¤ ´²¤£ ³® ª¤¤¯ ³§¤ « ¶­²  ­£ ¡´²§¤² ¯±¤²³¨­¤ \[sic\]ȁ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤ ¨² ¤²³¨¬ ³¨­¦ ΕȁΘ ¬¨««¨®­ ¦ ««®­² ¥±®¬ !¯±¨« ³® /¢³®¡¤±ȁ )­  ££¨³¨®­\[,\] §®¶ ¬´¢§ ¥¤±³¨«¨¹¤±  ­£ ¢§¤¬¨¢ «² ¶¨«« ¡¤  ££¤£ ³® ®´± ¶ ³¤±ȁ Response to Comment C37-2: The overall irrigation use is described in Section 2.2.2 of this DEIS and updated in this FEIS to address the reduced landscape area as a result of the future enclosed event space. Specifically, the estimated volume of irrigation water for the on-site lawn and select planted areas (of approximately 3.403 acres) is approximately 2,395,926+ gallons for the irrigation season (mid-April to mid-October), or 92,151+ gallons per week when averaged over the 26-week irrigation season. The amount of fertilizer usage is currently estimated to be 2.04 lbs/1,000sf/year, as discussed in the BURBS model (see Appendix J of this FEIS), which is consistent with what is utilized by Suffolk County in their nitrogen loading models. Other chemicals, such as pesticides, will be utilized sparingly on the site as needed and only those on the approved list by the EPA and NYS will be utilized. Comment C37-3: (®¶ ¬´¢§ ¶ ³¤± ¶¨«« ¡¤ ´²¤£ to ¯±®µ¨£¤ ¥®± ΗΗ ±®®¬ §®³¤«  ­£ ΚΗ ²¤ ³ ±¤²³ ´± ­³Ȉ (®¶ ¬´¢§ ¬®±¤ ­¨³±®¦¤­ ¶¨«« ¡¤  ££¤£ ³® ®´± ¶ ³¤± ²´¯¯«¸ȁ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤ ¯±®µ¨£¤² ³§ ³ ³§¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦² ¶®´«£ ±¤²´«³ ¨­  ¯¯±®·¨¬ ³¤«¸ ΗΖΓȁΚ «¡²ȁ ¯¤± ¸¤ ± ®¥ ¬®±¤ ­¨³±®¦¤­ȁ 4§¨² ¨²  ­ ¤²³¨¬ ³¤Ǿ ¨³ ¶¨«« ¯±®¡ ¡«¸ ¡¤ m®±¤ȁ 7¤  ²   ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ¢ ­­®³ ª¤¤¯ ¨­¢±¤ ²¨­¦ ®´± ­¨³±®¦¤­ «¤µ¤«²Ȃ /´± « ª¤²Ǿ ²³±¤ ¬²Ǿ ¡ ¸²  ­£ ³§¤ ²®´­£  ±¤ ¨­ £¨²³±¤²²ȁ 4§¤±¤ ¨²  ³ ³¨¬¤² ­®³ ¤­®´¦§ ®·¸¦¤­ ¨­ ³§¤ ¶ ³¤± ³® ²´¯¯®±³ «¨¥¤ ¶§¨¢§ § ² «¤£ ³® ¥¨²§  ­£ ²§¤«« ¥¨²§ £¨¤ ®¥¥ȁ ,¤³² \[sic\] «®®ª  ³ ³§¤ 3¢ ««®¯ £¨¤-®¥¥ ³§¨² ¸¤ ±ȁ 4§¤±¤ ¶¤±¤  «¦¤ \[sic\] ¡«®®¬² ³§ ³  ±¤ § ±¬¥´« ³® ¯¤®¯«¤  ² ¶¤««  ² ®³§¤± ²¯¤¢¨¤²ȁ /´± ¡¤ ¢§¤² ¶§¤±¤ ¢«®²¤£ ¥®±   ³¨¬¤ȁ -´¢§ ®¥ ³§¨² ¨² ¢ ´²¤£ ¡¸ ­¨³±®¦¤­ȁ .¨³±®¦¤­ ¨² ¢ ´²¤£ ¡¸ ¯¤®¯«¤  ­£ ³§¤ destriction \[sic\] ®¥ ®´± ®¯¤­ « ­£  ­£ forrests \[sic\]… (®¶ ¬´¢§ ­¨³±®¦¤­ ¶¨«« ΗΗ §®³¤« ±®®¬²  ­d   ΚΗ ²¤ ³ ±¤²³ ´± ­³  ££ ³® ®´± ¶ ³¤±²Ȉ .® ¬ ³³¤± ¶§ ³ ²¸²³¤¬ ³§¤¸ ´²¤ ¨³ ¶¨««  ££ ³® ®´± ­¨³±®¦¤­ ¯±®¡«¤¬²ȁ Response to Comment C37-3: The amount of nitrogen generated by the project is presented in the BURBS analysis as part of the DEIS (see Section 2.2.2 of the DEIS and Appendix J of this FEIS). Based on the revised BURBS analysis, which was performed for the greater STP capacity and reduction in lawn area for the proposed development with future event space, the total amount of nitrogen will be slightly less (i.e., 311.80 lbs./year for Proposed Action and 307.48 lbs./year for Proposed Action with Event Space). The as-of-right uses have the highest total nitrogen leached at 333.74 lbs./year. Beach closures are often related to coliform issues, which is linked to stormwater runoff contaminated with animal feces. 80 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Comment C37-4: 2¨¦§³ ­®¶ ®´± ¶ ³¤± ²´¯¯«¸ ¨² ¨­ £¨²³±¤²²ȁ /´± £±¨­g¨­¦ \[sic\] ¶ ³¤± ¨² ´­£¤± ²³±¤²²ȁ 7¤ £® ­®³ § µ¤ ¤­®´¦§ £±¨­ª¨­¦ ¶ ³¤± ¥®± ³§¤ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£ £´±¨­¦ ³§¤ ²´¬¬¤± ¬®­³§²ȁ , ²³ ²´¬¬¤± 2¨µ¤±§¤ £ ¢®´«£ ­®³ ¤µ¤­ ¥¨«« ³§¤¨± ³®¶¤±² ®µ¤±­¨¦§³ȁ 3®¬¤ ¢®­£®² ¢®´«£ ­®³ ¦¤³ ¤­®´¦§ ¶ ³¤± ¯±¤²²´±¤ ³® ³ ª¤ ²§®¶¤±² ¨­ ³§¤ ¬®±­¨­¦ȁ )­¢±¤ ²¤£ ¶ ³¤± ´²¤  ««®¶² ² «³ ¶ ³¤± ³® ²¤¤¯ ¨­³® ®´± £±¨­ª¨­¦ ¶ ³¤±ȁ Response to Comment C37-4: Water supply is managed and provided by the SCWA, not the Town of Southold. As part of the DEIS, the applicant consulted with the SCWA and water availability has been confirmed with no impact to the public supply system. The applicant also contacted the SCWA during preparation of this FEIS to provide notice of the proposed development with future event space and an updated letter of water availability was received (see Appendix K of this FEIS). Comment C41-5: 0¤²³¨¢¨£¤²  ­£ ¥¤±³¨«¨¹¤±²Ȁ ¨­³¤±¨®±  ­£ ¤·³¤±¨®± ¤·³¤±¬¨­ ³¨­¦ ¡´¦²Ǿ ±®£¤­³ cont±®«Ǿ « ­£²¢ ¯¨­¦ ¥¤±³¨«¨¹¤±² ¦®¨­¦ ¨­³® ®´± ¦±®´­£ ¶ ³¤±\[.\] Response to Comment C41-5: The applicant has evaluated pesticides and fertilizers in the DEIS and in the responses to comments throughout this section of the FEIS. Any extermination for rodent control on-site will be performed by a licensed vendor. Comment C41-7: 7 ³¤± ´² ¦¤  ­£ ³§¤ effects Response to Comment C41-7: The DEIS evaluated the projected water demand and in the responses to comments throughout this section of the FEIS. See the Response to Comment H3-8 for the proposed water conservation measures. Comment C41-12: 7 ³¤± ±´­ ®¥¥ Response to Comment C41-12: The DEIS evaluated stormwater management and a drainage plan that complies with Town Code has been submitted. See also the Response to Comment C7-4 and the Proposed Site Drainage and Grading Plan in Appendix C of this FEIS. 2.3.9 STP Comments related to the proposed on-site sewage treatment plant (STP) are addressed in this section of the FEIS. Specifically, the following comments are included: H4-2, H4-3, H5-4, H7-2, H14-19, C3-2, C4-1, C7-5, C22- 7, C24-5, C35-5, and C41-4. Comment H4-2: …³§¤ ¢®£¤ ¥®± ³§¤ ²¤¶ ¦¤ ¯« ­³ ²¸²³¤¬ ³§¤ "® ±£ ®¥ (¤ «³§ ±¤°´¨±¤²   £¨²³ ­¢¤ ¢®£¤ ¤²¯¤¢¨ ««¸ ¥±®¬ ³®   ±¤²¨£¤­³ ¢ ­ ¸®´ ¯«¤ ²¤ ³¤«« ¬¤ ¶§ ³Ȍ² ³§¤ £¨²³ ­¢¤ ¢®£¤ ±¤°´¨±¤¬¤­³² ¥±®¬ ¸®´± ²´¯¯®²¤£«¸ «¨³³«¤ §®´²¤ ¥®± ²¤¶ ¦¤ ³® ¬¸ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ «¨­¤Ȉ Response to Comment H4-2: The SCDHS requires a setback of 75-feet from the proposed STP to a property line and the proposed STP conforms with this setback requirement (see Sheets C-600 and C-601 in Appendix C). Comment H4-3: T§¨² ¨²   ¯´±¨¥¨¤£ ²¸²³¤¬  ² ¶¤«« ¨³Ȍ² ¡¨®£¤¦± £ ¡«¤ ¶§¨¢§ ¬¤ ­² ³§¤±¤ ¶¨«« ¡¤  ­  ±®¬  ¨­ ³§¤  ¨± ¡¤¢ ´²¤ )Ȍµ¤ ¡¤¤­ ¨­ ³§¤ ¥®®£ ¡´²¨­¤²²  ­£ ¨­µ®«µ¤£ ¶¨³§ ³§¨² ±¨¦§³ ­®¶ ²® ³§¤±¤Ȍ² ¦®¨­¦ ³® ¡¤ ®£®± ¨­ ³§¤  ¨±ȁ 81 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Response to Comment H4-3: The proposed STP is equipped with a two-stage activated carbon odor control system which is designed to mitigate odors generated by the STP. Comment H5-4: …³§¤ ²¨³¤ ²¤¶ ¦¤ ³±¤ ³¬¤­³ ¥ ¢¨«¨³¸ ³® ¡¤ ¢®­²³±´¢³¤£ ®­ ³§¤ ­®±³§¤±­ ¤·³¤­³ ®¥ ³§¤ ²´¡©¤¢³ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ®£®±  £µ¤±²¤«¸ ¨¬¯ ¢³ ³§¤ °´ «¨³¸ ®¥ «¨¥¤  ­£ µ¤±¸ ¢«®²¤ ³® ³§¤¨± ¯±®¯¤±³¸ «¨­¤ȁ Response to Comment H5-4: See Response to Comment H4-2. Comment H7-2: …³§¤¸Ȍ±¤ ¯« ­­¨­¦ ³® £± ¶ ΕȁΘ ¬¨««¨®­ ¦ ««®­² ®¥ ¥±¤²§ ¶ ³¤± ¥®± ´²¤ ¥®± ¨±±¨¦ ³¨®­ ®­«¸ ¥±®¬ ®´± Southo«£  °´ ¥¤±ȁ 4§¤ ² ­¨³ ±¸ ¥«®¶ ¨² ¤²³¨¬ ³¤£ ³§¤¸Ȍ±¤ ´²¨­¦ ³§¤ ­´¬¡¤±² ®¥ ΛǾΛΓΓ ¦ ««®­² ¯¤± £ ¸ȁ /­   ¸¤ ±«¸ ¡ ²¨² ³§ ³Ȍ² ΖȁΕ ¬¨««¨®­ ¦ ««®­² ¯¤± ¸¤ ± ®¥ ²¤¶ ¦¤ ³±¤ ³¬¤­³ ¶ ³¤± ³§ ³ ¦®¤² ¨­³® ³§¤¨± ³±¤ ³¬¤­³ ¥ ¢¨«¨³¸  ­£ ³§¤­ ¦¤³² ¯´¬¯¤£ ¡ ¢ª ®´³ ¨­³® ³§¤ «¤ ¢§ ¥¨¤«£² ¶§¤±¤ ¨³ ¦®¤² ¡ ¢ª ¨­³® ®´±  °´ ¥¤±ȁ 3® ¶§ ³Ȍ² § ¯¯¤­¨­¦ ¨² ³§¤¸Ȍ±¤ £± ¶¨­¦ ΕȁΘ ¬¨««¨®­ ¦ ««®­² ®¥ ¶ ³¤±   ¸¤ ± ®´³ ®¥ ³§¤ ¢«¤ ­  °´ ¥¤± ³® ¨±±¨¦ ³¤ ³§¤¨± ­¤¶ « ­£²¢ ¯¤ ®¥ §¤£¦¤²  ­£ « ¶­  ­£ ³§¤­ ³§¤¸Ȍ±¤ ¯´³³¨­¦ ¡ ¢ª ¨­ ³§¤¨± ²¤¶ ¦¤ ¶ ³¤± ¶§¨¢§ ¸¤² ³§±®´¦§ ³§¤ ³±¤ ³¬¤­³ ¯±®¢¤²² ¨³ £®¤² ¸®´ ª­®¶ ³ ª¤ ²®¬¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ­¨³±®¦¤­ ®´³ ¡´³ ³§¤±¤ ¨² ²³¨«« ­¨³±®¦¤­ ¨­ ³§¤±¤ȁ 7§ ³ ¶¤  «²® ª­®¶ ¥±®¬ ®³§¤± ²¨¬¨« ± ³±¤ ³¬¤­³ ²¸²³¤¬² ¨² ³§ ³ ¶§ ³Ȍ² «¤¥³ ¨­ ³§ ³  ¥¥«´¤­³ \[sic\] ³§ ³ ³±¤ ³¤£  ¥¥«´¤­³ \[sic\] ¨² ¯§ ±¬ ¢¤´³¨¢ «² «¨ª¤ ³§¤ ­´¬¡¤± ®­¤ ¢§¤¬¨¢ « ¨² ¢ ¥¥¤¨­¤Ǿ ­´¬¡¤± ³¶® ¨² ¡¨±³§ ¢®­³±®« §®±¬®­¤²  ­£ ¶§ ³ § ¯¯¤­² ¨² ¶¨³§ ³§ ³ ¨³ ¦®¤² ¨­³® ®´± ¦±®´­£ ¶ ³¤±Ȃ 3® ­®¶ ¸®´Ȍµ¤ ¦®³ ­¨³±®¦¤­  ­£ ¯§ ±¬ ¢¤´³¨¢ «² ¯«´² ³§¤±¤  ±¤ ¢¤±³ ¨­ ¬¨¢±®¡¤²  ­£ ¬¨¢±®®±¦ ­¨²¬²  ­£ ¡ ¢³¤±¨  ³§ ³ £®­Ȍ³ ¦¤³ ¯±®¢¤²²¤£ ®´³ ®¥ ³§ ³ ³±¤ ³¬¤­³ ¯±®¢¤²²ȁ 7¨³§ ³§¤ ­¨³±®¦¤­ ³§¤ ²³ ³¤¬¤­³ ² ¸² ³§ ³ ΕΚΛȁΜ «¡²ȁ ®¥ ­¨³±®¦¤­ ¯¤± ¸¤ ±  ±¤ «¤ ¢§¤£ ¡ ¢ª ¨­³® ³§¤ ¦±®´­£ ¶ ³¤±ȁ 3® ³§ ³Ȍ²   ΘΙΓω ¨­¢±¤ ²¤ ®¥ ¶§ ³ ¨² ¢´±±¤­³«¸ ¤²³¨¬ ³¤£ ³® ¦® ¨­³® ³§¤ ¦±®´­£  ² ¨²ȁ 4§ ³Ȍ² ³§¤ §®´²¤ ³§ ³Ȍ² ³§¤±¤ ­®¶  ­£ ³§ ³Ȍ²  ²²´¬¨­¦ ³§¤¸ ¥¤±³¨«¨¹¤ ³§¤¨± « ¶­ ¶§¨¢§ ) £®­Ȍ³ ¡¤«¨¤µ¤ ³§¤¸ £®ȁ 4§¤¸Ȍ±¤ ¬¸ ­¤¨¦§¡®±² ) ­¤µ¤± ²¤¤ ³§¤¬ £® ¨³ȁ )Ȍ¬ ­®³ ² ¸¨­¦ ³§¤¸ £®­Ȍ³ ¡´³ )Ȍ¬ ¯±¤³³¸ ²´±¤ ¨³Ȍ² ´­¨±±¨¦ ³¤£Ȃ3®  ¦ ¨­ ³§ ³Ȍ² ΕΚΛ ¤·³±  ¯®´­£² ®¥ ­¨³±®¦¤­ ¯¤± ¸¤ ± ³§ ³Ȍ² «¤ ¢§¤£ ¡ ¢ª ¨­³® ³§¤ ¦±®´­£¶ ³¤±ȁ 3® ¶§ ³ ) ³§¨­ª ³§¤ ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « ¨¬¯ ¢³ ²³ ³¤¬¤­³ ¨² ¬¨²²¨­¦ ¨² ¶§ ³ £®¤² ³§ ³ ¬¤ ­ ¥®± ´²Ȉ 7§ ³ £®¤² ΕΚΛ «¡²ȁ ®¥ ­¨³±®¦¤­ £® ³® ³§¤ ¦±®´­£¶ ³¤±Ȉ Response to Comment H7-2: See Response to Comment C22-6 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS. Comment H14-19: # ­ )  ²ª Ȩ¨­ ´£¨¡«¤ȩ  «²®Ǿ ³§¤ 340 ²¸²³¤¬ ¢ ­ ³§ ³ ¡¤ ±¤«®¢ ³¤£  ­¸¶§¤±¤ ¤«²¤ ®­ ³§¤ ²¨³¤Ǿ ) ­®³¨¢¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ ®³§¤± ²®±³ ®¥  ² ®¥ ±¨¦§³ ¯±®¦± ¬ ¸®´ ¢®´«£ ¯« ¢¤ ¨³ ¶¤«« ¡¤¨­¦ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ ² ¬¤ «®¢ ³¨®­ ¡´³ ¢ ­ ¨³ ¡¤ ¯« ¢¤£ ®­ ³§¤ ¶¤²³ ²¨£¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸Ȉ Response to Comment H14-19: The STP can be relocated to the west side of the property (see Appendix G of this FEIS); however, that location is not preferred by the project sponsor as it more centrally locates the STP on the north side of the lot. This relocation would alter the aesthetics of the proposed project by requiring the guests to drive past the STP to access the rear parking areas. Additionally, the STP would be closer to the proposed guest cottages. Relocation to the west would also cause the majority of the parking in the rear of the site to shift to the east towards the neighboring residential lots. To maintain the same number of overall parking spaces, the parking lot is placed up to the 15-foot setback line adjacent to the neighboring property. The original location is preferred as it complies with the setbacks provided in !¯¯¤­£¨· ! ®¥ ³§¤ 3´¥¥®«ª #®´­³¸ $¤¯ ±³¬¤­³ ®¥ (¤ «³§ 3¤±µ¨¢¤² 3³ ­£ ±£² ¥®± !¯¯±®µ « ®¥ 0« ­²  ­£ #®­²³±´¢³¨®­ &®± /³§¤± 4§ ­ 3¨­¦«¤-& ¬¨«¸ 2esidences and also provides for more separation of the parking areas from the neighboring residential properties. Also, landscaping, fencing, and lighting are all proposed for the STP building to help minimize impacts and considered in detail during site plan review. With respect to STP and its design, the proposed STP technology 82 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ is approved by SCDHS and has numerous installations within Suffolk County. Additionally, as per SCDHS requirements, the STP design incorporates the following items: The STP as part of the SCDHS approval process must comply with SCDHS siting and design requirements including setbacks to neighboring properties, minimum groundwater separation, soil conditions, and design conditions. The proposed STP will provide advanced wastewater treatment including the removal of nitrogen which can adversely affect groundwater and surface waters in high concentrations. A State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit is required from NYSDEC which will outline the minimum standards and system performance requirements. The STP must demonstrate compliance with the SPDES permit conditions on a monthly and annual basis as required by the permit. Additionally, the STP will be subject to inspections by the SCDHS to ensure the STP is operating within parameters. Groundwater monitoring wells will be installed both up and down gradient of the STP and water quality from the wells will be monitored as part of the SPDES permit. The STP will be equipped with an odor control system, including aerator blowers and a two-stage activated carbon control system. Comment C3-2: 4§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£  ¢³¨®­  «²® ¨­¢«´£¤² ³§¤ ¢®­²³±´¢³¨®­ ®¥  ­ ®­-²¨³¤ 340 ³®  ¢¢®¬¬®£ ³¤  «« ² ­¨³ary ¶ ²³¤Ǿ ¶¨³§ ¦±®´­£¶ ³¤± ¬®­¨³®±¨­¦ ¶¤««² ¨­²³ ««¤£ ¡®³§ ´¯²³±¤ ¬  ­£ £®¶­²³±¤ ¬ ®¥ ³§¤ ¤¥¥«´¤­³ £¨²¯®² « ²¸²³¤¬ȁ 3#7! ²³±®­¦«¸ ²´¯¯®±³² ³§¤²¤ ¬®­¨³®±¨­¦ ¤¥¥®±³²ȁ Response to Comment C3-2: The comment is noted. Comment C4-1: 4§¤ $¤¯ ±³¬¤­³ § ² ­®³ ±¤¢¤¨µ¤£   ¢®¬¬¤±¢¨ « ¶ ²³¤¶ ³¤±  ¯¯«¨¢ ³¨®­ ¥®± ³§¤  ¡®µ¤ ±¤¥¤±¤­¢¤£ ¯±®©¤¢³Ǿ  ² ±¤°´¨±¤£ ¡¸ !±³¨¢«¤ 6) ®¥ ³§¤ 3´¥¥®«ª #®´­³¸ 3 ­¨³ ±¸ #®£¤ȁ 4§¤ ¯±®©¤¢³ ²¯®­²®± ²§®´«£ ²´¡¬¨³  ­  ¯¯«¨¢ ³¨®­ ³§ ³ ¬¤¤³² !±³¨¢«¤ 6) £¤­²¨³¸ ±¤°´¨±¤¬¤­³² ³® ®´±  ¦¤­¢¸͖² /¥¥¨¢¤ ®¥ 7 ²³¤¶ ³¤± - ­ ¦¤¬¤­³  ³ ³§¤ ¤ ±«¨¤²³ ¯®²²¨¡«¤ £ ³¤ ²® ³§ ³   ¢®¬¯«¤³¤ ³¤¢§­¨¢ «  ²²¤²²¬¤­³ ®¥ ³§¨² ¯±®¯®² « ¢ ­ ¡¤ ´­£¤±³ ª¤­ȁ Response to Comment C4-1: The comment is noted. An application will be filed with the Department after a Findings Statement is issued by the lead agency. Comment C7-5: 0®««´³¨­¦ ³§¤  °´¨¥¤± ¨² ­®³ ²¨¬¯«¸  ­ ¨²²´¤ ®¥ ­¨³±®¦¤­ȁ 0¤®¯«¤ ¨­ §®³¤«² ´²¤ £±´¦²  ­£ ¬¤£¨¢ ³¨®­² ¶§¨¢§  ±¤ £¨²¯®²¤£ ®¥ ¨­³® ¶ ²³¤ ¶ ³¤± \[sic\]ȁ $®¤² ³§¤¨± ¯±®¯®²¤£ ²¤¶ ¦¤ ²¸²³¤¬ ª¤¤¯ ³§¤²¤ ¤«¤¬¤­³² ¥±®¬ in¥¨«³± ³¨­¦ ®´± £±¨­ª¨­¦ ¶ ³¤±Ȉ Response to Comment C7-5: See Response to Comment C22-6 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS. Comment C22-7: 2¤¦ ±£¨­¦ ¶ ²³¤ ¬ ­ ¦¤¬¤­³Ǿ ¶§¤±¤ £® ³§¤¸ ¨­³¤­£ ³® ³ ª¤ ³§¤ ¡¨®²®«¨£² ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ²¤¶ ¦¤ ³±¤ ³¬¤­³ ¯« ­³ ³®Ȉ )  ¬  «²® ¢´±¨®´² ¶§ ³ ³§¤ ¨¬¯ ¢³ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ®­ ³§¤ 3®´³§®«£ « ­£¥¨«« ¨­ ±¤¦ ±£² ³® ³§¤ £¨²¯®² « ®¥ ¡¨®²®«¨£²Ǿ ¨¥ ³§ ³͖² ¶§¤±¤ ³§¤¸ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¡±®´¦§³Ǿ  ² ¶¤««  ² ³± ²§ ¦¤­¤± ³¤£ ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ±¤²³ ´± ­³  ­£ §®³¤«ȁ Response to Comment C22-7: Sludge generated by the STP will be hauled off-site and disposed of at a permitted scavenger waste facility. Biosolids will not be generated by the STP and, thus, no such wastes will be brought to the Southold landfill for disposal. 83 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Comment C24-5: 4§¤ ¤¥¥¤¢³  ­£ ¨¬¯ ¢³ ®­ ®´±  °´¨¥¤±  ²   ±¤²®´±¢¤ ¥®± ²´¢§   « ±¦¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ¢®´«£ ¨¬¯ ¢³ ®´± ­ ³´± « ±¤²®´±¢¤² ¥®± ¸¤ ±² ³® ¢®¬¤ȁ (®¶ ¶¨«« ³§¤ ͗²¬ «« ²¤¶ ¦¤ ³±¤ ³¬¤­³ ¡´¨«£¨­¦͗ ³§¤ ¯±®©¤¢³² ¢®­²´«³ ­³ ±¤¥¤±±¤£ ³® Ȩ) ³§¨­ª §¤ ²´¦¦¤²³¤£ ΔΓ͖·ΕΖ͖ȩ ¨¬¯ ¢³ ³§¤ ­¤¨¦§¡®±¨­¦ ¯±®¯¤±³¨¤²Ǿ ®´± ¶ ³¤±Ǿ  ¨±  ­£ ²®¨«Ȉ 4§¤ ¢®­²´«³ ­³͖² ±¤²¯®­²¤ £¨£ ­®³ ¯±®µ¨£¤  ­  £¤°´ ³¤ ±¤²¯®­²¤ ®­ ¨³² «®­¦-³¤±¬ ¨¬¯ ¢³  ­£ ³§¤ ²³´£¸ ²¤¤¬² ³®  ££ ®­«¸ ¢¤±³ ¨­ ¨²²´¤²ȁ Response to Comment C24-5: See the Responses to Comments C1-3 (Section 2.3.2), C1-16 (Section 2.3.1), and H4-2, H4-3, H5-4, and H14-19 in this Section of the DEIS. Comment C35-5:!£µ ­¢¤ ®­ ²¨³¤ ²¤¶¤± ¦¤ ³±¤ ³¬¤­³ ¥ ¢¨«¨³¸ ³® ¡¤ ¢®­²³±´¢³¤£ ®­ ³§¤ ­®±³§¤±­ ¤·³¤­³ ®¥ ³§¤ ²´¡©¤¢³ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ³§¨² «®¢ ³¨®­ ¨² £¨±¤¢³«¸  £© ¢¤­³ ³® ®´± ¡ ¢ª¸ ±£ȁ 4§¨² ¨²  ­ ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « ¢®­¢¤±­Ǿ ¶ ³¤± ¯®««´³¨®­Ǿ ¨¥ ³±¤ ³¬¤­³ «¤µ¤« ¨² «®¶Ǿ ²¤¶ ¦¤ ²«´£¦¤ £¨²¯®² « ¨²²´¤² ­®³ ³® ¬¤­³¨®­ ®£®± ±¤«¤ ²¤£……. £µ¤±²«¤¸ \[sic\] ¨¬¯ ¢³ °´ «¨³¸ ®¥ «¨¥¤ȅ 7®´«£ ¸®´ ¶ ­³ ³§¨² ­¤·³ ³® ¸®´± ¡ ¢ª¸ ±£Ȉ Response to Comment C35-5: See the Responses to Comments C1-3 (Section 2.3.2), C1-16 (Section 2.3.1), and H4-2, H4-3, H5-4, and H14-19 in this section of the DEIS. Comment C41-4: Wa²³¤ ¶ ³¤± Ȭ²¨¢ȭ  ­£ ®£®± ¢®­³±®«Ǿ ³§¤ ­¤¶ ²¤¯³¨¢ ²¸²³¤¬ ±¤°´¨±¤ ¡¸ ³§¤ ¡® ±£ ®¥ he «³§ ­¤¤£² ³® ¡¤ ¬ ¨­³ ¨­¤£  ­£ ³§¤±¤ ¨²   ²¤¯³¨¢ ®£®± ³§ ³ ¢®¬¤² ¶¨³§ ¬ ¨­³ ¨­¨­¦ th¤ ²¸²³¤¬ȁ 4§¤±¤  ±¤  «²® ®³§¤± ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « ¢®­¢¤±­²ȁ Response to Comment C41-4: See the Responses to Comments C1-3 (Section 2.3.2), C1-16 (Section 2.3.1), and H4-2, H4-3, H5-4, and H14-19 in this section of the DEIS. 2.3.10 Soils  ­£ #®­²³±´¢³¨®­-2¤« ³¤£ )¬¯ ¢³² Comments related to soils and the potential construction-related impacts of the proposed development are addressed in this section of the FEIS. Specifically, the following comments are included: H5-3, H7-5, C16-1, C16-2, C22-11, C35-4, and C41-8. Comment H5-3: #®­²³±´¢³¨®­ ¯¤±¨®£ ¨² ² ¨£ ³® ¡¤ ¤¨¦§³¤¤­ ³® ³¶¤­³¸ ¬®­³§²ȁ /´± ¡¤£±®®¬²  ±¤ ®­ ³§¤ ¤ ²³ ²¨£¤ ®¥ ³§¨² £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸  ­£ £´±¨­¦ ³§¤ ²´¬¬¤±Ǿ ²´¬¬¤± ¤­©®¸¬¤­³ ®¥ ®´³²¨£¤ «¨µ¨­¦ ¶¨³§ ®´± ¯®®« ¤³¢ȁ ¶¨«« ­® «®­¦¤± ¤·¨²³ ¢§ ««¤­¦¨­¦ ³® ² ¸ ³§¤ «¤ ²³ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ¤°´¨¯¬¤­³ ­®¨²¤  ­£ £´²³ ¤³¢ȁ Response to Comment H5-3: As indicated in Section 1.4.1 of DEIS, the applicant will implement erosion, sedimentation and dust control measures during construction. Also, construction-related noise will be managed to the maximum extent practicable. Furthermore, the applicant will attempt to stage the excavation / primary structure construction during the fall or early spring; however, the schedule is, eluding other things, permit dependent. Also, as noted, construction will be undertaken during Weekdays (Monday – Friday) from 8:00AM to 5:00PM, and Saturdays from 9:00AM to 4:00PM. In recognition of federal and state holidays, no work would be performed on these days. Comment H7-5: )³ ² ¨£ ³§ ³ ¸®´ ª­®¶ ³§¤±¤Ȍ² ¢®­³ ¬¨­ ­³² ¨­ ³§¤ ²´±¥ ¢¤ « ¸¤± ®¥ ³§¤ ²®¨«  ­£ ³§¤¸  ±¤ ¤·¯¤¢³¤£ ³® ¡¤¢®¬¤  ¨±¡®±­¤  ² ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¬®µ¤² ³§±®´¦§®´³ ³§¤ ²¨³¤  ­£ ³§ ³ ³§¤ £´²³ ¬¨³¨¦ ³¨®­ ¯« ­ ¨² ³® § µ¤  ­ ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « ³¤¢§­¨¢¨ ­ ®­ ²¨³¤ ¶§® ¨² ¬®­¨³®±¨­¦ ³§¤ £´²³ ¡´³ ³§¤ ¯±®¡«¤¬ ¶¨³§ ³§ ³ ¨² ³§ ³ ³® ¬®­¨³®± £´²³ 84 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ³§¤±¤ § ² ³® ¡¤ £´²³ȁ 3® ¶§¤­ £´²³ ¨² ª¨¢ª¤£ ´¯  ­£ ³§¨² ¯¤±²®­ ² ¸² ®ª ¸ ³§¤±¤Ȍ² £´²³  ­£ ) § µ¤ ¬¸ ¶¨­£®¶ ®¯¤­ ¨³ ³ ª¤² ¤·- ¬®´­³ ®¥ ³¨¬¤ ³® ¦¤³   §®²¤ ®´³  ­£ ¸®´ ª­®¶ §®²¤ ¨³ £®¶­ ³® ¬¨³¨¦ ³¤ ³§¤ £´²³ȁ ) ©´²³ £®­Ȍ³ ²¤¤ ³§ ³  ²  ­  ¢¢¤¯³ ¡«¤ ²®«´³¨®­ȁ 4§¤¸  «²® ³ «ª¤£  ¡®´³ ²¯±¤ £¨­¦ ² «³ ®­ ³§¤ ²¨³¤ ³® ¨¥ )Ȍ¬ ´­£¤±²³ ­£¨­¦ ¨³ ¢®±±¤¢³«¸ ¶§¨¢§ ) ¬ ¸ ­®³ ¡¤ ©´²³ ³® ¯±®µ¨£¤ ©´²³ «¨ª¤   ¢±´²³¨­¦ « ¸¤±  ­£ ) ³§¨­ª ¸®´ ª­®¶ ¸®´ ¯´³ ² «³ ®µ¤± ³§¨² « ±¦¤ ®¥  ­  ±¤  ¨³ «¤ ¢§¤² £®¶­ ³® ³§¤ ¦±®´­£¶ ³¤±Ȃ3® ­®³ ®­«¸ ³§¤¨± « ­£²¢ ¯¨­¦ ¡¤  ¥¥¤¢³¤£ «®­¦ ³¤±¬ ¡´³ ¬¸ « ­£²¢ ¯¨­¦ ¶¨«« ¡¤  ¥¥¤¢³¤£Ǿ ¬¸ ­¤¨¦§¡®±Ȍ² « ­£²¢ ¯¨­¦ ¶¨«« ¡¤  ¥¥¤¢³¤£ȁ Response to Comment H7-5: The dust control measures indicated in the soil management plan are best industry practices approved by NYSDEC. The soil management plan was revised to remove the use of calcium chloride as a possible dust control measure. Comment C16-1: 4® ¢®­³±®« ³§¤ £´²³Ǿ ³§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³ § ² ¦®®£ ¯« ­² ¡´³  ­ ´­¶®±ª ¡«¤ ¨¬¯«¤¬¤­³ ³¨®­ «¨¬¨³ ³¨®­ǿ ®­«¸ ®­¤ ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « ³¤¢§­¨¢¨ ­ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¬®­¨³®±¨­¦ £´²³  ¢±®²² ³§¤ ²¨³¤ȁ 4§¤ ¢®­²³±´¢³¨®­  ±¤  ¨² ¬´¢§ ³®® « ±¦¤ ¥®±   ²¨­¦«¤ ¯¤±²®­ ³® ±¤ ²®­ ¡«¸ ¬®­¨³®± ³§¤ ²¨³´ ³¨®­ȁ )­  ££¨³¨®­Ǿ ¨³Ȍ² ­®³ ©´²³ £´²³ ³§ ³ ­¤¤£² ¬®­¨³®±¨­¦ǿ ¨³Ȍ² ³§¤ ¶¨­£  ­£ ²®¨« ¬¨¦± ³¨®­ ¯±¤µ¤­³¨®­ ¬¤ ²´±¤²ȁ 4§¤ ²®¨« ¬¨¦± ³¨®­ ¬¤ ²´±¤²  ±¤ ¤·³±¤¬¤«¸ ¨¬¯®±³ ­³ ¦¨µ¤­ ³§¤ ¯±®·¨¬¨³¸ ®¥ ³§¤ ¢±¤¤ª  ­£ ³§¤ ­ ³´±¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯®««´³ ­³²Ǿ  ­£ ³§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³ ¯±®¬¨²¤² ³§¤¸ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¬®­¨³®±¤£ ³® ¡¤ ²´±¤ ³§¤¸  ±¤ ¶®±ª¨­¦Ǿ ¡´³ ¶§® ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¬®­¨³®±¨­¦ ³§¤¬Ȉ 4§¤ ®­¤ ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « ³¤¢§­¨¢¨ ­? Response to Comment C16-1: It is unlikely that intrusive construction activities will take place throughout the entire site at once; as such, one environmental technician is sufficient to monitor the active work area. If intrusive activities are occurring in multiple work areas, a combination of multiple technicians and/or remote monitoring equipment can be used. Comment C16-2: !­®³§¤± ¨¬¯«¤¬¤­³ ³¨®­ ¨²²´¤ǿ §®¶ ¶¨«« ³§¤ ¯±®§¨¡¨³¨®­ ®­ ¶®±ª ¶§¤­ ³§¤ ¶¨­£ ¨² ®µ¤± ΔΘ ¬¯§ ¡¤ £®­¤Ȉ Ȩ²¤¤ȁ 0ȁ ·¨vǾ ΔΕǾ ΕΔǾ ΕΕȩ 7¨««   ¶¨­£ ²³ ³¨®­ ¡¤ ²¤³ ´¯ ®­ ²¨³¤Ȉ )¥ ²®Ǿ ¶§¤±¤Ȉ 7¨«« ¨³ ¡¤ ¬®µ¤£ ²® ³§ ³ ¨³Ȍ² mea²´±¨­¦ ³§¤ ¶¨­£ ­¤ ± ¶§¤±¤µ¤± ³§¤ ¢®­²³±´¢³¨®­ ¨²  ¢³¨µ¤Ȉ 7§® ¶¨«« ¡¤ ±¤ £¨­¦ ¨³Ȉ 4§¤ ¯±®§¨¡¨³¨®­  ¯¯«¨¤² ³® ²´²³ ¨­¤£ ¶¨­£² ®¥ ΔΘ ¬¨«¤² ¯¤± §®´±ȁ "´³ ¶§ ³ ¨¥ ³§¤ ²´²³ ¨­¤£ ¶¨­£ ¨² ΔΓ ¬¯§ ¶¨³§ ¥±¤°´¤­³ ¦´²³² ³® ΕΘ ¬¯§ ®± ¬®±¤Ȉ # ­ ³§¤ £´²³ ¢®­³±®« ¬¤ ²´±¤² ¶¨³§²³ ­£   ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ ¢® ²³ « ²³®±¬Ȉ 7¨«« ²®¬¤®­¤  «¶ ¸² ¡¤ ®­ ²¨³¤ ¬®­¨³®±¨­¦ ³§¤ ²¨³´ ³¨®­Ȉ 7¨«« ³§¤¸ ´²¤ ±¤¬®³¤ ¢ ¬¤± ² ³§ ³  ±¤ ΕΗȝΚ ¬®­¨³®±¤£Ȉ )¥   ²³®±¬ ´­¢®µ¤±²   ¯¨«¤ ®¥ ¢®­³ ¬¨­ ³¤£ £´²³ ¨­ ³§¤ ¬¨££«¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ­¨¦§³Ǿ ¨³ ¢ ­ ²¯±¤ £ ³§¤ ¯®¨²®­ ©´²³  ² ¤¥¥¤¢³¨µ¤«¸  ² ¨¥ ¨³ § ¯¯¤­¤£ £´±¨­¦ ­®±¬ « ¡´²¨­¤²² §®´±²ȁ Response to Comment C16-2: A wind monitoring station can be set up in the work areas during intrusive activities to be monitored by the environmental technician. NYSDEC DER-10 does not specify a sustained wind speed at which work must stop other than when "extreme wind conditions make dust control ineffective"; use of 15 MPH sets a quantified standard for sustained wind speeds at which work should be halted to prevent the spread of fugitive dust. With respect to the spread of dust after hours, the SMMP calls for disturbed areas to be sprayed down at the end of each day to form a thin crust, which, absent ongoing intrusive activities, should prevent dust migration outside normal work hours. It should be noted that the dust monitoring and control measures in the SMMP are based on the requirements of NYSDEC DER-10 Technical Guidance for Site Remediation and are typically sufficient for implementation at sites with a greater degree of soil impact than is present at the subject property (e.g., State Superfund sites, Brownfield sites, etc.). Comment C22-11: $´²³ ¦¤­¤± ³¤£ £´±¨­¦ ¢®­²³±´¢³¨®­ ¶¨«« ¯®²¤ §¤ «³§  ­£ ² ¥¤³¸ ¨²²´¤²ȁ 4§¤ ³®¯ ³wo ¨­¢§¤² ®¥ ²®¨« ¢®­³ ¨­ ¯¤²³¨¢¨£¤²Ǿ  ±²¤­¨¢Ǿ ¬¤±¢´±¸  ­£ ¯®²²¨¡«¸ ®³§¤± ¬¤t «² ²´¢§  ² «¤ £ȁ /­¤ ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « ³¤¢§­¨¢¨ ­ ³® 85 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ¤¥¥¤¢³¨µ¤«¸ ¬®­¨³®±  ­£ ¯®³¤­³¨ ««¸ §®²¤ £®¶­   ΙȁΚΘ  ¢±¤ ²¨³¤ ¨² ­®³  ­  £¤°´ ³¤ ¬¨³¨¦ ³¨®­ ¬¤ ²´±¤  ­£ ¨² ­®³ §´¬ ­«¸ ¨¬¯®²²¨¡«¤ ¦¨µ¤­ ³§¤ ²¢ «¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ²¨³¤ȁ 4§¨² ¨²   ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ «³§ ¨²²´¤ȁ !¯¯«¨¢ ­³ ¨² ¯´³³¨­¦ ¬¸ §®´²¤§®«£  ³ ±¨²ªȁ 4§¨² ¨² ¬¸ « ­£ ) ¦±®¶ ¬¸ ¥®®£ ®¶­ȁ 4§¤±¤ ¶¨«« ´­£®´¡³¤£«¸ ¡¤ ¢®­³ ¬¨­ ³¤£ £´²³ ®­ ²´±¥ ¢¤² ®¥ µ¤¦¤³ ¡«¤²Ǿ ¢®­³ ¬¨­ ³¤£ £´²³ ¬¨¦± ³¨­¦  ­£ ²¤³³«¨­¦ ¨­³® ¬¸ ²®¨«Ǿ  ­£ ¢®­³ ¬¨­ ³¤£ £´²³ ¨­ ³§¤  ¨± ) ¡±¤ ³§¤ȁ 7§ ³ ¢®­²¤°´¤­¢¤² £®¤² ³§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³ ¡¤ ± ¶§¤­ ) ¡¤¢®¬¤ ²¨¢ªȈ Response to Comment C22-11: The majority of the area surrounding the subject property was used for agricultural purposes beginning in the early 1900's; this usage extended through circa the 1980s for many parcels surrounding the subject property. Historic usage for agricultural purposes is commonly associated with the application of pesticides and herbicides; during the period of time the area surrounding the subject site was used for agricultural purposes, pesticides used may have included now-banned chemicals (such as DDT), or metals-based compounds (such as lead arsenate). These compounds are persistent in soil; impact similar to what was detected at the subject property is common at former agricultural sites, such as the area surrounding the subject property. Comment C35-4: #®­²³±´¢³¨®­ ΔΛ-ΕΕ ¬®­³§² - – & Λ – Θ ¯¬ 3 ³ Μ – 4 pm - ®´± ¡¤£±®®¬²  ±¤ ®­ ³§¤ ¤ ²³ ®¥ ³§¨² £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ - £´±¨­¦ ²´¬¬¤± ¤­©®¸¬¤­³ ®¥ ®´³²¨£¤ «¨µ¨­¦  ­£ ¯®®« ¶¨«« ­® «®­¦¤± ¤·¨²³ ¢§ ««¤­¦¨­¦ ³® ² ¸ ³§¤ «¤ ²³ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ¤°´¨¯¬¤­³Ǿ ­®¨²¤Ǿ £´²³Ǿ ¤³¢ȁ Response to Comment C35-4: See Response to Comment H5-3 above. Comment C41-8: #®­²³±´¢³¨®­Ȁ  «« ¯§ ²¤²  ­£ «¤­¦³§ ®¥ ³¨¬e\[,\] ±® £²Ǿ ´³¨«¨³¨¤²\[,\]¢®­²³±´¢³¨®­ ®­   ±¤¦¨²³¤±¤£ §¨²³®±¨¢ §®¬¤ȁ )² ³§¨² ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ¶¨³§ ¨­ \[sic\]   §¨²³®±¨¢ ¢®±±¨£®±Ȉ Response to Comment C41-8: The subject property is not located within an historic corridor. The existing residence, as explained in the DEIS, is eligible for listing on the National and State Registers of Historic Places. 2.3.11 Ecology Comments related to ecological resources and the ecological assessment prepared by Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. are addressed in this section of the FEIS. Specifically, the following comments are included: H7- 3, H7-4, H7-7, C27-6, C33-2, C37-5, C37-6, and C41-11. Comment H7-3: )Ȍ£  «²® «¨ª¤ ³® ¯®¨­³ ®´³ ³§ ³ ³§¨² ²³ ³¤¬¤­³ ² ¸² ³§ ³ ³§¤±¤  ±¤ ­® ¨­µ ²¨µ¤ ²¯¤¢¨¤² ¡¤¨­¦ ¨­³±®£´¢¤£ ³® ³§¤ ²¨³¤Ǿ ²® ³§¤¸ § µ¤ ¨­³±®£´¢¤£ ³§¤ ¯®­£  ­£ ³§¤¸ «¨²³ ³§¤ ²¯¤¢¨¤²  ² ¡¤¨­¦ ¡®³§ ¯« ­³  ­£  ­¨¬ «²ǿ ¢®¸ ¦®«£ ¥¨²§Ǿ ¶ ³¤± «¨«¨¤²  ­£ ¶ ³¤± §¸ ¢¨­³§²ȁ 4§¤ ¯®­£ § ² ³§¤ ¥®®³¯±¨­³ ®¥ ¤²²¤­³¨ ««¸ ³§¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ³§ ³Ȍ² ¤·¨²³¨­¦ ®­ ²¨³¤  ­£ ³§¨² ­¤¶ ¯®­£  «« ®¥ ³§¤ ²¯¤¢¨¤² ³§¤¸ «¨²³¤£  ±¤ ¨­µ ²¨µ¤ȁ 3® ) ¶ ² ¶®­£¤±¨­¦ ¨¥ ³§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³ ¢ ­ ¤·¯« ¨­ ³§¤ ¯´±¯®²¤ ®¥ ¨­³±®£´¢¨­¦   ¥®±¤¨¦­ ¤¢®-²¸²³¤¬ ®³§¤± ³§ ­ ¥®± £¤¢®± ³¨µ¤ ¯´±¯®²¤²ȁ Response to Comment H7-3: Page 46 of the DEIS pertaining to the decorative fish pond indicates that pond will be stocked with koi and goldfish and that “plant species would include a variety of ornamental pond plants, such as water lilies, water Hyacinths, and perimeter ornamental grasses”. As indicated in Section 1.3 of this FEIS, the project design has been revised such that no fish shall be stocked in the decorative pond. 86 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ A final planting schedule has not been developed for the decorative ponds at this time. The landscaping and decorative pond plantings will not include any species listed as invasive on management plans and lists by the Long Island Invasive Species Management Area (www.liisma.org) or included on Suffolk County’s “No Sale/Transfer List” (Suffolk County Local Law No. 22-2007, Adopted 6-26-2007). Page 46 of the DEIS indicates that “plant species would include a variety of ornamental pond plants, such as water lilies, water Hyacinths, and perimeter ornamental grasses, all of which would be designed by a professional pond designer”. The artistic rendering for the decorative pond (Appendix D of the DEIS) provides a representation of water lilies within the pond. If any water lilies are incorporated into the final planting schedule for the decorative pond, they may be fragrant water lily (.¸¬¯§ ¤  ®£®± ³  ²²¯ȁ ®£®± ³ ) or another water lily native to New York State. Although water hyacinth is not listed on invasive plant lists promulgated by the Long Island Invasive Species Management Area (www.liisma.org) or the Suffolk County’s “No Sale/Transfer List” (Suffolk County Local Law No. 22-2007, Adopted 6-26-2007); this species will not be included in the final aquatic plant schedule for the decorative pond . Water hyacinth has been documented in Suffolk County; however, current evidence indicates this cannot survive over winter in New York due to winter climate (New York Flora Association, 2020). Comment H7-4: )Ȍ£ «¨ª¤ ³® ¢®¬¬¤­³ ®­ ³§¤ ¢®¸ȁ ) ³§¨­ª  ²   «®¢ « ¤µ¤±¸®­¤Ȍ² ¤·¯¤±¨¤­¢¤£ ³§ ³ ± ­£®¬ ¡«´¤ ¥¨²§ ¨­ ¸®´± ¡ ¢ª ¸ ±£  ­£ ¶§¤±¤ £®¤² ³§ ³ ¢®¬¤ ¥±®¬Ȉ 4§ ³Ȍ² ®­¤ /²¯±¤¸ §´­¦±¸ ¯¨¢ª¨­¦ ´¯ ³§¤ ¥¨²§Ǿ £±®¯¯¨­¦ ¨³ ®´³ ®¥ §¨² ¬®´³§  ­£ ¨³ ¦®¤² ²®¬¤¶§¤±¤ ¤«²¤ȁ 3® ³§¤±¤  ±¤ ¶ ¸² ¥®± ²¯¤¢¨¤² «¨ª¤ ¥¨²§ ³® ¢®¬¤ ®´³ ®¥   ¯®­£  ­£ ¦¤³ ²®¬¤¶§¤±¤ ¤«²¤ȁ 4§¤±¤  ±¤ ¥±¤²§¶ ³¤± ¶¤³« ­£² ¢«®²¤ ¡¸ ³§ ³ ¶ ³¤± §¸ ¢¨­³§²Ǿ ¡¨±£ ¢®¬¤² ¨­ ¯®««¨­ ³¤ ­®³ ¯®««¨­ ³¤ ¡´³ ¡¨±£ ¢®¬¤² ¨­ ³ ª¤²   ²¤¤£Ǿ £±®¯²   ²¤¤£ ¨³ ¤­£² ´¯ ²®¬¤¶§¤±¤ ¤«²¤ȁ 4§¨² ¨² §®¶ ³§¤²¤ ³§¨­¦² § ¯¯¤­  ­£ ³§ ³Ȍ² ¶§¸ ³§¤¸Ȍ±¤ «¨²³¤£  ² ¨­µ ²¨µ¤ ²¯¤¢¨¤²ȁ Response to Comment H7-4: See Response to Comment H7-3 above. Comment H7-7: !² ¥ ±  ² ³§¤ ¤¢®«®¦¨¢ « ±¤²®´±¢¤² ¦®Ǿ ³§¤ «®²² ®¥ ¤ ±«¸ Ȩ¨­ ´£¨¡«¤ȩ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¨¤² ¶®´«£ ±¤²´«³ ¨­ £¤¢±¤ ²¤£ § ¡¨³ ³  µ ¨« ¡«¤ ³§¤ ¯« ­³²Ǿ ¡¨±£²Ǿ ¶¨«£«¨¥¤ ²¯¤¢¨¤² ¯±¤²¤­³ ³§¨² ¨² ¶§ ³ ³§¤ ²³ ³¤¬¤­³ ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ¤·¤¢´³¨µ¤ ²´¬¬ ±¸ȁ )  ¦±¤¤ ¶¨³§ ³§ ³ȁ !«²® ²³ ³¤£ ¨² ³§¤ ±¤²´«³¨­¦ § ¡¨³ ³ «®²²  ­£ ²´¡²¤°´¤­³ ±¤£´¢³¨®­²  ­£ «®¢ «  ¡´­£ ­¢¤ ®¥ ¡¨±£  ­£ ¶¨«£«¨¥¤ ²¯¤¢¨¤² ¨² ­®³   ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³  £µ¤±²¤ ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « ¨¬¯ ¢³  ² ²´¢¢¤²²¨®­ § ±£¶®®£ ¥®±¤²³²  ­£ ²´¢¢¤²²¨®­ « ®«£ ¥¨¤«£²  ±¤ ¢« ²²¨¥¨¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ .¤¶ 9®±ª . ³´± « (¤±¨³ ¦¤ 0±®¦± ¬  ² £¤¬®­²³± ¡«¸ ²¤¢´±¤ ¡®³§ ¨­ .¤¶ 9®±ª 3³ ³¤  ­£ ¦«®¡ ««¸ȁ 3® ¶§ ³ § ¯¯¤­² ¨² ³§¨² ¨² ±¤ ««¸ ¡ £ ²¢¨¤­¢¤ §¤±¤ȁ 4§¤¸Ȍ±¤ ³ ª¨­¦ ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « ²³ ³¨²³¨¢ ®­   ²³ ³¤¶¨£¤ ²¢ «¤  ­£ ³§¤¸Ȍ±¤  ¯¯«¸¨­¦ ¨³ ³®   £®¶­²³ ³¤ ²¬ «« «®¢ « ¢®­£¨³¨®­…¶¤ ­¤¤£ ³® «®®ª  ³ ®´± «®¢ « ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³  ­£ ³§¨² ­¤¤£² ³® ¡¤ ¤µ «´ ³¤£ ¥ ¨±«¸ ®­ ³§ ³ ²¢ «¤ȁ )¥ ³§¨² ¶ ² ¥±®¬ ³§¤¨± £ ³  ³§¤ .¤¶ 9®±ª . ³´± « (¤±¨³ ¦¤ 0±®¦± ¬ ¨¥ ¸®´ «®®ª  ³ ²®¬¤ ®³§¤± £ ³¤ «¨ª¤ ¨¥ ¸®´ ¦® ®­ ³§¤ $ȁ%ȁ#ȁȌ² ¶¤¡²¨³¤ ³§¤¸ £® «®®ª  ³ ³§¤²¤ ¤ ±«¸ ²´¢¢¤²²¨®­ « ¢®¬¬´­¨³¨¤²  ² ¨¬¯®±³ ­³ µ «´ ¡«¤ ¤¢®«®¦¨¢ «  ±¤ ²ȁ )\[‘m\] ©´²³ ¢®­¢¤±­¤£ ¶§® ¢§¤¢ª² ³§¨² ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « ²³ ³¤¬¤­³Ȉ 7§® ¢§¤¢ª² ³§¤ ±¤²®´±¢¤²Ǿ ¶§® £¤¢¨£¤² ³§¤¸Ȍ±¤ ´²¨­¦ ³§¤ ¢®±±¤¢³ £ ³ Ǿ ³§¤¸Ȍ±¤ ´²¨­¦ ³§¤ ¢®±±¤¢³ ±¤²®´±¢¤²Ǿ ³§¤¸Ȍ±¤ ´²¨­¦ ³§¤ ¬®²³ ´¯ ³® £ ³¤ ¨­¥®±¬ ³¨µ¤ ±¤²®´±¢¤²Ȉ ) ³§¨­ª ³§¤¸Ȍ±¤ ´²¨­¦ ³§¤ ±¤²®´±¢¤² ³§ ³  ¯¯«¸ ³® ³§¨² ¯±®©¤¢³ ³§ ³  ±¤ ¦®¨­¦ ³® ¡¤­¤¥¨³ ³§¤¬  ­£ ³§¤¸Ȍ±¤ ­®³ ±¤ ««¸  ¢¢´± ³¤ȁ Response to Comment H7-7: See Response to Comment C22-3 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS. Comment C27-6: Ȃ¡´³ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®² «Ȍ² ²¨¹¤  ­£ ²¢ «¤ ¶¨««  «²® § µ¤  ­ ´­¶ ±± ­³¤£ ¨¬¯ ¢³ ®­ ³§¤ ¯±®©¤¢³ ²¨³¤Ȍ² ­ ³´± « µ¤¦¤³ ³¨®­  ­£ § ¡¨³ ³ȁ Response to Comment C27-6: See Response to Comment C30-2 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS. 87 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Comment C33-2: 7§¨«¤ ²´¡²³ ­³¨ « ®¯¤­ ²¯ ¢¤ ¯±¤²¤±µ ³¨®­ ¨² ±¤°´¨±¤£ ¥®± ±¤²¨£¤­³¨ « £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ¨³ ²¤¤¬² ¤·³±¤¬¤ ¶§¤­ ΜΖω ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ¨² ¡¤¨­¦ £¨²³´±¡¤£ ¥®± ¯±®¯®²¤£ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ Ȩ¶¨³§ «®²² ®¥ ¢±¨³¨¢ « ¶¨«£«¨¥¤ habitat). Response to Comment C33-2:The subject property is not currently zoned for residential development. The subject property is located within the HB zoning district of the Town of Southold. Therefore, any Town clearing restrictions for residential properties are not relevant to this application. Furthermore, the purpose of the HB Zoning District, as excerpted from §280-44, “\[t\]he purpose of the Hamlet Business (HB) District is to provide for business development in the hamlet central business areas, including retail, office and service uses, public and semipublic uses, as well as hotel and motel and multifamily residential development that will support and enhance the retail development and provide a focus for the hamlet area.” The proposed project will result in the loss of approximately 5.5 acres of natural habitat (i.e. 4.8± acres of successional southern hardwood forests and 0.7± acres of successional old fields). However, the existing habitats on-site are not “critical”, as suggested by the comment, based on the commonplace and abundant wildlife and plant species observed or expected to occur on the subject property, as indicated by 1) the species and habitats observed during field inspections of the subject property, 2) the past disturbance (i.e. clearing and soil tilling/plowing) associated with past agricultural uses, and 3) current anthropogenic activities and disturbance associated with the adjacent business district, local highway, commercial boatyard, and residential properties. Furthermore, New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP) correspondence from August 15, 2018 indicates that the NYNHP has no records of known occurrences of rare or state-listed animals or plants or significant natural communities on or in the vicinity of the site (see Appendix K of the DEIS) and no endangered, threatened, or rare species or significant ecological communities were observed during the ecological surveys conducted with this application. Finally, the subject property is not located in any critical environmental area or special overlay district. Comment C37-5: 4§¤²¤ ²´¢¢¤²²¨®­ « ²®´³§¤±­ § ±£¶®®£²  ­£ ®«£ ¥¨¤«£² ¢ ­ ­¤µ¤± ¡¤ ±¤¯« ¢¤£ ®­¢¤ ®¡«¨³¤± ³¤£ȁ 7¤ ­¤¤£ ®¯¤­ « ­£ ³®  ¢³  ² ±¤¢§ ±¦¤ ¡ ²¨­² ¥®± ³§¤ ¶ ³¤± ¶¤ £±¨­ªȁ Response to Comment C37-5: The proposed action will result in the loss of approximately 5.5 acres of natural habitat (i.e. 4.8± acres of successional southern hardwood forests and 0.7± acres of successional old fields). These successional habitats have developed within the past forty years on the property since the cessation of agricultural uses in the 1980s. The loss of natural vegetation and habitat is identical to the as-of-right Alternate Development Plan to construct a 30,650 SF, one-story office building authorized under the prevailing zoning classification for the site (HB). The proposed action seeks to mitigate the impact of the loss of natural habitats on groundwater recharge through the installation of a stormwater management system that will contain and recharge stormwater from a two-inch rain event, in accordance with Town Code. The proposed stormwater management controls include both structural infiltration (drywells and catch basins) and non-structural methods (pervious pavement, swale, permeable walkways and expansive lawn and landscaped areas for infiltration). The proposed landscaped and natural areas occupy over 58% of the subject lot, which is more than double the minimum required by zoning. In comparison the overall lot coverage for the proposed project is 16.3%, which is less than half of the maximum lot coverage permitted by the code. The site plan for the proposed action was developed to minimize the lot coverage and maximize the landscaped and natural areas. For the plan, inclusive of the future indoor event 88 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ room, the proposed landscape continues to exceed the requirement by 31.3% and the lot coverage continues to be considerably less than that permitted (18.6% proposed; 40% permitted). The proposed action also seeks to mitigate the loss of trees by 1) maintaining 0.2 acres of successional forest areas within the 25-ft rear yard setback area and the 10-ft side yard setback area to contribute to boundary screening for adjacent properties and 2) establishment of 3.5 acres of mowed lawn and landscaping areas that include trees. The proposed landscaping consists of maintained turf grass with scattered deciduous trees, including red maple (!¢¤± ±´¡±´¬ ‘October Glory’) and red flowering dogwood (#®±­´² ¥«®±¨£  µ ±ȁ ±´¡± ), and trimmed hedgerows comprised of privet (,¨¦´²³±´¬ ¨¡®«¨´¬) and property boundary screening comprised of evergreen trees, i.e. Leyland cypress on 8 ft centers (#´¯±¤²²®¢¸¯ ±¨² «¤¸« ­£¨¨) in areas where no existing trees are present. Some existing trees shall be incorporated into the site landscaping plan including native trees such as eastern red cedar (*´­¨¯¤±´² µ¨±¦¨­¨ ­ ), black cherry (0±´­´² ²¤±®³¨­ ), box elder (!¢¤± ­¤¦´­£®), black walnut (*´¦« ­² ­¨¦± ), butternut (*´¦« ­² ¢¨­¤±¤ ), scarlet oak (1´¤±¢´² ¢®¢¢¨­¤ ). All trees proposed to remain during construction will be protected with tree protective fencing. Comment C37-6: 4§¤ ±¤¯®±³ ¯±®µ¨£¤²Ǿ ³§ ³ ²´¢¢¤²²¨®­ « ²®´³§¤±­ § ±£¶®®£ ¥®±¤²³²  ­£ ²´¢¢¤²²¨®­ « ®«£ ¥¨¤«£²  ±¤ ¢« ²²¨¥¨¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ .¤¶ 9®±ª . ³´± « ( ¡¨³ ³ 0±®¦± ¬  ² ȏ£¤¬®­²³± ¡«¸ ²¤¢´±¤Ȑ ¡®³§ ¨­ .¤¶ 9®±ª 3³ ³¤  ­£ ¦«®¡ ««¸ȁ !¢¢®±£¨­¦«¸Ǿ ³§¤²¤ ­¤¤£ ³® «®®ª  ³ ®´± 4®¶­ ¶§¨¢§ ¨² «®®²¨­¦ \[sic\] ³±¤¤  ¢±¤ ¦¤ȁ 4§¨² ±¤¯®±³ ¨­£¨¢ ³¤² ³§ ³ ³§¤ ²´¢¢¤²²¨®­ « ¥®±¤²³²  ­£ ®«£ ¥¨¤«£² ¯±¤²¤­³  ³ ³§¤ ²¨³¤  ±¤ ­®³ ª­®¶­ ³® ¯±®µ¨£¤ § ¡¨³ ³ ¥®±  ­¸ ¤­£ ­¦¤±¤£Ǿ threaten¤£Ǿ ®± ± ±¤ ¶¨«£«¨¥¤ ®± ¯« ­³ ²¯¤¢¨¤²ȁ ) ¡¤«¨¤µ¤ ®´± ­¤¨¦§¡®±² ¶ ­³ ³® ª¤¤¯ ®´± ³±¤¤²  ­£ ¶§ ³¤µ¤± ¶¨«£«¨¥¤  ­£ ¯« ­³ ²¯¤¢¨¤² ¨² ®­ ³§¨² ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ¡¤¢ ´²¤ ³§¤¸ ´­£¤±²³ ­£ ³§ ³ ¶¤  ²   ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ­¤¤£ ¢«¤ ­ ¶ ³¤±  ­£ ¢«¤ ­  ¨± ¨­ ®±£¤± ³® ²´±µ¨µ¤ȁ Response to Comment C37-6: See Responses to Comments C20-1, C22-3 and C22-4 in Section 2.3.1 and Response to Comment C37-5 in this section. Comment C41-11: )­µ ²¨µ¤  ­£ ­®­ ­ ³¨µ¤ ¯« ­³²Ǿ ¯®­£ ¥¨²§ Response to Comment C41-11: As indicated in Section 1.3 of this FEIS, the project design has been revised such that no fish will be stocked in the decorative pond. The proposed landscaping plantings do not include any species listed as invasive on management plans and lists by the Long Island Invasive Species Management Area (www.liisma.org) or included on Suffolk County’s “No Sale/Transfer List” (Suffolk County Local Law No. 22- 2007, Adopted 6-26-2007). The aquatic plant schedule for the decorative pond has not been developed at this time. Similarly, aquatic plants included in the decorative pond will not include any species listed as invasive by the Long Island Invasive Species Management Area (www.liisma.org) or included on Suffolk County’s “No Sale/Transfer List” (Suffolk County Local Law No. 22-2007, Adopted 6-26-2007). Page 46 of the DEIS pertaining to the Decorative Pond indicates “plant species would include a variety of ornamental pond plants, such as water lilies, water Hyacinths, and perimeter ornamental grasses”. Although water hyacinth is not listed on invasive plant lists promulgated by the Long Island Invasive Species Management Area (www.liisma.org) or the Suffolk County’s “No Sale/Transfer List” (Suffolk County Local Law No. 22-2007, Adopted 6-26-2007); this species shall not be included in the aquatic plant schedule for the decorative ponds. Water hyacinth has been documented in Suffolk County; however, current evidence indicates this species cannot survive over winter in New York due to winter climate (New York Flora Association, 2020). 89 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2.3.12 Economics Comments related to potential economic impacts are addressed in this section of the FEIS. Specifically, the following comments are included: H5-1, H6-2, H6-4, H8-1, C7-7, C11-4, C17-4, C24-2, C24-3, C28-3, C29-3, C31- 3, C31-4, and C35-2. Comment H5-1: …th¨² ¯±®¯®²¤£ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ¶¨«« § µ¤  ­  £µ¤±²¤ ¨¬¯ ¢³ ®­ ³§¤ °´ «¨³¸ ®¥ «¨¥¤ ¤·¯¤¢³¤£ ¶§¤­ ¯´±¢§ ²¨­¦ ®´± §®¬¤ ­®³ ³® ² ¸   £¤¢±¤ ²¤ ¨­ µ «´¤ ²§®´«£ ¶¤ ¶ ­³ ³® ²¤««ȁ !²²®¢¨ ³¤² ®¥ ³§¤ ®¶­¤±² ±¤¯±¤²¤­³¤£ -±ȁ 4¨¡¤³³ § µ¤ ¢®­³ ¢³¤£ ³§¤¬ ®­ ¡¤§ «¥ ®¥ ³§¤¬ ±¤¦ ±£¨­¦ ®´± ¯±®¯¤±³¸ȁ Response to Comment H5-1: See Responses to Comments H5-8, C1-10, and C18-1 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS, as well as the revised analysis of the special exception use permit criteria in Appendix I of this FEIS. Comment H6-2: …) ª­®¶  ²   ¡¤£  ­£ ¡±¤ ª¥ ²³ ®¶­¤± ³§ ³ ¶ ² ¬¸ ¡¨¦¦¤²³ ®¡²³ ¢«¤ ¨­ ¬¸ ¡´²¨­¤²² ¶ ² ¥¨­£¨­¦ help. Response to Comment H6-2: The comment is noted. See also the Response to Comment C18-1 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS. Comment H6-4: T§¨² ¨²   ¬ ²²¨µ¤ ¯±®©¤¢³ ¥®±   «¨³³«¤ °´ ¨­³ «¨³³«¤ .®±³§ &®±ª ³®¶­ȁ ) £®­Ȍ³ ¶ ­³ ¨³ȁ 7¤ § µ¤ ¬®¬  ­£ ¯®¯ ¡´²¨­¤²²¤² ¶§¨¢§  ±¤ ¡¤£  ­£ ¡±¤ ª¥ ²³² ³§ ³ ®¯¤­ ³§¤¨± ¡´²¨­¤²²¤² ²® ³§¤¸ ¢®´«£ «¨µ¤ §¤±¤  ­£ ¢®­³¨­´¤ ³® «¨µ¤ §¤±¤  ­£ ±¤³¨±¤ §¤±¤ȁ 7¤ ¶¤­³ ³§±®´¦§ ³§¤ !¨± "lj" ­®­²¤­²¤…4§¨² ¨² ¦®¨­¦ ³®  ¥¥¤¢³ ³§ ³ ¶§®«¤ ¨­£´²³±¸Ǿ ¥®±³¸ ¥®´± ±®®¬²ȁ 9®´Ȍ±¤ ­®³ ¦®¨­¦ ³® § µ¤ «¨³³«¤ °´ ¨­³ ¡¤£  ­£ ¡±¤ ª¥ ²³²Ǿ ¶§¨¢§ ¶®´«£ ¸®´ ¯±¤¥¤±Ȉ 7®´«£ ¸®´ ¯±¤¥¤±   §®³¤« ¶¨³§ ¥®±³¸ ¥®´± ±®®¬² ®±   ±¤²¨£¤­³¨ « §®¬¤ ¶§®  ¢³²  ²  ­  ¬¡ ²² £®± ¥®± ³§¤ .®±³§ &®±ª  ­£ ³§ ³Ȍ² ¶§ ³ ¶¤ £®ȁ 7¤ ±¤¥¤± ¯¤®¯«¤ ³® «®¢ « ¡´²¨­¤²²¤²Ǿ ³® °´ ¨­³ «¨³³«¤ ¶¨­¤±¨¤²ǿ ³§ ³ ¶¨«« ¡¤¢®¬¤ ®¡²®«¤³¤ ¡¤¢ ´²¤ ¶¤Ȍ±¤ ¦®¨­¦ ³® ¤­³¤±³ ¨­ ³§¨²  ­£ ³§¤±¤Ȍ«« ¡¤ ¬®±¤  ­£ ¬®±¤ ®¥ ¨³  ­£ ¶§ ³  ±¤ ¶¤ ¦®¨­¦ ³® § µ¤ §¤±¤Ǿ ¶§ ³  ±¤ ¶¤ preserving? Response to Comment H6-4: The comment is noted. See also the Response to Comment C18-1 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS. Comment H8-1: ) ²´¯¯®±³ ¤µ¤±¸³§¨­¦ *®¸¢¤ ©´²³ ² ¨£  ¡®´³ ³§¤ £¨¥¥¨¢´«³¸ ®¥ ¥¨­£¨­¦ §¤«¯ ¨­ ³§¤ ³®¶­ ¤²¯¤¢¨ ««¸ ¨­ ³§¤ ²´¬¬¤±ȁ !«« ³§¤ ±¤²³ ´± ­³²  «« ³§¤ §®²¯¨³ «¨³¸ ¡´²¨­¤²²¤² §¤±¤  ±¤ £¤²¯¤± ³¤«¸ «®®ª¨­¦ ¥®± §¤«¯ ¨­ ³§¤ ²´¬¬¤±  ­£ ³§¤­ ³§¤±¤ ¨² ­® ¡´²¨­¤²² ¨­ ³§¤ ¶¨­³¤± ¶§¨¢§ ¬ ª¤² ¨³ ¤·³±  § ±£ȁ Response to Comment H8-1: The comment is noted. See also the Response to Comment C18-1 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS. Comment C7-7: %#/./-)# $%6%,/0-%.4Ȁ 4§¤¸ ² ¸ ³§¤¸ ¶¨«« ͗¢±¤ ³¤͗ ΙΗ ­¤¶ ©®¡²ȁ 7¨«« ³§¤²¤ ¯¤®¯«¤ ¡¤ ³ ª¤­ ¥±®¬ ¤·¨²³¨­¦ " lj "²Ǿ ¤¥¥¤¢³¨µ¤«¸ ¯´³³¨­¦ ³§¤¬ ®´³ ®¥ ¡´²¨­¤²²Ǿ ®± ¶¨«« ³§¤¸ ¡¤ ¢®¬¬´³¨­¦ ¥±®¬ ²®¬¤¶§¤±¤ ¶¤²³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£ 4®¶­Ǿ ¯±®£´¢¨­¦ ¦±¤ ³¤± ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¨²²´¤²Ȉ 4§¤²¤ ²¤¤¬ ³® ¡¤ ³§¤ ®­«¸ Ε ®¯³¨®­² ²¨­¢¤ ³§¤±¤ ¨² ­® «®¢ « §®´²¨­¦ ¥®± ¬®±¤ ¯¤®¯«¤ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ «®¶-¯ ¸¨­¦ ©®¡² ³§ ³  ±¤ ¦¤­¤± ³¤£ ¡¸   §®³¤«ȁ Response to Comment C7-7: It is anticipated that current residents of Southold Town will be employed on the property. The Traffic Impact Study considers the traffic generated by employees. 90 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Comment C11-4: %¢®­®¬¨¢ ¨¬¯ ¢³ȁ )³ ®¥³¤­  ¯¯¤ ±² ³® ¡¤   ¶¨­ ¨­¨³¨ ««¸ -   ­¤¶ ¡´²¨­¤²²Ǿ ³ ·¤²Ǿ ¯¤®¯«¤ ¥±®¬ ®´³ ®¥ ³§¤  ±¤  ²¯¤­£¨­¦ ¬®­¤¸  ³ «®¢ « ²§®¯²  ­£ ³§¤ §®¯¤ ®¥ ­¤¶ ©®¡²ȁ "´³ ) ¶ ­³ ³® ¢§ ««¤­¦¤ ³§ ³ȁ 3§ £¸ , £¸ ¨­ '±¤¤­¯®±³ ®± ¶§ ³¤µ¤± ¨³ ¨² ­®¶ ¢ ««¤£ ±¤¬ ¨­² ²§´³³¤±¤£ȁ 4§¤ # ¢¨ ±¤²³ ´± ­³  ³ ¬¸ #®´²¨­ ,¤³ !«¡¤±³²®­͖² §®´²¤ ®¯¤­¤£  ­£ ¢«®²¤£ ¨­ ²§®±³ ®±£¤±ȁ 4§¤ ±¤²³ ´± ­³²  ­£ ¨­­²  ­£ ²³±¨¯ ¬ ««² ¢§ ­¦¤ ­ ¬¤²Ǿ ¡´³ ¨³ ¨² ®¥³¤­ ³§¤ ² ¬¤ ¯¤®¯«¤ ¶®±ª¨­¦  ³ ³§¤¬  ««ȁ 3´±¤ ¯¤®¯«¤ ¶¨«« ¤ ³ ®´³  ³ ³§¤ ±¤²³ ´± ­³ - ¡´³ ³§¤¸͖£ ¤ ³ ²®¬¤¶§¤±¤ «®¢ ««¸ ¶§¤±¤µ¤± ³§¤¸ ²«¤¯³ ²® )͖¬ ­®³ ²´±¤ ³§ ³ ¨³ ¨­ ¨³²¤«¥  ££² ¬®­¤¸ ³® ³§¤ «®¢ « ¤¢®­®¬¸ - ¨­ ¥ ¢³ ¨³ £¨µ¨£¤² ³§¤ ¯±®¥¨³²  ¶ ¸ ¥±®¬ ®³§¤± ¯« ¢¤²ȁ -¤ ­¶§¨«¤Ǿ §®³¤«² §¨±¤ ¯¤®¯«¤ ¥®± ©´²³ ¥¤¶ ¤­®´¦§ §®´±² ³® ­®³ ¡¤ ±¤²¯®­²¨¡«¤ ¥®± ³§¤¨± §¤ «³§ ¢ ±¤  ­£ ¢« ¨¬ ²¤ ²®­ « ¶®±ª ²®  ² ­®³ ³® ¯ ¸ «¨µ¨­¦ ¶ ¦¤²ȁ «² ³§¨² ±¤ ««¸ ¨­ 3®´³§®«£  ­£ ¨³² ±¤²¨£¤­³²͖ ¡¤²³ ¨­³¤±¤²³²Ȉ !­£ ¨¥ t§¤¸ ¦® ¡ ­ª±´¯³  ­£ ²§´³³¤± ³§¤¬²¤«µ¤² ®± ¥ «« ¨­³® ´­£¤±´²¤ - ¸®´ § µ¤ «®²³   ¦±¤ ³ £¤ «  ­£ ¦ ¨­¤£ «¨³³«¤ȁ Response to Comment C11-4:See the Response to Comment C18-1 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS. Comment C17-4: %¢®­®¬¨¢ "¤­¤¥¨³  ­£ µ «´¤  ££¤£ ³® ³§¤ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸  ±¤ ­®³ ²§®¶­ȁ )² ³§¤±¤ ²´¢§   « ±¦¤ ¨­¢±¤¬¤­³ « ¡¤­¤¥¨³ ¥®± ®´± ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ³§ ³ ¨³ ²§®´«£ ¶ ±± ­³ ¦± ­³¨­¦ ³§¨² ¤·¢¤¯³¨®­ ³® ³§¤ ¡¤­¤¥¨³ ®¥   £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ¦±®´¯Ȉ /´± ²¬ «« ®¶­¤± ®¯¤± ³¤£ "lj"²  ­£ §®³¤«² ¥±¤°´¤­³«¸ ±´­ ´­£¤± ¢ ¯ ¢¨³¸  ­£ ¶®´«£ «¨ª¤«¸ ¡¤ ¨¬¯ ¢³¤£ ­¤¦ ³¨µ¤«¸ ¡¸ ³§¤  ££¨³¨®­ ®¥   « ±¦¤ ­¤¶ §®³¤«ȁ 7§¤±¤ ¨² ³§¤ µ «´¤ ®¥ ³§¨² ¯±®©¤¢³ ³® ®´± ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ¡¤¨­¦ £¤¬®­²³± ³¤£Ȉ )³ £®¤² ­®³ «¨¤ ¨­ ³§¤ £®¢´¬¤­³² ¯±®¯®²¤£ ³® £ ³¤ȁ Response to Comment C17-4: As indicated in the DEIS (Section 3.1.2), upon its completion, the proposed development will generate significant annual tax revenue to various taxing jurisdictions. Approximate tax revenue includes $1,757 to Suffolk County, $28,888 to the Town of Southold, $79,402 to the Southold Union Free School District, $5,782 to the Southold Fire District, and $1,698 to the local solid waste district. Overall, the proposed development is projected to generate approximately $123,482 dollars in total tax revenue. See also the Response to Comment C18-1 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS. Comment C24-2: 4§¤ ²¢ «¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸  ² ¨³ ±¤« ³¤² ³®  ­¸ ­¤¨¦§¡®±¨­¦ ¯±®¯¤±³¨¤² ®± ¡´²¨­¤²²¤² ¨² ¢®¬¯«¤³¤«¸ ®´³ ®¥ ¢®­³¤·³ ³® ³§¤ ³®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£ȁ !² ¬¸ ®¯¤­¨­¦ ²³ ³¤¬¤­³ ²´¦¦¤²³²Ǿ ³§¤ ²¨¹¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³Ǿ ­´¬¡¤± ®¥ §®³¤« ±®®¬²  ­£ ¯ ±ª¨­¦ ²¯ ¢¤² ¨² ­®³ ¨­ ª¤¤¯¨­¦ ¶¨³§  ­¸ ®³§¤± ¯±®©¤¢³² ¨­ ®´± ³®¶­ȁ !²   ¡¤£  ­£ ¡±¤ ª¥ ²³ ®¶­¤±Ǿ ³§¤  ££¨³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ΗΗ ±®®¬²  ­£ ¨³² ­¤¦ ³¨µ¤ ¨¬¯ ¢³ ³® ¢´±±¤­³«¸ ®¯¤± ³¨­¦ ¡¤£  ­£ ¡±¤ ª¥ ²³²Ǿ ²¬ «« ±¤²³ ´± ­³²  ­£ ¡ ±² ¶¨«« ¡¤ ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ȁ ( µ¨­¦ ²³´£¨¤£ ³§¤ ®¢¢´¯ ­¢¸ ± ³¤² ®¥ ¢´±±¤­³ ®¯¤± ³¨­¦ ¡¤£  ­£ ¡±¤ ª¥ ²³² ¡´²¨­¤²²¤² ®­ ³§¤ .®±³§ &®±ª ¥®± ³§¤ « ²³ ³¶® ¸¤ ±²Ǿ ¨³ ¨² ¤µ¨£¤­³ ³§ ³ £¤¬ ­£ ¥®± ±®®¬²Ǿ ¤µ¤­ ¨­ ³§¤ §¨¦§ ²¤ ²®­ ®¥ *´­¤ Δ ³§±®´¦§ /¢³®¡¤± ΖΔ ¨² ­®³ ¤­®´¦§ ³® ¥¨«« ³§¤ ¢´±±¤­³ ­´¬¡¤± ®¥  µ ¨« ¡«¤ ±®®¬²ȁ !­  ­ «¸²¨² ®¥ ¬¨£¶¤¤ª ®¢¢´¯ ­¢¸ ¨­ §¨¦§ ²¤ ²®­ ¨­£¨¢ ³¤²   «®¶ ­´¬¡¤± ®¥ ®¢¢´¯¨¤£ ±®®¬² ¶¨³§ ²¤±¨®´² ¥ «« ®¥¥ ¯®²³ /¢³®¡¤± ΖΔ ¥®± ¬¨£¶¤¤ª  ­£ ¶¤¤ª¤­£²ȁ 4 ª¤   °´¨¢ª «®®ª  ³  ­¸ ®¯¤± ³¨­¦ ¡¤£  ­£ ¡±¤ ª¥ ²³ ¶¤¡²¨³¤²  ­£ ¸®´ ¢ ­ ¤ ²¨«¸ ²¤¤ ³§ ³ ¬®²³  ±¤ ¢´±±¤­³«¸ ±´­­¨­¦  ³ µ¤±¸ «®¶ ®¢¢´¯ ­¢¸ Ȩ®± ¢«®²¤£ ¥®± ³§¤ ²¤ ²®­ £´¤ ³® «¨¬¨³¤£ ®± non-¤·¨²³¤­³ £¤¬ ­£ȩȁ 4§¤  µ ¨« ¡«¤  ¬®´­³ ®¥ ¢´±±¤­³ µ ¢ ­³ ±®®¬² ¨­µ¤­³®±¸  ­£ ³§¤ ¨¬¯ ¢³ ®¥ ³§¤  ££¨³¨®­ ®¥  ¯¯±®·¨¬ ³¤«¸ ΗΗ §®³¤« ±®®¬² ¶®´«£ ©¤®¯ ±£¨¹¤ ³§¤ «¨µ¤«¨§®®£ ®¥ ²¬ «« ¡´²¨­¤²² ®¶­¤±² ¶§® § µ¤ £¤£¨¢ ³¤£ ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ ±¤²®´±¢¤² ³® ±¤²³®±¨­¦ ³§¤¨± §®¬¤²  ­£ ®¯¤± ³¨­¦ ²¬ «« ¡´²¨­¤²²¤² ³§ ³ ¶®±ª ¨­ ¢®­©´­¢³¨®­ ¶¨³§ «®¢ « ¯±®µ¨£¤±²  ­£ ¢®­³¨­´¤ ³® ¡´¨«£  ­£ ²´¯¯®±³ ³§¤ ¤¢®­®¬¸ ®­ ³§¤ .®±³§ &®±ª ®­   £ ¨«¸ ¡ ²¨² Ȩ¨ȁ¤ȁ «®¢ « ²´¯¯«¨¤±²Ǿ ±¤¥¤±± «² ³® ±¤²³ ´± ­³²Ǿ ²¤±µ¨¢¤²Ǿ ²§®¯²Ǿ ²¬ «« ¡´²¨­¤²²¤²ȩȁ )  ¬ ­®³ ®¯¯®²¤£ ³®  ££¨­¦ ±®®¬² ³® ³§¤ ¢´±±¤­³ ¬¨·Ǿ however, ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ²¢ «¤ ®¥ ³§¨² ¯±®©¤¢³ ¨² ¯±®§¨¡¨³¨µ¤  ­£ £¤³±¨¬¤­³ « ³® ³§¤ ²´¢¢¤²² ®¥ ²¬ «« ¡´²¨­¤²²¤²  ³³¤¬¯³¨­¦ ³® ²¤±µ¤ ®´± ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸  ­£ ¨³² ¦´¤²³²ȁ 4§¨² ¤·³¤­£² ¡¤¸®­£ ³§¤ §®²¯¨³ «¨³¸ ¨­£´²³±¸  ­£ ®­³® ¬®²³ «®¢ « ²´¯¯«¨¤±²  ­£ ®¯¤± ³®±²ȁ 91 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Response to Comment C24-2: The NYSDEC has addressed the question of competitive impacts in its SEQR th Handbook, 4 Edition (page 123), to wit: 9. Are there economic or social factors which are inappropriate for inclusion in an EIS? Purely economic arguments have been disallowed by the courts as a basis for agency conclusions when concluding a SEQR review by developing Findings. Therefore, potential effects that a proposed project may have in drawing customers and profits away from established enterprises (commonly known as “competitive impacts”), possible reduction of property values in a community, or potential economic disadvantage caused by competition or speculative economic loss, are not environmental factors. See also the Responses to Comments C1-10 and C18-1 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS. Comment C24-3: 7§ ³ ¨² ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¡¤­¤¥¨³ ³® ³§¤ «®¢ « ¤¢®­®¬¸  ­£ ²¬ «« ¡´²¨­¤²²¤²Ȉ 7¨«« ³§¤ %­¢« µ¤² ¡¤ ¯±®¢´±¨­¦ ³§¤ ¬ ©®±¨³¸ ®¥ ³§¤¨± ²´¯¯«¨¤²  ­£ ²¤±µ¨¢¤² ¥±®¬ «®¢ « ²´¯¯«¨¤±² ®­   £ ¨«¸ ¡ ²¨² Ȩ¶§¨¢§ ¬ ­¸ ®¥ ³§¤ curre­³ ²¬ «« ¡´²¨­¤²²¤² £®ȩ ®± ²®´±¢¨­¦ ®´³ ³§¤¨± ­¤¤£² ³® « ±¦¤ ­ ³¨®­ « ¢§ ¨­ ²´¯¯«¨¤±² ¶¨³§ « ±¦¤ £¤«¨µ¤±¸ ³±´¢ª² ±´¬¡«¨­¦ £®¶­ 2®´³¤ ΕΘ ®­   £ ¨«¸ ¡ ²¨²  ££¨­¦ ³® ³§¤ ¢®­¦¤²³¨®­ ®¥ ®´± ±® £² ¢®¬¨­¦ ¨­  ­£ ®´³Ǿ  ­£ ­®³ ¡¤­¤¥¨³¨­¦ ³§¤ «®¢ « ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸  ­£ ¡´²¨­¤²²¤²ȁ !²   ²¬ «« ¡´²¨­¤²² ®¯¤± ³®±Ǿ ¶¤ ³±¸ ³® ¯±®¢´±¤ «®¢ « ¶§¤­¤µ¤± ¯®²²¨¡«¤ ¨­¢«´£¨­¦ ¥ ±¬²Ǿ ²´¯¤±¬ ±ª¤³²  ­£ ²¬ «« ¡´²¨­¤²²¤² Ȩ¨ȁ¤ȁ ¯±¨­³¨­¦ ­¤¤£²Ǿ ¡¤µ¤± ¦¤ ­¤¤£²Ǿ ¤«¤¢³±¨¢Ǿ ¯«´¬¡¨­¦  ­£ §®´²¤§®«£ ²´¯¯«¨¤²ȩ  ­£ ¯ ±³­¤±¨­¦ ¶¨³§ «®¢ « ¡´²¨­¤²²¤² ³® ²´¯¯®±³ ¤ ¢§ ®³§¤±ȁ ) £®­͖³ ¨¬ ¦¨­¤ ³§ ³ ³§¤ %­¢« µ¤² ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¦®¨­¦ ³® 0®«¸¶®£  "¤µ¤± ¦¤Ǿ !¦¶ ¸Ǿ !¢¤ ®± ³§¤ )'! ¥®± ³§¤ £ ¨«¸ ®¯¤± ³¨­¦ ²´¯¯«¨¤²ȁ Response to Comment C24-3: The objectives and benefits of the proposed action were included in Section 1.3 of the DEIS. To the extent practicable, the applicant will purchase from local suppliers and the Traffic Impact Study evaluated the potential traffic impacts based on ITE trip generation factors that consider all traffic related to the proposed uses (i.e., guests/patrons, suppliers, etc.). The lead agency for this proposed action cannot impose conditions for local purchasing nor is this appropriate for an environmental impact statement. See also the Response to Comment C24-2 above. Comment C28-3: 4§¨² ¯±®¯®² « ¨²  ³   µ¤±¸ §¨¦§ ±¨²ª ³® ®´± °´ «¨³¸ ®¥ «¨¥¤ §¤±¤ ¨­ 3®´³§®«£ȁ 7§ ³ ¨² ³§¤ 3®´³§®«£ 4®¶­ "® ±£͖² ¯« ­ ²§®´«£ ³§¨² ¯±®©¤¢³ ¨­ ¸¤ ±² ³® ¢®¬¤ ¥ ¨«  ­£ ³§¤ ±¤²¨£¤­³² ®¥ ®´± ¯±¤¬¨¤± ³®¶­  ±¤ ²³´¢ª ¶¨³§   vacant ¡´²¨­¤²² ³§ ³ ¶¨«« ­®¶ £¤³¤±¨®± ³¤  ­£ ±¤­£¤±  ­ ¤¸¤²®±¤  ­£ µ ¦± ­¢¸Ȉ 7§ ³ ¨² ³§¤ ³®¶­ ¯« ­ ¥®± ³§¨² ¯®²²¨¡«¤ ­¤¦ ³¨µ¤ ®´³ ¢®¬¤ \[sic\]? Response to Comment C28-3: See Responses to Comments C24-2 and C24-3 above and C18-1 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS. Comment C29-3: 4§¨² ¯±®¯®² « ¨²  ³   µ¤±¸ §¨¦§ ±¨²ª ³® ®´± °´ «¨³¸ ®¥ «¨¥¤ §¤±¤ ¨­ 3®´³§®«£ȁ 7§ ³ ¨² ³§¤ 3®´³§®«£ 4®¶­ "® ±£͖² ¯« ­ ²§®´«£ ³§¨² ¯±®©¤¢³ ¨­ ¸¤ ±² ³® ¢®¬¤ ¥ ¨«  ­£ ³§¤ ±¤²¨£¤­³² ®¥ ®´± ¯±¤¬¨¤± ³®¶­  ±¤ ²³´¢ª ¶¨³§   µ ¢ ­³ ¡´²¨­¤²² ³§ ³ ¶¨«« ­®¶ £¤³¤±¨®± ³¤  ­£ ±¤­£¤±  ­ ¤¸¤²®±¤  ­£ µ ¦± ­¢¸Ȉ 7§ ³ ¨² ³§¤ ³®¶­ ¯« ­ ¥®± ³§¨² ¯®²²¨¡«¤ ­¤¦ ³¨µ¤ ®´³ ¢®¬¤ \[sic\]? Response to Comment C29-3: See Response to Comment C28-3 above and C18-1 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS. 92 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Comment C31-3: )­  ££¨³¨®­Ǿ  ²   ¡´²¨­¤²² ®¶­¤± ¥ ¬¨«¨ ± ¶¨³§ ³§¤ §®²¯¨³ «¨³¸ ¨­£´²³±¸ «®¢ ««¸Ǿ ) ¥¨­£ ³§¤¨± ¯±®©¤¢³¨®­² ®¥ ®¢¢´¯ ­¢¸ ± ³¤² £´±¨­¦ ³§¤ ®¥¥ ²¤ ²®­ ³® ¡¤ ¥ ­³ ²³¨¢ «  ³ ¡¤²³ȁ 4§¤ ®­«¸ ¶ ¸ ³§¤¸ ¶®´«£ ¡¤  ¡«¤ ³® ¬ ¨­³ ¨­ ³§¤ «¤µ¤« ®¥ ®¢¢´¯ ­¢¸ ³§¤¸ ²´¦¦¤²³ ¨² ³® ¢´³ ³§¤¨± ±®®¬ ± ³¤² ³® ³§¤ ¡®­¤  ­£ ¬ ·¨¬¨¹¤ ³§¤¨± ¯±®¥¨³² £´±¨­¦ ³§¤ §¨¦§ ²¤ ²®­ȁ 4§¨² ¢®´«£ ¬¤ ­  ¢¢¤«¤± ³¨­¦ ³§¤¨± ¤µ¤­³² ¡´²¨­¤²²  ³ ³¨¬¤² ¶§¤­ ¯¤®¯«¤  ±¤ ¬®±¤ «¨ª¤«¸ ³® ¡¤ ¨­³¤±¤²³¤£  ­£  ­£ Ȭ²¨¢ȭ ¬ ·¨¬¨¹¨­¦ ³§¤¨± ¢ ¯ ¢¨³¸ £´±¨­¦ §¨¦§ ²¤ ²®­Ǿ ¢±¤ ³¨­¦   ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¡®³³«¤ ­¤¢ª ¥®± ¶¤¤ª¤­£ ¨­ ³§¤ ²¯±¨­¦  ­£ ¥ ««  ­£ ³§±®´¦§®´³ ³§¤ ²´¬¬¤± ¬®­³§²ȁ %µ¤­ ²®Ǿ ³§¤ ³ · ¡«¤ ±¤µ¤­´¤ ³§¤¸ ¯±®¬¨²¤  ²  ­ ¨­¢¤­³¨µ¤ ³® ³§¤ ³®¶­ ³®  ««®¶ ³§¤¬ ³§¤ µ ±¨ ­¢¤² ³§¤¸ ±¤°´¤²³ȁ ¢®´«£ ­®³ ¡¤ ¬¤³ ¡ ²¤£ ®­ ³§¤¨± ¥¨¦´±¤²ȁ Response to Comment C31-3: The comment is noted. The application does not require variance relief from the ZBA. See also the Responsesto Comments C24-2 and C24-3 above. Comment C31-4: !² ³® ³§¤ ¤¥¥¤¢³ ³§ ³ ³§¤¨±  ¡¨«¨³¸ ³® ¢´³ ± ³¤² ¨­ ³§¤ «®¶ ²¤ ²®­ ¶¨«« § µ¤ ®­ ®³§¤± ²¬ «« ¡´²¨­¤²²¤² su¢§  ² ¬¨­¤Ǿ «®¢ « "­" Ȭ²¨¢ȭ ®¶­¤±² ¶¨««  ³³¤²³ ³§ ³ ®´± ¶¨­³¤± ²¤ ²®­ µ¨ ¡¨«¨³¸ ¨²  «±¤ £¸ ² £«¸ ±¤£´¢¤£ £´±¨­¦ ³§¤ « ²³ ²¤µ¤± « ¸¤ ±²ȁ 4§¤ ¨­¥«´· ®¥ « ±¦¤ §®³¤«² ¨­ 2¨µ¤±§¤ £ § µ¤ ¡¤¤­   ¢§ ««¤­¦¤  ­£ ³§¨² « ±¦¤ ¢®¬¬¤±¢¨ « ¤­³¤±¯±¨²¤ ¶¨«« ®­«¸  ££ ³® ®´± £¨¥¥¨¢´«³¨¤²ȁ 3¬ «« ¡´²¨­¤²²¤² ²´¢§  ² ¬¨­¤ ¢ ­ ®­«¸ ¢´³ ®´± ¯±®¥¨³ ¬ ±¦¨­² ²® ¥ ± ¡¤¥®±¤ ¶¤  ±¤ ®´³ ®¥ ¡´²¨­¤²²ȁ Response to Comment C31-4: The comment is noted. See also the Responses to Comments C24-2 and C24-3 above. Comment C35-2: 7¤ ´­£¤±²³ ­£ § µ¨­¦ ³§¤ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£ ³ ·¤² ¨­¢±¤ ²¤ ¥±®¬ ͥΔΖǾΖΖΔ ³®  ¯¯±®·¨¬ ³¤«¸ ͥΔΕΘǾΓΓΓ ¨² ¡¤­¤¥¨¢¨ «ȁ (®¶¤µ¤±Ǿ  ²   §®¬¤®¶­¤± ³§¨² ¯±®¯®²¤£ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ¶¨«« § µ¤  ­  £µ¤±²¤ ¨¬¯ ¢³ ®­ ³§¤ °´ «¨³¸ ®¥ «¨¥¤ ¶¤ ¤·¯¤¢³¤£ ¶§¤­ ¯´±¢§ ²¨­¦ ®´± §®¬¤ȁ .®³ ³® ² ¸   £¤¢±¤ ²¤ ¨­ µ «´¤ ²§®´«£ ¶¤ ²¤««ȁ Response to Comment C35-2: The comment is noted. See also the Responses to Comments C24-2 and C24-3 above. 2.3.13 Alternatives Comments related to alternative development plans including a reduction in density and alternate land uses for the subject property are addressed in this section of the FEIS. Specifically, the following comments are included: H1-8, H2-1, H8-4, C11-5, C11-6, C13-3, C15-2, C24-1, and C42-9. Comment H1-8: …) ­®³¨¢¤£ ³§ ³ ³§¤¸ ³§±¤¶ ¨­ ³§¨² ¤·§¨¡¨³ ³® ²§®¶ ´²  ² ®¥ ±¨¦§³ ³§ ³ ³§¤¸ ¢ ­ ¯ ¨­³ ¯ ± £¨²¤  ­£ ¯´³ ´¯   ¯ ±ª¨­¦ «®³ ¡ ²¨¢ ««¸ ®­ ³§¨² ΖΓǾΓΓΓ ²°ȁ ¥³ȁ ¸®´ ª­®¶ ®¥¥¨¢¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ³§ ³Ȍ² ­®³ ¢®¬¬¤±¢¨ ««¸ µ¨ ¡«¤ ²® ¨³ ¶®­Ȍ³ ¦¤³ ¡´¨«³ ¡´³ ³§ ³Ȍ² ­¤¨³§¤± §¤±¤ ­®± ³§¤±¤ ¡´³ ³§¤ ¥ ¢³ ³§ ³ ³§ ³ ¶ ²  ­  ² ®¥ ±¨¦§³ ¯« ­ ±¨¦§³ ¥« ¦² ³§ ³ ³§¤ § ¬«¤³ ¡´²¨­¤²² ¹®­¤ ¬ ¸ ¡¤ ¶¨«£«¸ ¨­ ¯¯±®¯±¨ ³¤ ¥®± ¯±¤²¤­³ £ ¸ȁ )³ ±¤¬¨­£² ¬¤ ®¥ §®¶ ´­¥®±³´­ ³¤ ¨³ ¨² ³§ ³ ¶¤ £®­Ȍ³ § µ¤  ­ ´¯£ ³¤£ ¢®¬¯±¤§¤­²¨µ¤ ¯« ­  ­£ ¶¤ § µ¤­Ȍ³ ±¤ ««¸ «®®ª¤£  ³ ®´± ¹®­¨­¦ « ¶Ȃ) ¤·¯±¤²² ¥±´²³± ³¨®­  ²   3®´³§®«£ ±¤²¨£¤­³  ³ ³§¤ ²¨³´ ³¨®­ ³§ ³ ¶¤Ȍ±¤ ¨­ ³§ ³ ³§¤ ±¤ «¬ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯®²²¨¡«¤ ¨² ¯±¤³³¸ ¤·³±¤¬¤ ²´¢§ ³§ ³ ²®¬¤³§¨­¦ ³§¨² ¡¨¦ ¢ ­ ¡¤ ¯±¤²¤­³¤£  ²  ­ ¤·³±¤¬¤«¸ ª¨­£  ­£ µ¤±¸ ¸®´ ª­®¶ «¨ª¤ ®§ ¬¸ ¦®®£­¤²² ¶¤Ȍ±¤ ¡¤¨­¦ ²´¢§   µ¤±¸ «¨¦§³ ¥®®³¯±¨­³ ¶§¤­ ¶¤Ȍ±¤ ¯´³³¨­¦ ´¯ ³§¨² ¬ ²²¨µ¤ ¯±®©¤¢³ ¡´³ ¢®¬¯ ±¤£ ³® ³§¤  ² ®¥ ±¨¦§³ ¨³ «®®ª² «¨ª¤   µ¤±¸ «¨¦§³ ¥®®³¯±¨­³ȁ 3® ¶§¸ ¨² ³§ ³ ³§¤  ² ®¥ ±¨¦§³Ȉ Response to Comment H1-8: The comment is noted. See also the Response to Comment C18-2 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS. 93 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Comment H2-1: ) ¢ ¬¤ ³®­¨¦§³ ³® ¬ ª¤   ¯¨³¢§ ¥®±  ¥¥®±£ ¡«¤ §®´²¨­¦…) ª­®¶ ³§ ³ ³§¤ ¯±®©¤¢³¤£ ­´¬¡¤±² ¥®± ²®¬¤³§¨­¦ «¨ª¤ ³§¨² ¶®´«£ ¡¤ §¨¦§¤± ³§ ­ ³§¤ ¯±®©¤¢³¤£ ­´¬¡¤±² ¥®± ³¶¤­³¸ ¥®´± ³® ³§¨±³¸  ¥¥®±£ ¡«¤ §®´²¨­¦ ´­¨³² ¡´³ ³§¤ ¢§ ± ¢³¤±  ­£ ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ ®¥ ³§¤ .®±³§ &®±ª ¨² ¬®±¤ ¦±¤ ³«¸ ¨¬¯ ¢³¤£ ¡¸   ¯±®©¤¢³ «¨ª¤ ³§¨²  ­£ ³§¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ´²¤ ¶®´«£ ¡¤ ¬®±¤ ³§ ­ ³§¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ´²¤ ¡¸  ­  ¥¥®±£ ¡«¤ §®´²¨­¦ȁ 4§¤ ²¤¯³¨¢  ­£ ¶ ³¤± ´²¤  «²® ¬®±¤ ³§ ­  ¥¥®±£ ¡«¤ §®´²¨­¦  ­£ ¬®±¤ ³§ ­ ²®¬¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ¢´«³´±¤ ¶®´«£ £¤³¤±¨®± ³¤...) ³§¨­ª ³§¤ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ­¤¤£² ³§¤  ¥¥®±£ ¡«¤ §®´²¨­¦ȁ 4§¤ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ £®¤² ­®³ ­¤¤£   §®³¤«ȁ Response to Comment H2-1: The applicant is proposing the development of the subject property for commercial use. It should be noted that there was an application, by a prior owner, for a multi-family residential development on the subject property; however, the application was denied. Moreover, a fifty-five (55) and over multi-housing development was proposed by a previous contract vendee at the property and that development project was also denied by the Town. An affordable or any other type of housing development potentially pose an increased tax burden on governmental resources, including schools, where the Enclaves Hotel project poses none of the additional tax burdens on local government. See also the Response th to Comment H1-2 in Section 2.3.20. Finally, as excerpted from the NYSDEC SEQR Handbook, 4 Edition, page 208, “Ȭ¨ȭ­ ³§¤ ¢ ²¤²Ǿ ³§¤ ¢®´±³² §¤«£ ³§ ³ ¨­  ­ ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « ¨¬¯ ¢³ ²³ ³¤¬¤­³ ®­«¸ ±¤ ²®­ ¡«¤  «³¤±­ ³¨µ¤² ¬´²³ ¡¤  ££±¤²²¤£  ­£ ³§ ³ ²´¢§  «³¤±­ ³¨µ¤² ¬´²³ ¡¤ µ¨ ¡«¤  ² ¶¤««  ² ³¤¢§­®«®¦¨¢ ««¸  ­£ ¤¢®­®¬¨¢ ««¸ ¥¤ ²¨¡«¤ȁ“ Comment H8-4: …³§¤  ² ®¥ ±¨¦§³ ²¤¢³¨®­ ±¤ ««¸ ²³±´¢ª ¬¤ ¡¤¢ ´²¤ ¶§ ³ ¶¤ ¶¤±¤ ³®«£ ¶ ² ³§ ³ ¨¥ ¶¤ £®­Ȍ³ £® ³§¨² ¶¤ ¢ ­ £®   ΖΓǾΓΓΓ ²°ȁ ¥³ȁ ®¥¥¨¢¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ §¤±¤  ² ®¥ ±¨¦§³ȁ )Ȍ¬ ²§®¢ª¤£ ³§ ³ ³§¤ 4®¶­ "® ±£ § ² ­®³ ¯±®³¤¢³¤£ ¨³ ¡¤³³¤± ³§ ­ ³§ ³ ³§ ³ ³§¤¸ ¢ ­ £® ³§ ³ ¨¥ ³§ ³Ȍ² ³±´¤ȁ Response to Comment H8-4: The comment is noted. Comment C11-5: 7§ ³ ) ¶®´«£ § µ¤ §®¯¤£ ¥®± ³§¤ ¯« ¢¤Ǿ ²§®±³ ®¥ ¢®­³¨­´¨­¦  ² ³§¤ §®¬¤ ®¥  ­ ¨­£¨µ¨£´ « ¥ ¬¨«¸Ǿ ¶®´«£ ¡¤ ¥®± ¨³ ³® ¡¤¢®¬¤   ±¤¢±¤ ³¨®­ «ȝ °´ ³¨¢ ¢¤­³¤± - ¯®®«² ¥®± «®¢ « ª¨£² «¤ ±­¨­¦ ³® ²¶¨¬Ǿ ²¢´¡  £¨µ¤Ǿ ª ¸ ª ² ¥¤«¸  ­£ «¨¥¤¦´ ±£Ǿ ¶ ³¤±  ¤±®¡¨¢² ®± ±¤§ ¡ ®± ¶ ³¤± ³§¤± ¯¸ ¥®± ®«£¤± ±¤²¨£¤­³²ȁ 4§¤ §®´²¤ ³´±­¤£ ¨­³®   ¯« ¢¤ ³® §®´²¤ 04  ­£ /4 - ®± ¤·¯ ­£ 4§¤ '¨µ¨­¦ 2®®¬ - ³§ ³ ¶®´«£ ¨­¢±¤ ²¤ ³§¤ °´ «¨³¸ ®¥ «¨¥¤ ¥®± ³§¤ ±¤²¨£¤­³² - ­®³ ²®¬¤ ³¤¬¯®± ±¸ £± ¶ ¥®± ³§¤ ¬¤¦  ±¨¢§ ¶§® £¤¯®²¨³ ³§¤¨± ¯r¨µ¨«¤¦¤ ¶¨³§ ³§¤¨± ³± ²§  ­£ ³§¤¨± ¢ ±²Ǿ ¢«®¦ ³§¤ ±® £¶ ¸²Ǿ  ­£ £¨²£ ¨­ ³§¤ «®¢ « ¶ ¸ ®¥ «¨¥¤ȁ Response to Comment C11-5: See the Response to Comment H2-1 in this section. Comment C11-6: Affordabl¤ §®´²¨­¦ -- ¥®± ²¤­¨®±²Ǿ ¥®± µ¤³¤± ­²Ǿ ¥®± ¥ ¬¨«¨¤²Ǿ ¥®± ³§¤ ¥®´­£ ³¨®­ « ¶®±ª ¯¤®¯«¤ ¶§® ²´¯¯®±³ ³§¤ ¶¨­³¤± ¤¢®­®¬¸ ­®³ ©´²³ ³§¤ ²¤ ²®­ « ¤¢®­®¬¸ȁ 4¨­¸ §®´²¤²Ǿ !¯ ±³¬¤­³²Ǿ 4®¶­ §®´²¤²Ǿ ²®¬¤³§¨­¦ ¶§¤±¤ ³§¤ ±¤°´¨±¤¬¤­³ ¨² ³§ ³ ¸®´ ¢ ­ ®­«¸ ±¤­³ȝ«¨µ¤ ¶¨³§   ¢¤±³ ¨­ ¨­¢®¬¤ ®± ³§ ³ ±¤°´¨±¤² ®­¤ ³® ¶®±ª ®± § µ¤ ¶®±ª¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ȁ 7§ ³ ®­¤ ¶®´«£ ­¤¤£ ³® ´­³ ­¦«¤ ¨² ¯±¤µ¤­³¨­¦ ¯¤®¯«¤ ¥±®¬ ¡´¸¨­¦  ­£ ¥«¨¯¯¨­¦ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¨¤² ¶¨³§®´³ ¢®­¢¤±­ ¥®± ³§¤ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸  ²   ¶§®«¤ȁ 4§¨² ¶®´«£  «²® ²³±¤³¢§ ²®¬¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « ¢®­¢¤±­² ¡´³ ¶®´«£  ³ ³§¤ µ¤±¸ «¤ ²³ ¡¤ ¬¤¤³¨­¦   ±¤ « ­¤¤£ ¥®± ³§¤ ³®¶­͖² ±¤²¨£¤­³²ȁ Response to Comment C11-6: See Response to Comment H2-1 in this section. Comment C13-3: 0«¤ ²¤Ǿ ) ´±¦¤ ¸®´ ³® ±¤©¤¢³ ³§¤ ¨²²´ ­¢¤ ®¥   ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤·¢¤¯³¨®­ ¯¤±¬¨³ ¥®± ³§¨² ¥ ¢¨«¨³¸ ´­«¤²² ¨³ ¨² greatly ±¤£´¢¤£ ¨­ ²¢®¯¤ ³® ²®¬¤³§¨­¦ ¬®±¤ ¨­ ª¤¤¯¨­¦ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ¢§ ± ¢³¤± ®¥ ³§¤ .®±³§ &®±ªȁ 94 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Response to Comment C13-3: See the Responses to Comments C1-10, C1-19, C18-1 and C18-2 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS. Comment C15-2: ) ¤­¢®´± ¦¤ ¸®´ ³® ±¤©¤¢³ ³§¨² ¯±®©¤¢³ ¨­ ¨³͖² Ȭ²¨¢ȭ ¢´±±¤­³ ¥®±¬  ­£ «®¢ ³¨®­  ­£ ´±¦¤  ­®³§¤± «®¢ ³¨®­ ®´³ ®¥ ³§¤ ¬ ¨­ ¡´²¨­¤²² £¨²³±¨¢³ ®­ ±®´³¤ ΕΘ ¨­ 3®´³§®«£ȁ Response to Comment C15-2: See the Responses to Comments C1-10, C1-19, C18-1 and C18-2 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS. CommentC24-1:)  ¬ ¶±¨³¨­¦ ³® ¸®´ ³® µ®¨¢¤ ¬¸ ¢®­¢¤±­ ±¤¦ ±£¨­¦ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ %­¢« µ¤² (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ «®¢ ³¤£  ³ ΘΙΙΘΘ 2®´³¤ ΕΘ ¨­ 3®´³§®«£ȁ 9®´ ¬ ¸±¤¢®¦­¨¹¤ ¬¸ ­ ¬¤Ǿ  ­£ ¥®± ³± ­²¯ ±¤­¢¸ ¯´±¯®²¤²Ǿ )  ¬ ³§¤ ¢®-®¶­¤± ®¥ ³§¤ 3®´³§ ( ±¡®± )­­ ¶§¨¢§ ®¯¤­¤£ ¥®± ¡´²¨­¤²² ¨­ - ¸ ®¥ ΕΓΔΜȁ )  ¬ ­®³ ®¯¯®²¤£ ³®   ±¤­®µ ³¨®­  ­£ ´¯£ ³¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ¥®±¬¤± (¤£¦¤² "¤£  ­£ "±¤ ª¥ ²³  ³ ¨³² ¢´±±¤­³ «®¢ ³¨®­ǿ §®¶¤µ¤±Ǿ ³§¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ®­¤ ³§ ³ ±¤²³®±¤² ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ²¨¬¨« ± ³® ¨³² ¯±¤µ¨®´² ²³ ³´² ¨­  ­ ´¯£ ³¤£ µ¤±²¨®­ ®± ¨² ¬®±¤ ±¤¥«¤¢³¨µ¤ ®¥ ³§¤ .®±³§ &®±ªǾ ²¯¤¢¨¥¨¢ ««¸Ǿ ³§¤ ³®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ ¨­ ²¢®¯¤  ­£ ²¨¹¤ȁ Response to Comment C24-1: The comment is noted. See Response to Comment H2-1 above. Comment C42-9: ! ²¤±¨®´² ¢®­²¨£¤± ³¨®­ ®­ ³§¤ ¯ ±³ ®¥ ³§¤ :®­¨­¦ "® ±£  ­£ 4®¶­ "® ±£ ³® £®¶­²¨¹¤ ³§¨² ¯±®©¤¢³ȁ Response to Comment C42-9: The comment is noted. See Response to Comment H2-1 above. 2.3.14 , ¢ª ®¥ (®´²¨­¦ Comments related to the lack of housing are addressed in this section of the FEIS. Specifically, the following comments are included: H1-7, H6-3, H8-3, and C5-2. Comment H1-7: …t§¨² ¨² ¦®¨­¦ ³® ¢±¤ ³¤ «¨ª¤ ²¨·³¸ ¥®´± ©®¡² ®± ²®¬¤³§¨­¦ ¡ ²¤£ ®­ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®² «Ǿ ¦±¤ ³ȁ 4§¤²¤  ±¤ ­®³ §¨¦§ ¶ ¦¤ ©®¡²ȁ 9®´Ȍ±¤ ³ «ª¨­¦  ¡®´³ ¬ ¨£²Ǿ ²¤±µ¤±² ³§¨­¦² «¨ª¤ ³§ ³ȁ 7§¤±¤  ±¤ ³§¤¸ ¦®¨­¦ ³® «¨µ¤Ȉ 1´¨³¤ ²¤±¨®´²«¸ ¨² ³§¤±¤  ­¸ ¶ ¸ ³® ³¨¤ §®´²¨­¦ ³® ³§¨² ²®¬¤§®¶Ȉ Response to Comment H1-7: The compensation paid by the applicant to employees of the Hotel is not germane to the SEQRA review process, nonetheless, the applicant is desirous of hiring the most qualified and skilled employees, at competitive wages, from within and outside of the Town. The applicant does not have a policy regulating employee residency requirements nor is it appropriate as part of the ZBA’s consideration of this application. Nonetheless, the applicant, when and where feasible, may assist employees with regard to housing needs. Moreover, the applicant believes in paying its employees a fair and competitive wage, as it helps employees meet their housing needs and allows employees to spend wages earned within the Town. Employees that receive competitive wages from employment within the Town are likely to live within the Town, potentially broadening the local work-force. Comment H6-3: 4§¤±¤ ¨²­Ȍ³ ¤­®´¦§ §¤«¯ ®´³ §¤±¤ ¡¤¢ ´²¤ ¶¤ £® ­®³ § µ¤ §®´²¨­¦ ¥®± ³§¤²¤ ¯¤®¯«¤ ¶§® ­¤¤£ ³® ¶®±ª  ­£ ³§¤¸Ȍ±¤ ­®³ ¢®¬¬´³¨­¦… 3® ¸®´Ȍ±¤ ¦®¨­¦ ³® ¡±¨­¦ ¯¤®¯«¤ ¨­  ­£ ¶§¤±¤  ±¤ ¸®´ ¦®¨­¦ ³® ¯´³ ³§¤¬Ȉ ) £®­Ȍ³ ª­®¶ \[be\]¢ ´²¤ ¶¤ £®­Ȍ³ § µ¤ ³§¤ §®´²¨­¦ ¥®± ³§¤¬ȁ 95 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Response to Comment H6-3: See Response to Comment H1-7 in this section. Comment H8-3: 4§¤ ¯¤®¯«¤ ¶®±ª¨­¦ ¨­ ³§¨² ¡´²¨­¤²²  ±¤ ¦®¨­¦ ³® ¡¤ ®­ ¬¨­¨¬´¬ ¶ ¦¤  ³ ¡¤²³ȁ 3®¬¤ ®¥ ³§¤¬ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¶®±ª¨­¦ ¥®± ³¨¯²ȁ 7§¤±¤  ±¤ ³§¤¸ ¦®¨­¦ ³® «¨µ¤Ȉ ) ³§¨­ª ³§ ³Ȍ²   µ¤±¸ ¨¬¯®±³ ­³ ¨²²´¤ ³® ¡¤  ££±¤²²¤£ §¤±¤ȁ Response to Comment H8-3: See Response to Comment H1-7 in this section. Comment C5-2: 4§¤ « ¢ª ®¥ §®´²¨­¦ ¥®± ¤¬¯«®¸¤¤²ȝ³± ¥¥¨¢Ȁ 4§¨² § ²  «¶ ¸² ¡¤¤­   «®¢ « ¯±®¡«¤¬ ¶§¤³§¤± ¡±¨­¦¨­¦ ¬¨¦± ­³ ¶®±ª¤±² ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ²®´³§ ®± ¨¬¯®±³¨­¦ )±¨²§ ¶®±ª¤±² ¥®± ³§¤ ²´¬¬¤± ²¤ ²®­ȁ (®¶  ¡®´³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² ¥®±¦¤³³¨­¦ ³§¤ ±¤²³ ´± ­³Ȉ 4§¤±¤  ±¤ ³§±¤¤ ±¤²³ ´± ­³²Ǿ   ¢®¥¥¤¤ §®´²¤Ǿ ΚȝΔΔ  ­£ ³¶® £¤«¨² ¨­ ¶ «ª¨­¦ £¨²³ ­¢¤ ®¥ ³§¤ §®³¤« ¶§¤±¤ ³§¤ ¦´¤²³² ¢ ­ ¤ ³  ­£ £±¨­ªȁ )­²³¤ £Ǿ ³´±­ ³§¤ ®«£ §®´²¤ ¨­³® ¤¬¯«®¸¤¤ §®´²¨­¦ Ȩ ª  !¥¥®±£ ¡«¤ (®´²¨­¦ȩȁ 4§¨² ¶®´«£ §¤«¯ ±¤«¨¤µ¤ ²®¬¤ ®¥ ³§¤ §®´²¨­¦ ¯±®¡«¤¬² ¥®± ¤¬¯«®¸¤¤²  ­£ ¢´³ £®¶­ ®­ ³§¤ ­´¬¡¤± ®¥ ¢ ±² ¤­³¤±¨­¦  ­£ «¤ µ¨­¦ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ȁ Response to Comment C5-2: The existing residence is a single-family structure that, if used for employee housing, can accommodate a manager with his/her family; however, the project sponsor does not intend to use the structure for such purpose. 2.3.15 2¤²³ ´± ­³ #®¬¯®­¤­³ Comments related to proposed restaurant are addressed in this section of the FEIS. Specifically, the following comments are included: C9-1 and C9-2. Comment C9-1: -¸  ±¦´¬¤­³ ¶¨«« ¡¤  ¦ ¨­²³ ³§¨² ¯±®©¤¢³ ®±  ­¸ ®³§¤± ¯±®©¤¢³ ³§ ³ ³¤ ±² £®¶­ ®± ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ntly  «³¤±² ³§¤ §®´²¤Ǿ ¶§¨¢§ § ² ¡¤¤­ ¨­ ³§¨² «®¢ ³¨®­ ²¨­¢¤ ¡¤¥®±¤ ³§¤ R¤µ®«´³¨®­ ±¸ W ±ȁ 9®´ ¢ ­­®³ ¥¨­£  ­¸ ®«£ ¬ ¯ ³§ ³ £®¤² ­®³ ¨­¢«´£¤ ³§¤ §®´²¤Ǿ ²´¢§  ² ³§¤ ¡¨¦ ¬ ¯ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£ (¨²³®±¨¢ « 3®¢¨¤³¸ ®± ¨­ ³§¤ ¡®®ªǾ ȏ,®­¦ )²« ­£ - ¯s  ­£ 4§¤¨± - ª¤±²Ȑ ¡¸ $ µ¨£ 9¤§«¨­¦ !««¤­ Ȩ¢¨±¢«¤ ¨­ ±¤£ȩ: Response to Comment C9-1: The proposed restaurant renovations have been reviewed by the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) and, as indicated in the DEIS, No Adverse Impacts are expected. The project sponsor intends to retain many of the historic elements of the home. As indicated in Section 3.5.3 of the DEIS, the following design considerations have been incorporated into the proposed project to maintain the historic significance of the structure, while also restoring particular elements: The Portico will be fully restored to its existing configuration and detail, as will the door surround. The actual door will be custom made to replicate an appropriate period door, complete with an exposed Mortise box type lock. In addition, the sidelights will be custom fabricated to replicate what was originally there with float glass, and putty muntin bars. The bathroom/bar area has been configured to maintain the rear window in its current location. The roofline of the proposed addition to the north of the “ell” has been configured to clearly differentiate it from that of the existing “ell.” The existing historic windows and door on the west elevation will be retained and restored to their original vintage retaining the original float glass. Many of the interior elements will be maintained and/or replicated, including: the structural beams on the interior which will be left as dropped headers and exposed; the existing bay window, as well as the 96 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ door and window trims, will be replicated, as required, due to existing damage; and a new stair case will be installed, incorporating the Newel Post into the design. Comment C9-2: $® ³§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³²͖ ¯« ­ ³® ª¤¤¯ ³§¤ §¨²³®±¨¢ ±®®¥ ¨­³ ¢³Ȉ 4§¤ ­®³ ¡«¤ ¨­³¤±¨®± £¤³ ¨«²Ǿ «¨ª¤ ³§¤ ¡ ­­¨²³¤±Ȉ &±®¬ ¶§ ³ ) ¢ ­ ±¤ £ ®¥ ³§¤¨±  ¯¯«¨¢ ³¨®­Ǿ ³§¤¸ ¬ ª¤ ­® ²¯¤¢¨¥¨¢ ¯±®¬¨²¤²  «³§®´¦§ )  ¢ª­®¶«¤£¦¤ ³§¤¸ ¦¨µ¤ µ ¦´¤ ±¤¥¤±¤­¢¤ ³® ¯±¤²¤±µ¨­¦ ³§¤ ¢§ ± ¢³¤± ®¥ ³§¤ §®´²¤ȁ 4§¤ ²¢§¤¬ ³¨¢ ±¤¥¤±² ³® ³§¤ ±¤²³ ´± ­³ ¡¤¨­¦ ¨­ ³§¤ ͗Ε ²³®±¸ ²³±´¢³´±¤͗ Ȩ²¨¢ȩȁ 7§ ³ § ¯¯¤­¤£ ³® ³§¤ ³§¨±£ ²³®±¸Ȉ ) £®­͖³ ¡¤«¨¤µ¤ ³§¤±¤ ¨²  ­¸ ®«£¤± ³§±¤¤-²³®±¸ ²³±´¢³´±¤ ¨­ 3®´³§®«£ȁ Response to Comment C9-2:The existing roof material is asphalt from a roof replacement in the 1970’s and is not, therefore, considered historic. The applicant has submitted the project to OPRHP and has made concessions to maintain the historic nature of the structure both on the interior and exterior. There is no third floor on the structure. See also the Response to Comment C9-1 above. 2.3.16 (®³¤« #®¬¯®­¤­³ Comments related to the proposed hotel are addressed in this section of the FEIS. Specifically, the following comments are included: H5-5, C35-7 and C35-8. Comment H5-5: 4§¤ ±®®¥ ³®¯ ³¤±± ¢¤ ­®¶ ¡±¨­¦² ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ³¶® ²³®±¸ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ³®  ¢³´ ««¸   ³§±¤¤ ²³®±¸ ¯±¨µ ¢¸  ­£ ­®¨²¤ ¢®­¢¤±­²ȁ -¤¤³¨­¦ ±®®¬²Ǿ ¢®­¥¤±¤­¢¤² ¯±®¯®²¤£ ³¶¤«µ¤ ¤µ¤­³² ¯¤± ¸¤ ± ¶§¨¢§ ¶¤  «« ª­®¶ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¬ ­¸ ¬®±¤Ǿ ¶¤££¨­¦²Ǿ ¥´­£ ± ¨²¤±²Ǿ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ¤µ¤­³² ¶¨³§  ­ ¤·¯¤¢³¤£ ³¶® §´­£±¤£ ³® ³¶® §´­£±¤£  ­£ ¥¨¥³¸ ¦´¤²³²… .®¨²¤ ¶¨«« ¢¤±³ ¨­«¸ ¤·¢¤¤£ ³§ ³ ³®¶­ ­®¨²¤ ¢®£¤ȁ Response to Comment H5-5: As indicated in the Response to Comment C1-14, the proposed rooftop terrace is envisioned as a passive sitting and/or reading area consisting of sofas and chairs for hotel guests. The applicant envisions background music with a small bar, but no dining. The proposed terrace sitting area is approximately 2,900 square feet with a maximum occupancy of 50 guests. No special events will be held on the rooftop. Also, to address potential noise concerns from the proposed rooftop lounge area, while the roofline directly to the east and the parapet both act as an acoustic barrier, the proposed design has been modified to include a 30- inch glass barrier on top of the parapet. The barrier is expected to be quarter-inch monolithic glass or similar material. Further, see Responses to Comments C1-14, C1-19 and C18-1 in Section 2.3.1 and Responses to Comments H14-1 and H14-7 in Section 2.3.5. rd Comment C35-7: Roo¥ ³®¯ ³¤±± ¢¤ ­®¶ ¡±¨­¦ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ Ε ²³®±¸ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ³®   Ζ ¥«®®± ¯±¨µ ¢¸  ­£ ­®¨²¤ ¢®­¢¤±­² Response to Comment C35-7: The rooftop terrace is not a third floor. See Responses to Comments C1-14 (Section 2.3.1) and Comment H5-5 above. Comment C35-8: -¤¤³¨­¦ 2®®¬² – Conferences Response to Comment C35-8: The proposed design includes meeting rooms for conferences to be held in the off-season. Specifically, as indicated in the DEIS, there are three small meeting rooms included on the second floor of the hotel. It is envisioned that to offset the anticipated drop in hotel occupancy in late Fall and Winter 97 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ months, the applicant seeks to encourage the use of the hotel facility as a conference center and corporate retreat. 2.3.17 Historic-2¤« ³¤£ )¬¯ ¢³² Comments related to potential historic-related impacts are addressed in this section of the FEIS. Specifically, the following comments are included: C11-1. Comment C11-1: (¨²³®±¨¢ ¨¬¯ ¢³ȁ )³ ±¤ ««¸ ¨²   ¬ ±µ¤«®´² ®«£ ²³¸«¤ §®´²¤ ¶§¨¢§ ) ¡¤«¨¤µ¤ ¬¸ ¡±®³§¤±Ǿ 3ª¨¯ !«¡¤±³²®­Ǿ ¶±®³¤ ¸®´  ­£ ²§ ±¤£ ²®¬¤ ¯§®³®² ®¥ ³§¤ ²³±´¢³´±¤ȁ !³ ¶§ ³ ¯®¨­³ £® ¶¤ £¤²³±®¸ ³§¤ ¢§ ± ¢³¤± ³§ ³ ¬ ª¤²   ¯« ¢¤ ²¯¤¢¨ «Ȉ 4§¤ ³®¶­͖² §¤ ±³¡¤ ³ ¨² §¤«£ ¨­ ¨³² §¨²³®±¸Ǿ ³§¤ ­ ³´± « ¡¤ ´³¸, ³§¤ ²¤­²¤ ®¥ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸  ­£ ±¤µ¤±¤­¢¤ ¥®± ³§¤ ¶ ³¤±¶ ¸²  ­£ ³§¤ ¥ ±¬ ¥¨¤«£²ȁ 7§¨«¤ ¶¤ ¬ ¸ ­®³  ¦±¤¤ ®­  «« ³§¨­¦² - ¶¤ ²§ ±¤   ¢®¬¬®­ ¯´±¯®²¤  ­£ ¬ ­¸ ®¥ ³§¤ ² ¬¤ µ «´¤²ȁ 4§¤²¤  ±¤ ³§¤ ³§¨­¦² ³§ ³ ¦«´¤   ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ³®¦¤³§¤±  ­£ ¬ ª¤ ¨³ ¶®±³§ ¢®­³¨­´ ««¸ ¨­µ¤²³¨­¦ ¨­ȁ Response to Comment C11-1: See Response to Comment C9-1 in Section 2.3.15 of this FEIS. 2.3.18 3®«¨£ 7 ²³¤ Comments related to solid waste are addressed in this section of the FEIS. Specifically, the following comments are included: C41-6. Comment C41-6: W ²³¤ ¬ ­ ¦¤¬¤­³Ȁ ³§¤  ¬®´­³ ®¥ ¦ ±¡ ¦¤ ¦¤­¤± ³¤£ ¥±®¬ ±¤²³ ´± ­³Ǿ §®³¤«Ǿ  ­£ ¤µ¤­³ȝ wedding. Response to Comment C41-6: The projected volume of waste generation, method of handling, and locations on the property for dumpster pads were addressed in the DEIS. As indicated in Section 4.5 of the DEIS, all solid waste from the proposed development will be collected and disposed of by a licensed private carter. All dumpster locations will be fenced enclosures. As indicated in Section 1.3 of this FEIS, the dumpster pad for the proposed hotel has been relocated from the northeast portion of the site to the northwest corner. The proposed location provides for easier access for trash pick-up and also relocates the dumpster away from the residential properties to the east. 2.3.19 '¤­¤± « 0±®¢¤²² Comments related to the general process are addressed in this section of the FEIS. Specifically, the following comments are included: C14-1, C22-2, C25-4, and C31-1. Comment C14-1: 4§ ­ª² ¥®± ¸®´± §¤«¯ ³§¨² ¬®±­¨­¦ȁ ! ¥¤¶ ®¥ ´²  ±¤ £± ¥³¨­¦   «¤³³¤±  ­£ §®¯¤ ³® ¦ ³§¤± ²¨¦­ ³´±¤² ®µ¤± ³§¤ ¶¤¤ª¤­£ȁ 7§¤­ ¤· ¢³«¸ ¶®´«£ ¶¤ ­¤¤£ ³® £¤«¨µ¤± ³§¤ «¤³³¤± ¥®± ¨³ ³® ¡¤ ¢®­²¨£¤±¤£ ¥®± ³§¤ 3¯¤¢¨ « %·¢¤¯³¨®­ £¤¢¨²¨®­Ȉ 7¨«« ³§¤±¤ ¡¤  ­ ®¯¯®±³´­¨³¸ ³® ¯±¤²¤­³  ³   ³®¶­ ¡® ±£ ¬¤¤³¨­¦ ®± § µ¤ ¶¤ ¬¨²²¤£ ³§ ³Ȉ Response to Comment C14-1: The ZBA will hold another public hearing for consideration of the special exception use permit. As a public hearing, there will be an opportunity for public comment. 98 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Comment C22-2: 4§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³ ¨² ¯±®¯®²¨­¦   ¯« ­ ³§ ³ ®¯¤­«¸ ¯®««´³¤² ®´± « ­£  ­£ ¶ ³¤±ȁ )³͖² ¥±´²³± ³¨­¦ ³® ¬¤ ³§ ³ ³§¤ %­¢« µ¤² $%)3 ¶ ² ­®³ ¤µ «´ ³¤£ ¡¸ ¤«¤¢³¤£ ®±  ¯¯®¨­³¤£ ®¥¥¨¢¨ «² ¶§® ¢®´«£ § µ¤ ¢±¨³¨¢¨¹¤£ ³§¨² £®¢´¬¤­³Ǿ ®± ¥ ¢³ ¢§¤¢ª¤£ ¡¤³³¤±Ǿ ¡¤¥®±¤ ¨²²´¨­¦ ¥®± ¯´¡«¨¢ ±¤µ¨¤¶ȁ )³ ¨² ¬¸ ´­£¤±²³ ­£¨­¦ ³§ ³  ­ ®´³²¨£¤ ¢®­²´«³¨­¦  ¦¤­¢¸ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ³§®±®´¦§«¸ ¤µ «´ ³¨­¦ ³§¤ $%)3 ³®  ¨£ ³§¤ :®­¨­¦ "® ±£ ¨­ ³§¤¨± £¤¢¨²¨®­ ³®  ¯¯±®µ¤ȝ£¤­¸ ²¯¤¢¨ « ´²¤ ¯¤±¬¨³ ¥®± §®³¤«ȁ ) §®¯¤ ³§ ³ ³§¤ :®­¨­¦ "® ±£͖² ¢®­²´«³ ­³² ¢ ±¤¥´««¸ °´ ­³¨³ ³¨µ¤«¸ ±¤µ¨¤¶ ³§¤ $%)3 ´²¨­¦  ¯¯±®¯±¨ ³¤ ¥¨¦´±¤²  ­£ ³§ ³ ³§¤ ¯´¡«¨¢͖² ¯®«¨¢¨­¦ ®¥ ³§¤²¤ £®¢´¬¤­³² ¨² §¨¦§«¸ ±¤¦ ±£¤£ ®­ ³§¤ ² ¬¤ «¤µ¤«ȁ Response to Comment C22-2: The Town of Southold ZBA retained Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC in association with Nelson & Pope Engineers, Architects, Surveyors (traffic review) (collectively, “NP&V”) as its environmental and engineering consultant. RTP Environmental Associates (RTP) was also retained to review the Acoustic Report and noise-related analyses in the DEIS. On behalf of the Town of Southold ZBA, NP&V reviewed the Draft Scope, participated in the scoping session, reviewed multiple draft versions of the DEIS, and ultimately recommended acceptance of the DEIS as adequate and complete for public review. NP&V has also submitted additional comments that are considered in this FEIS (See Comments C1-1 through C1-28 and Comments C2-1 through C2-24 in this FEIS.) Comment C25-4: )  ¬ ¨­³¤±¤²³¤£ ¨­  ­¸ ³®¶­ ¡® ±£ ¬¤¤³¨­¦² ±¤¦ ±£¨­¦ £¨²¢´²²¨®­²  ¡®´³ ³§¨² §®³¤«  ­£ ±¤²³ ´± ­³ȁ 0«¤ ²¤  £µ¨²¤ ¬¤ ¶§¤­ ³§¤¸ ¬ ¸ ®¢¢´± ²® ³§ ³ ) ¢ ­  ³³¤­£ȁ Response to Comment C25-4: All public meetings and hearings are posted on the Town’s website at http://www.southoldtownny.gov/AgendaCenter. Also, the DEIS public hearing was noticed in a local newspaper of area wide distribution. All future public hearings will be noticed in the same newspaper. Comment C31-1: %µ¤­ ²® ¨­ ²¯¤ ª¨­¦ ¶¨³§ ¬¸ ¥±¨¤­£²  ­£ ­¤¨¦§¡®±² ¨³ § ² ¡¤¢®¬¤  ¯¯ ±¤­³ ³§ ³ µ¤±¸ ¥¤¶ ®¥ ³§¤¬  ±¤  ¶ ±¤ ®¥ ³§¨² £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³Ǿ  ­£ ) ´±¦¤ ³§¤ ³®¶­ ³® ²«®¶ ³§¤¨± ±®«« i­ ¬®µ¨­¦ ¥®±¶ ±£ ´­³¨« ³§¤±¤ § ² ¡¤¤­ ¬®±¤ ³¨¬¤ ¥®± ³§¤ «®¢ « ¯®¯´« ³¨®­ ³®  ¡²®±¡ ³§¤ ¢®¬¯«¤·¨³¸Ǿ  ­£ ¯®³¤­³¨ « ¢®­²¤°´¤­¢¤²Ǿ ®¥ ³§¤ ¨²²´¤²  ³ ²³ ª¤ȁ Response to Comment C31-1: All public meetings and hearings have and will continue to be posted on the Town’s website at http://www.southoldtownny.gov/AgendaCenter. Also, the DEIS public hearing was noticed in a local newspaper of area wide distribution. All future public hearings will be noticed in the same newspaper. All required SEQRA public notices are also published on the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s Environmental Notice Bulletin (ENB) at https://www.dec.ny.gov/enb/enb.html. The ENB which publishes every Wednesday. It should also be noted that the public scoping meeting was noticed and held on March 15, 2018, where comments on this proposed project and the scope of the DEIS were accepted. The written comment period was extended until March 26, 2018 to afford additional time for public comment, and the Town of Southold ZBA issued a Final Scope on April 17, 2018. A DEIS Public Hearing was held on November 7, 2019 and at such hearing, the comment period was extended from November 18, 2019 to December 9, 2019. Additional public hearings for the proposed application will include the special exception permit hearing with the ZBA and site plan approval hearing(s) before the Planning Board. 2.3.20 General Comments Comments that are general in nature are addressed in this section of the FEIS. Specifically, the following comments are included: H1-1, H1-2, H5-2,H10-1 through H10-6, H11-1, H12-1, H15-1, C10-1, C11-2, C17-1, C17-2, C19-2, C22-18, C23-2, C23-3, C24-4, C24-6, C24-8, C24-9, C25-2, C25-3, C28-2, C28-4, C28-6, C28-7, C29- 99 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2, C29-4, C29-6, C29-7, C30-4, C31-2, C31-5, C31-6, C33-8, C34-1, C34-2, C35-1, C35-3, C36-1, C37-1, C41-3, C41-9, C41-13, C42-4 and C42-8. Comment H1-1: -¸ ¥¨±²³ ¢®¬¬¤­³ ¨² ³® ³§ ­ª ³§¤ :"! ¥®± ¤·³¤­£¨­¦ ³§¤ ¶±¨³³¤­ ¢®¬¬¤­³ ¯¤±¨®£  ² ¸®´ § µ¤ ¡¤¢ ´²¤ )Ȍ«« ¡¤ §®­¤²³ ) § µ¤ ­®³ § £   ¢§ ­¢¤ ³® ±¤ £ ¨­ £¤³ ¨« ³§¤ $%)3  ­£ ³§¤±¤Ȍ²   «®³ §¤±¤  ­£ ²® ) µ¤±¸ ¬´¢§  ¯¯±¤¢¨ ³¤ ³§¤ ®¯¯®±³´­¨³¸ \[and\] ³§¤ ³¨¬¤ ³® £® ³§ ³ ³§®´¦§³¥´««¸ ²® ³§ ­ª ¸®´. Response to Comment H1-1: The comment is noted. Comment H1-2: …) ¶ ­³¤£ ³® ² ¸ ³§ ­ª ¸®´ ³® ³§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³ ¶§®  «³§®´¦§ ) § µ¤ ²®¬¤ ¢®­¢¤±­²  ­£ ¬ ¸ § µ¤ ¬®±¤  ¥³¤± ±¤ £¨­¦ ³§¤ %)3ȁ 4§¨² ¨² °´¨³¤ ¢«¤ ±«¸   ³§®´¦§³¥´«  ¯¯«¨¢ ³¨®­ȁ )  ¯¯±¤¢¨ ³¤ ³§¤ ±¤­®µ ³¨®­ ®¥ ¤·¨²³¨­¦ ¡´¨«£¨­¦²Ǿ )  ¯¯±¤¢¨ ³¤ ³§¤ µ¨²´ « ¡´¥¥¤±²Ǿ )  ¯¯±¤¢¨ ³¤ ²¤¶ ¦¤ ³±¤ ³¬¤­³ ¯« ­³ȁ 4§¤±¤ ²¤¤¬² ³® § µ¤ ¡¤¤­ ²®¬¤ ±¤ « ³§®´¦§³ ¯´³ ¨­³® ³§¨²  ­£ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ¢®­²¢¨®´²­¤²² )  ¯¯±¤¢¨ ³¤ ³§ ³ȁ Response to Comment H1-2: The comment is noted. Comment H5-2: 7¤Ȍ±¤ ¥´±³§¤± ¢®­¢¤±­¤£ ­®¶ ³§ ³ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ³® ®´± ¤ ²³ ¶§¨¢§ ¨² ΘΙΜΓΘ - ¨­ 2£ȁ ¨­ 3®´³§®«£ ©´²³ ¢´±±¤­³«¸ ¹®­¤£ ¥®± 2ΛΓ   «®¶ £¤­²¨³¸ ±¤²¨£¤­³¨ «  ­£  ¦±¨¢´«³´± « § ² ¡¤¤­ ¯´±¢§ ²¤£ ¡¸ -±ȁ 4¨¡¤³³ ®­ &¤¡±´ ±¸ ΔΜ³§ȁ 4§¨² ¨² ΘȁΚ  ¢±¤² ¶¨³§   ®­¤  ¢±¤ ¥±®­³ ±¤²¨£¤­³ ¬¨­¨¬´¬ ³¶®  ¢±¤ «®³²ȁ 4§¨² ´­ª­®¶­ ¦®¨­¦ ¥®±¶ ±£ ¶¨«« §¤  ¯¯«¸ ¥®±   3¯¤¢¨ « %·¢¤¯³¨®­ ¥®± ³§¨² ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£ :®­¨­¦ "® ±£Ȉ 7§ ³  ±¤ ³§¤ ¯« ­² ¥®± ³§¨² ²¨³¤Ȉ (®¶ ¶¨«« ³§¨²  ¥¥¤¢³ ¬¸ ¯±®¯¤±³¸  ­£ °´ «¨³¸ ®¥ «¨¥¤Ȉ 3¨­¢¤ -±ȁ (¤¨£³¬ ­­  ­£ -±ȁ 4¨¡¤³³Ȍ²  ±¤ ¯ ±³­¤±² ¨­ ³§¤ ±¤¢¤­³«¸ ±¤²³®±¤£ ¥®±¬¤± 2®³§¬ ­² ®­ - ¨­ 2£ȁ %¨­²³¤¨­ 3°´ ±¤ «¤ µ¤² ´²  ££¨³¨®­ « ¢®­¢¤±­ ®­ ¶§ ³ ³§¤¨± ¨­³¤­³¨®­²  ±¤ȁ 4§¤¸Ȍ±¤ ®¡µ¨®´²«¸ ¨­µ¤²³¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ȁ Response to Comment H5-2: The subject application and this FEIS addresses the proposed hotel and restaurant at 56655 Main Road, Southold. Comment H10-1: 4± ¥¥¨¢ ¨²  «¶ ¸² ¦®¨­¦ ³® ¡¤  ­ ¨²²´¤ ¨­ ³§¨² ³®¶­ ¶§¤³§¤± ¶¤ «¨ª¤ ¨³ ®± ­®³ȁ ) «¤ µ¤ ³§ ³ ¯±®¯¤±³¸  ­£ ¤­³¤± ³§ ³ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ²¤µ¤± « ³¨¬¤²   £ ¸ £´±¨­¦ ³§¤ ²´¬¬¤±  ­£ ³§¤ ¬®²³ ³¨¬¤ )Ȍµ¤ ¤µ¤± § £ ³® ²¯¤­£ ¶ ¨³¨­¦ ³® ¦¤³ ©´²³ ³® ¬ ª¤   «¤¥³ § ­£ ³´±­ ¨² ¯±®¡ ¡«¸ ³¶® ®± ³§±¤¤ ¬¨­´³¤²\[,\] ®ª ¸ȁ 9¤²\[,\] ³§¤±¤ ¨² ¢®­¢¤±­  ­£  ¡²®«´³¤«¸  ­£ )Ȍ¬ ²´±¤ ³§¤ "® ±£ ¨² ¦®¨­¦ ³®  ££±¤²² ³§ ³  ² ¶¤««  ² ¤µ¤±¸®­¤ ¤«²¤ȁ Response to Comment H10-1: The potential impacts on traffic are being evaluated in this SEQRA process. Comment H10-2: 4§¤ ®³§¤± ³§¨­¦ ³§¤¸  ££±¤²²¤£ ¶ ² ³§¤  ¥¥®±£ ¡«¤ §®´²¨­¦ȁ -¸ Ȩ¨­ ´£¨¡«¤ȩ ¨² ³§ ³ ¨³Ȍ² \[an\]  ¡²®«´³¤«¸ ¤²²¤­³¨ « ¯ ±³ ®¥ ³§¨² ³®¶­ ³§ ³ ¶¤ ­¤¤£ ³®  ££±¤²²ȁ ( µ¨­¦ ² ¨£ ³§ ³ ) ¶®´«£ «¨ª¤ ³® ²¤¤ ³§¤ ±¤ ¢³¨®­ ®¥ ¨­£¨µ¨£´ «² ¨­ ³§¨² ±®®¬ ³§ ³  ±¤  ¦ ¨­²³ ³§¤ ¯±®©¤¢³ ¨¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®­¤­³ ² ¨£ ¶¤Ȍ±¤ ¦®¨­¦ ³® ¯´³ ¥®±³¸ ¥®´±  ¥¥®±£ ¡«¤  ¯ ±³¬¤­³² ¨­ ³§¤±¤\[,\] ®ª ¸ȁ )Ȍ¬ ²´±¤ ³§¤¨± ±¤ ¢³¨®­ ¶®´«£ ¡¤   «¨³³«¤ ¡¨³ £¨¥¥¤±¤­³  «²® ®­ ³§ ³ ¡´³ ³§ ³Ȍ²  ¦ ¨­ ²®¬¤³§¨­¦ ¥®±  ­®³§¤± ³¨¬¤ȁ Response to Comment H10-2: The comment is noted. Comment H10-3: )³ ¨²   ¡´²¨­¤²² ¹®­¤Ǿ ³§¨² ³®¶­ § ² ¦®³   «®³ ®¥ ¡¤ ´³¨¥´« ®¯¤­ « ­£ȁ ) ±¤¬¤¬¡¤± ³§ ³  ²   µ ¢ ­³ lot…7§ ³  ±¤ ¶¤ ¦®¨­¦ ³® £® ¶¨³§ ¨³ ¨¥ ¶¤ £®­Ȍ³ ¶ ­³ ³§¨²ȁ 7§ ³ ²§®´«£ ¶¤ ¯´³ ³§¤±¤ ©´²³ ¬®±¤ µ ¢ ­³ « ­£Ȉ 7¤ 100 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ § µ¤   «®³ ®¥ µ ¢ ­³ « ­£Ǿ ²§®´«£ ¶¤ ¯±¤²¤±µ¤  «« ®¥ ¨³Ȉ 9¤ § ¨³ ¶®´«£ ¡¤   ¦±¤ ³ ¨£¤  ³® ¯´³ ¨³ ®¥¥ ¡´³ ¶¤ ­¤¤£ ³ · ²³±´¢³´±¤Ǿ ¶¤ ­¤¤£ ¯¤®¯«¤ ³® ¶®±ª §¤±¤ȁ 4§¤ ®³§¤± ³§¨­¦ ³§¨² ³®¶­ § ² £®­¤  «²® ¨² ¶¤Ȍµ¤ ²³®¯¯¤£ ²§®±³ ³¤±¬ ±¤­³ «²ȁ Response to Comment H10-3: The comment is noted. Comment H10-4: )Ȍ¬ ­®³ ¯±® ¢®­ ®­ ³§ ³ ¡´³ ¶¤Ȍµ¤ ­®¶ ² ¨£ ­® ¸®´ ¢ ­Ȍ³ ¢®¬¤ ³® ³§¨² ³®¶­ ´­«¤²² ¸®´ ±¤­³ ³§¤ §®´²¤ ¥®± ³¶® ¶¤¤ª²ȁ 3® ¶¤Ȍµ¤ ¦®³   £®´¡«¤ ¤£¦¤ ²¶®±£ §¤±¤ȁ 7¤ ¶ ­³ ¯¤®¯«¤ ³® ¢®¬¤ §¤±¤ ¡´³ ¶¤ £®­Ȍ³ ¶ ­³ ³§¤¬ §¤±¤ȁ 7¤ ¶ ­³ ¸®´ ³® ²³ ¸ §¤±¤ ¡´³ ¶¤ £®­Ȍ³ ¶ ­³ ¸®´ ³® ²³ ¸ §¤±¤ȁ 9®´ ¢ ­Ȍ³ £±¨µ¤ ®´³ §¤±¤ \[be\]¢ ´²¤ ¶¤Ȍ±¤ ¶®±±¨¤£  ¡®´³ ³§¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢Ǿ ¨³ ¦®¤² ®­  ­£ ®­  ­£ ®­ȁ Response to Comment H10-4:The comment is noted. Comment H10-5: )  ¬ ¥®± ³§¨²  ¦ ¨­ ¨³Ȍ² ­®³ ¨­  ­  ±¤  ¶§¤±¤ ¨³Ȍ² ¦®¨­¦ ³®  ¥¥¤¢³ ³§¤ ¤­³¨±¤ ¢§ ± ¢³¤± ®¥ ³§¨² ³®¶­ȁ -®²³ ¯¤®¯«¤ ¶¨«« £±¨µ¤ ¡¸ ³§ ³ ³§¨­¦ ) £®­Ȍ³ ³§¨­ª  ­¸¡®£¸ ¬®²³ ¯¤®¯«¤ ¶¨«« £±¨µ¤ ¡¸ ¶®­Ȍ³ ¤µ¤­ ª­®¶ ¨³ ¶ ² ³§¤±¤ ³§ ³ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ¨² ³§¤±¤. Response to Comment H10-5: The comment is noted. Comment H10-6: 4§¤ ³ · ²³±´¢³´±¤ £®¤²­Ȍ³ ¢®­¢¤±­ ¬¤ȁ )³Ȍ² ¦®¨­¦ ³®  ££ ²®¬¤ ¬®­¤¸ ³® ³§¤ ³ · ³® ³§¤ Ȩ¨­ ´£¨¡«¤ȩ ³§ ³Ȍ² ¦±¤ ³ȁ )³ ¬ ¸ ¤­¢®´± ¦¤ ¬®±¤ ¯¤®¯«¤ ³® ¯®²²¨¡«¸ ¬®µ¤ ®´³ §¤±¤ȁ - ¸¡¤ ¨³Ȍ«« ²³ ±³  ££±¤²²¨­¦ ³§¤ ¨²²´¤ ®¥ ¬®±¤  ¥¥®±£ ¡«¤ §®´²¨­¦ȁ Response to Comment H10-6: The comment is noted. Comment H11-1: 0±®©¤¢³² «¨ª¤ ³§¨²  ±¤ Ȩ¨­ ´£¨¡«¤ȩ  ±¤   £¸¨­¦ ¡±¤¤£ ®´³ §¤±¤Ȃ) ³§¨­ª  ¯¯±®µ¨­¦ ¨³ ¨² ¯®²¨³¨µ¤ ¥®± 3®´³§®«£ȁ !³ ³§¤ ¤­£ ®¥ ³§¤ £ ¸ ³§¨² ¶¨«« ¡¤   ¶ «ª¨­¦ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ¢ ´²¤ ³§¤¸ ¶ «ª ¨­ - ­§ ³³ ­ȁ )³Ȍ«« ¢®¬¬ ­£   ¢¤±³ ¨­ ¯±¨¢¤ ¯®¨­³  ­£ ³§¤¸ ¶¨«« ¯±®¡ ¡«¸ ª¤¤¯ ³§¤ ¤µ¤­³² £®¶­ ³®  ¡®´³ ³¶¤«µ¤ ¯¤± ¸¤ ±ȁ 9®´ ¢ ­ ²¤¤ ³§ ³  ³ ³§¤ §¨¦§¤± ¤­£  ³ ³§¤ ¶¨­¤±¨¤²Ȃ) ´­£¤±²³ ­£ ³§¤ ¢®­¢¤±­² ®¥ ­¤¨¦§¡®±² ¡´³ ) ª­®¶ ³§¨² ¦±®´¯  ­£ ) ª­®¶ ³§¨² ¦±®´¯ ¶¤««  ­£ ³§¤¸ ¶¨«« £® ¤µ¤±¸³§¨­¦ ³®  ¢¢®¬¬®£ ³¤  ­¸ ¶®±±¨¤²ȁ Response to Comment H11-1: The comment is noted. Comment H12-1: /­¤ ®¥ ®´± ¨²²´¤² ¶ ² ¶¤ ­¤¤£ ¯¤®¯«¤ ³® ²³®¯ ¨­ 3®´³§®«£ ¨³Ȍ²   ¦±¤ ³ «¨³³«¤ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ȁ 7§ ³ £® ³§¤¸ £®Ǿ ³§¤¸ ¹¨¯ ±¨¦§³ ³® '±¤¤­¯®±³ȁ 7§¸Ǿ ¢ ´²¤ '±¤¤­¯®±³ § ² ²® ¬ ­¸ ³§¨­¦² ³® ®¥¥¤± ³§¤¬  ­£ ¸¤²   ¡¤ ´³¨¥´« ¶ ³¤±¥±®­³ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ȂI ³§¨­ª ) ¢ ­Ȍ³ ¢®¬¬¤­³ ¬´¢§ ®­ ³§¨² §®³¤« ¡¤¢ ´²¤ ¨³Ȍ²   «¨³³«¤ ¡¨¦ ¡´³ ¶¤ ­¤¤£   ¯« ¢¤ ¥®± ¯¤®¯«¤ ³® ²³ ¸  ­£ ¶ «ª ¨­³® ³§¤ µ¨«« ¦¤  ­£ )Ȍ ¬ ³§¨­ª¨­¦ ³§¨² ¬¨¦§³ ¡¤   ±¤ ««¸ ¦±¤ ³ ¨£¤   ­£ ¨¥ ¨³Ȍ² ¶§ ³ ³§¤¸Ȍ±¤ ² ¸¨­¦ ¶¤Ȍ±¤ ­®³ ¦®¨­¦ ³® ²¤¤ ³§¨² ¡¨¦ ¦±¤ ³ ¤« ¡®± ³¤ §®³¤« ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ±® £ ³§¤­ ¶§ ³Ȍ² ¶±®­¦ ¶¨³§ ³§¨²Ȉ ) £® ¥¤¤« ¡ £ ¥®± ³§¤ «®¢ « ¥ ¬¨«¨¤² ³§ ³ ¬ ¸¡¤ ³§ ³ «¨µ¤ ­¤·³ £®®± ¥®± ¸¤ ±²  ­£ ³§¤¸Ȍ±¤ ¦®¨­¦ ³® § µ¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¡´³ ) § ³¤ ³® ² ¸ ³§¨² ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¨²  ­ ¨²²´¤ȁ )¥ ¸®´ £®­Ȍ³ ª­®¶ ³§ ³ ¡¸ ­®¶ ¥®± ³§¤ .®±³§ &®±ª ³§¤­ ¸®´Ȍµ¤ ¡¤¤­ §¨£¨­¦ ¨­ a \[sic\] ¸®´± §¤ £ ¨­ ³§¤ ² ­£ȁ Response to Comment H12-1: The comment is noted. 101 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Comment H15-1: ) ¶ ² ©´²³ ¶®­£¤±¨­¦ ¨¥ ³§¨² ¨² ¯ ±³ ®¥ &®´­£¤± , ­£¨­¦  ¢¢¤²² ´²¤  ­£ ¶§¤³§¤± ³§ ³ § ² ¡¤¤­ ¡±®´¦§³ ´¯ ®± ¢®­²¨£¤±¤£Ǿ ³§¤ ¨¬¯ ¢³ ®­ ³§ ³ ¡¤ ¢§ ¡¤¢ ´²¤ ³§¤±¤  ±¤ ¤µ¤­³² ³§ ³  ±¤ §¤«£ ¨­ ³§ ³ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ²® )Ȍ¬ ­®³ ²´±¤ ¨¥ ³§¤¸Ȍ±¤ ¨­ ³§ ³ £¨²³±¨¢³ ¨¥ ³® ¡¤ ´²¤£ȁ Response to Comment H15-1:See Response to Comment C10-2 in Section 2.3.6. Comment C10-1: # ­ ¸®´ ¯«¤ ²¤ ³¤«« ¬¤ ¶§¤±¤ ) ¢ ­ ¥¨­£ ³§¤ %­¢« µ¤ ¯±®©¤¢³ £¤²¢±¨¯³¨®­Ǿ ¹®­¨­¦ µ ±¨ ­¢¤² ±¤°´¤²³¤£  ­£ ®³§¤± ¯¤±¬¨³  ¯¯«¨¢ ³¨®­ £®¢´¬¤­³²Ȉ Ȩ)  ¬ ´­ ¡«¤ ³® µ¨²¨³ 4®¶­ ( «« £´±¨­¦ ³§¤ ¶¤¤ªȁȩ Response to Comment C10-1:Copies of the DEIS are available for public review at the offices of the lead agency and on the Town’s website at: http://southoldtownny.gov/1298/Environmental-Impact-Statement. Comment C11-2: %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « ¨¬¯ ¢³ ®¥   (®³¤« ¯±®©¤¢³ ®¥ ³§ ³ ²¨¹¤  ­£ ­ ³´±¤ ¶®´«£ ±¤¬®µ¤ ³±¤¤²  ­£ ¥¨«« ®¯¤­ ²¯ ¢¤²  ­£ ¢±¤ ³¤ ­®¨²¤ȁ )³ ¶¨««  ££   ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ «® £¨­¦ ³® ³§¤ ²®«¤ ²®´±¢¤  °´¨¥¤±  ­£ ¶¤ ±  ­£ ³¤ ± ®­ ³§¤ ¡¤ ¢§¤² ­¤ ±¡¸ȁ 7®´«£  «« ³§¤ §®³¤« ±¤²¨£¤­³² ¡¤ ¨­¢«´£¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ 0 ±ª $¨²³±¨¢³ ±¨¦§³²Ȉ (®¶ ¶®´«£ ³§ ³ ¡¤ £¤³¤±¬¨­¤£Ȉ 0®³¤­³¨ ««¸ ΗΗ ±®®¬² ®¥ ­®­-²³®¯ µ¨²¨³®±² ¶ «ª¨­¦ £®¶­ ³® &®´­£¤±͖² , ­£¨­¦ ®± £±¨µ¨­¦  ­£ ¯ ±ª¨­¦ ¨­ ³§¤ ­¤¨¦§¡®±§®®£ȁ )² ³§ ³ ³§¤ ª¨­£ ®¥ ¨¬¯ ¢³ ¸®´ § µ¤   ¯« ­ ¥®±Ȉ ( µ¤ ³§¤ 0 ±ª $¨²³±¨¢³ 4±´²³¤¤² ¶¤¨¦§¤£ ¨­Ȉ Response to Comment C11-2: See Response to Comment C10-2. Comment C17-1: %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ ®¥ ³§¨² ¯±®©¤¢³ ¨² §¨¦§ȁ 7§¤±¤ ³§¤ ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ ²§®´«£  «¶ ¸² ¡¤   ª¤¸ ¢®­¢¤±­ ®¥  ­¸ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³Ǿ ¨³ ²¤¤¬² ³® ¶ ±± ­³ ¯ ±³¨¢´« ±  ³³¤­³¨®­  ­£ ¶¤¨¦§³¨­¦ ¦¨µ¤­ ³§¤ ²³ ³¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ²¢ ««®¯ ¯®¯´« ³¨®­ ¨­ ³§¤ ¡ ¸ ³§¨² ¸¤ ±Ǿ ³§¤ ®­¦®¨­¦ ¨²²´¤ ¶¨³§ £¤¤± ¯®¯´« ³¨®­ ¬ ­ ¦¤¬¤­³  ­£ ³§¤ ¨¬¯®±³ ­¢¤ ®¥ ¯±¤²¤±µ¨­¦ ®´± « ­£  ²   ª¤¸ °´ «¨³¸ ®¥ «¨¥¤  ­£ «¨µ¤«¨§®®£ ®­ ³§¤ ­®±³§ ¥®±ªȁ # «¢´« ³¨®­² ¡ ²¤£ ®­ ³§¤ ¯´¡«¨²§¤£ ¯« ­² ²´¦¦¤²³Ȁ ΙȁΚΘ  ¢±¤²  ±¤ ³® ¡¤ ¢«¤ ±¤£  ­£ ­®­-­ ³¨µ¤ §¤£¦¤±®¶ ³® ¡¤ ¯« ­³¤£  ±®´­£ ³§¤ ¡®±£¤± ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ¶¨³§ ²¯¤¢¨¤² ®¥ «¨³³«¤ ³® ­® ¤¢®«®¦¨¢ « µ «´e\[,\] ΕȁΘ ¬¨««¨®­ ¦ ««®­² ®¥ ¥±¤²§¶ ³¤± ¶¨«« ¡¤ £± ¶­ ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ²®´³§®«£ Ȭ²¨¢ȭ  °´¨¥¤± ¨­ ®±£¤± ³® ¨±±¨¦ ³¤ ³§¤ « ¶­²  ­£ §¤£¦¤±®¶²\[,\] ΖȁΕ ¬¨««¨®­ ¦ ««®­² ®¥ ²¤¶ ¦¤ ³±¤ ³¬¤­³ ¶ ³¤± ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¯´¬¯¤£ ¡ ¢ª ¨­³® ³§¤  °´¨¥¤± ¤ ¢§ ¸¤ ±Ǿ «¨ª¤«¸ ¢®­³ ¨­¨­¦ ¤·¢¤²² ­¨³±®¦¤­Ǿ ¡ ¢³¤±¨ Ǿ § ±¬¥´« ¬¨¢±®®±¦ ­¨²¬²Ǿ ¤­£®¢±¨­¤ £¨²±´¯³¨­¦ ¯§ ±¬ ¢¤´³¨¢ «²Ǿ ¤³¢\[.\]\[,\] ΕΚΜ ¯®´­£² ®¥ ­¨³±®¦¤­ ¶¨«« «¤ ¢§ ¡ ¢ª ¨­³® ³§¤ groundwater\[.\] Response to Comment C17-1: The impacts to water and ecological resources have been addressed in the DEIS and this FEIS. See also the Responses to Comments C26-1, C30-3 and C37-3 in Sections 2.3.8, the Responses to Comments C22-3 and C22-4 in Section 2.3.1, and the Responses to Comments C33-2 and C37-5 in Section 2.3.11. Comment C17-2: !±¢§¨³¤¢³´± « µ «´¤ § ² ­®³ ¡¤¤­ £¤¬®­²³± ³¤£ȁ 7§¨«¤ ³±´¤ ³§ ³ ³§¤ ¯« ­² ¯±®¯®²¤ ³® ª¤¤¯ ³§¤ ¤·¨²³¨­¦ ¬ ¨­ ±® £ ²³±´¢³´±¤Ǿ ³§¤ ­¤¶ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ³® ¡¤ ¤±¤¢³¤£ ®­ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ¨² ®¥ ­® ±¤« ³¨®­²§¨¯ ³® ³§¤ ²´±±®´­£¨­¦  ±¤ Ǿ «®¢ « ¬ ³¤±¨ «² ®± ²³¸«¤ȁ )³ § ²  ² ¬´¢§ ¢®­³¤·³  ² ³§¤ ¡¨¦ ¡®· ²³®±¤² ¶¤ £®­͖³ ¶ ­³ ³® ¨¬¯®±³ ¥±®¬ 2¨µ¤±§¤ £Ǿ  ­£ § ² ¢«¤ ±«¸ ­®³ ¡¤¤­ £¤²¨¦­¤£ ³® ¨­³¤¦± ³¤ ¨­³® ³§¤ ¤·¨²³¨­¦ « ­£²¢ ¯¤ȁ )³ ¨² ¤· ¢³«¸ ³§¨² ³¸¯¤ ®¥ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ - ¢®­¢¤¨µ¤£ ¶¨³§®´³ ²¯¤¢¨ « ¢®­²¨£¤± ³¨®­ ¥®± ¨³² ²¨³¤ ®± ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸- ¶§¨¢§ ¤±®£¤² ³§¤ ¥ ¡±¨¢  ­£ ¢§ ± ¢³¤± ®¥ ®´± ¤·¨²³¨­¦ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ȁ Response to Comment C17-2: As explained by the project architect, the building is a low-profile structure using predominantly natural materials that will not be visible from the street. See the renderings in Appendix D of 102 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ this FEIS, the Responses to Comments H5-8, C1-10, C1-19, and C18-1 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS, and the Response to Comment C36-2 in Section 2.3.7 of this FEIS. Comment C19-2: !³³ ¢§¤£ ³® ³§¨² «¤³³¤± ¨²   ¯¤³¨³¨®­  ¦ ¨­²³   ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤·¤¬¯³¨®­ ¡ ²¤£ ®­ ¤¢®«®¦¨¢ «Ǿ §´¬ ­Ǿ ²®¢¨ «Ǿ §¤ «³§  ­£ ¤¢®­®¬¨¢ § ±¬ȁ Response to Comment C19-2: The comment is noted. Comment C22-18: ( ­£¨­¦ ®µ¤±   ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤·¤¬¯³¨®­ ¯¤±¬¨³ ¶¨«« ²¤³   ¯±¤¢¤£¤­³ ¥®± ³§¤ ¥´³´±¤ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£ȁ )² ³§¨² ³§¤ ¤· ¬¯«¤ 3®´³§®«£ 4®¶­ :®­¨­¦ "® ±£ ¶ ­³² ³® ²¤³Ȉ (®¶ £¨£ ³§¨² ¯« ­ ³§ ³ ¨² ¨­ £¨²±¤¦ ±£ ¥®± ®´± ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ¤µ¤­ ¦¤³ ³§¨² ¥ ±Ȉ ! ¦±®¶¨­¦ ¢®­¢¤±­ ®¥ ¬¨­¤ )² -±ȁ 4¨¡¡¤³³͖² Ȭ²¨¢ȭ ¤·¯ ­£¨­¦ ±¤ « ¤²³ ³¤ ¯´±¢§ ²¤²  «®­¦ ¬ ¨­ ±® £ȁ )͖£ «¨ª¤ ³® ª­®¶ §®¶ ³§¤ ²¨³¤ ®¥ ³§¤ %­¢« µ¤² ¶¨«« ¯« ¸ ¨­ ³® \[sic\] ³§¤ ¯ ±¢¤« «®¢ ³¤£  ³ ΘΙΜΜΘ - ¨­ 2£ 3®´³§®«£ ¶§¤±¤   « ±¦¤ ¡ ±­ ¨² ¡¤¨­¦ ¤±¤¢³¤£Ǿ  ² ¶¤««  ² ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ®¥ .®±³§ &®±ª 4 ¡«¤  ­£ )­­ȁ )³ ²§®´«£ ­®³ ¡¤ ¯¤±¬¨²²¨¡«¤ ¥®±   ²¨­¦´« ± § ²³¸ µ¨²¨®­ ³® ²§ ¯¤ O52 ³®¶­ȁ )¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¦± ¬¬¨­¦ ¥®± ³§¤²¤ ¯ ±¢¤«² ±¤« ³¤ ³® ¤ ¢§ ®³§¤±Ǿ ¢®­²¨£¤± ³¨®­ ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ¯ ¨£ ³® ³§ ³ ./7ȁ 4§¤ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ¬ £¤ ¨­¥®±¬¤£ȁ We, the «®¢ «²Ǿ ¶ ­³ more transparency. Response to Comment C22-18: The proposed application is currently under review by the Town of Southold ZBA, as lead agency. The proposed application includes the scope of work as described in the DEIS and modified as part of this FEIS to exclude outdoor events. The proposed application does not include any other parcel of land. Comment C23-2: 7¤  «²® § µ¤ ³¶® ¡¤ ¢§¤² ¨­ ³§¨²  ±¤  ³§ ³ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ®µ¤±±´­ ¶¨³§ µ¨²¨³®±² ¶¨³§ ­® ¡¤ ¢§ ²³¨¢ª¤±² ®± ¯¤±¬¨³²ȁ !² ¨³ ¨² ¨­ ³§¤ ²´¬¬¤± «®¢ « ±¤²¨£¤­³² ¢ ­­®³ ¦¤³ ¨­³® ³§¤ ¯ ±ª¨­¦ «®³ ³® ¯ ±ª ¡¤¢ ´²¤ ®¥  «« ®¥ ³§¤ ±¤­³¤±²  ­£ µ¨²¨³®±²  ³ ³§¤ ¡¤ ¢§ȁ 4§¤ ³®¶­ 0®«¨¢¤ ¶¨«« ­¤¤£ ³® ¤­¥®±¢¤ ³§¤ ¯ ±ª¨­¦ £®¶­  ³ ³§¤ &®´­£¤±² "¤ ¢§Ǿ § ±£«¸  ­¸®­¤ § ² ¯¤±¬¨³² ®± ³®¶­ ²³¨¢ª¤±²  ² ¨³ ¨²  ­£ ¶¤ ³§¤ ±¤²¨£¤­³² ²§®´«£ ­®³ ¡¤ ³§¤ ®­«¸ ®­¤² ¥®±¢¤£ ³® ¯´±¢§ ²¤ ¡¤ ¢§ ¯¤±¬¨³²ȁ Response to Comment C23-2: The comment is noted. Comment C23-3: 4§¨² §´¦¤ ΗΗ ±®®¬ §®³¤« ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¡¤³³¤± ²´¨³¤£ ¨­ - ³³¨³´¢ª ¶§¨¢§ ¨²   ¡¨¦¦¤± ³®¶­  ­£ § ² ¡¨¦¦¤± ²§®¯¯¨­¦ ¢¤­³¤±²Ǿ ­®³ §¤±¤ ¨­ 3®´³§®«£ ®­ ³§¤ ¬ ¨­ ±£ ®­«¸ ¡«®¢ª² ¥±®¬ ³§¤ " ¸ȁ %¨­²³¤¨­ 3°´ ±¤ £®¤² ­®³  ³  «« ¬ ³¢§ ³§¤ ³®¶­  ­£ ¨² ¢®¬¯«¤³¤«¸ ´²¤«¤²²  ² ­® ®­¤ ¤µ¤± ´²¤² ¨³ȁ 4§¤¸  ±¤ ³±¸¨­¦ ³® ¢§ ­¦¤ 3®´³§®«£ ¨­³® ²®¬¤³§¨­¦ ¨³ ¨² .®³ȁ 7¤ ¢´±±¤­³«¸ § µ¤ ¯ ±³¸ȝ¶¤££¨­¦ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¢®¬¨­¦  ­£ ¦®¨­¦ ¥±®¬ 4§¤ 7§ ±¥ (®´²¤ «®¢ ³¤£  ³ &®´­£¤±² "¤ ¢§ ³§ ³ ¢ ­ ¡¤ §¤ ±£ ¨­ ¬¸ ­¤¨¦§¡®±§®®£ ¨­³® ³§¤ ­¨¦§³ȁ )¥ ³§¤ §®³¤« ¶¨«« ¡¤ § µ¨­¦ ¶¤££¨­¦²  ­£ ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤µ¤­³² ³§¤ ­®¨²¤  ­£ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ³®® ¬´¢§ ¥®± ³§¨²  ±¤ ȁ Response to Comment C23-3: The comment is noted. Comment C24-4: 7§ ³ ¨² ³§¤ ¨¬¯ ¢³ ®¥ ²´¢§   « ±¦¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ®­ ®´± ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³Ȉ )  ³³¤­£¤£ ³§¤ 4®¶­ ¬¤¤³¨­¦ ®­ .®µ¤¬¡¤± Κ³§ ¶§¤±¤ ¢¤±³ ¨­ ²³´£¨¤² ®­ ³§¤ ¨¬¯ ¢³ ³® ³§¤ ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ ¶¤±¤ ¢¨³¤£ȁ 3³´£¨¤² ¢ ­ ¡¤ ¤ ²¨«¸ ¯±®¢´±¤£ ³® ¯±®£´¢¤   ¥ µ®± ¡«¤ ®´³¢®¬¤ ¡ ²¤£ ®­ ¶§® ¨² ¥´­£¨­¦ ³§¤ ²³´£¸  ­£ ¨³² ²¢®¯¤ȁ 0¤±§ ¯²  ­ ¨­£¤¯¤­£¤­³ ²³´£¸ ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ¢®­£´¢³¤£ ³® ¢®­¥¨±¬ ³§¤¨± ±¤²´«³²ȁ ) § µ¤ ¢®­¢¤±­²  ¡®´³ ³§¤ ¯¤±¢¤­³ ®¥ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ±¤¬®µ « ®¥ «®¢ « ¨­£¨¦¤­®´² ³±¤¤²Ǿ ¯« ­³  ­£ ¶¨«£«¨¥¤  ­£ §®¶ ³§¨² ¶¨««  ¥¥¤¢³ ´² «®­¦ ³¤±¬ȁ 103 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Response to Comment C24-4: See Response to Comment C22-2 in Section 2.3.19 of this FEIS. Comment C24-6: ) ´­£¤±²³ ­£ ²®¬¤ ¢«¤ ±¨­¦ ®¥   ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ¥®±  ­¸ ­¤¶ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ¬ ¸ ¡¤ ­¤¢¤²² ±¸Ǿ §®¶¤µ¤±Ǿ ³§¤  ££¨³¨®­ ®¥ ΔΕΖ ¯ ±ª¨­¦ ²¯ ¢¤² £®¤² ­®³ ²¤¤¬ «¨ª¤   ¯± ¢³¨¢ « ®± ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ ««¸ ²®´­£ ´²¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ȁ Response to Comment C24-6: The proposed site plan complies with the Town Code for the intended use. It is also noted that select overflow parking will be comprised of pervious pavement. Comment C24-8: )³ ¶ ² ¬¤­³¨®­¤£  ³ ³§¤ ¬¤¤³¨­¦ ³§ ³ ®³§¤± « ±¦¤± ¯±®¯¤±³¨¤² ®­ ³§¤ ¬ ¨­ ±® £ ¥®± ² «¤ § µ¤ ±¤¢¤­³«¸ ¡¤¤­ ¯´±¢§ ²¤£ ®±  ±¤ ¢´±±¤­³«¸ ¨­ ­¤¦®³¨ ³¨®­ȁ )  ¯®«®¦¨¹¤ ¨­  £µ ­¢¤ ¨¥ ³§¨² ² «¤ ®± ¯´±¢§ ²¤ ¨­¥®±¬ ³¨®­ ¨² ­®³  ¢¢´± ³¤Ǿ ¬¸ ¯®¨­³ ¡¤¨­¦Ǿ ³§¤ £¤¢¨²¨®­ ±¤­£¤±¤£ ®­ ³§¨² ¯ ±³¨¢´« ± ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ¶¨«« ²¤³   ¯±¤¢¤£¤­³ ¥®± ®³§¤± ­¤¶ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³² ®± ±¤°´¤²³² ¥®± ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤·¤¬¯³¨®­² ®­ « ±¦¤± ¯ ±¢¤«² ´­£¤± ¢®­²¨£¤± ³¨®­ȁ 7§¨«¤ ) ¢ ­ ²¤¤  ­£ § µ¤ ¡¤­¤¥¨³¤£ ¥¨±²³-§ ­£ ³§¤ ¬ ­¸ ¡¤­¤¥¨³² ³® ¨­µ¤²³¨­¦ ®­ ³§¤ .®±³§ &®±ªǾ ) ³§¨­ª ¶¤ ¡¤ ²§®´«£ ¡¤ «®®ª¨­¦  ³ ³§¤ long-³¤±¬ ¨¬¯ ¢³ \[on\] §®¶   « ±¦¤± £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ²´¢§  ² ³§¨² ¶¨««  ¥¥¤¢³ ¥´³´±¤ ¯« ­­¨­¦ȁ Response to Comment C24-8: The comment is noted. Comment C24-9: ! ¯« ­ ¶ ² ¯±¤²¤­³¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ ¯±®©¤¢³²  ±¢§¨³¤¢³ ®´³«¨­¨­¦ ³§¤ ¯« ­­¤£ ¡´¨«£¨­¦²  ­£ ²¨³¤ ¯« ­ȁ )  ¬ ¢®­¢¤±­¤£ ³§ ³ ¶§¨«¤ ³§¤ ¯±®©¤¢³ ¨² ²¤³ ¡ ¢ª ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ¬ ¨­ ±® £Ǿ ¶¤ ²§®´«£ ¡¤ «®®ª¨­¦  ³ ³§¤  ±¢§¨³¤¢³͖² ¨­µ®«µ¤¬¤­³ ¨­ ³§¤ £¤²¨¦­ ®¥ ³§¤ 0±¤²³®­ (®´²¤ ¨­ 2¨µ¤±§¤ £  ²  ­ ¤· ¬¯«¤ ®¥ «®¢ « ¶®±ª Ȩ²¤¤  ³³ ¢§¬¤­³ȩ  ­£ §®¶  ­¸ ­¤¶ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ¨² Ȭ²¨¢ȭ 3®´³§®«£ ¬¨¦§³ ¤µ¤­³´ ««¸ «®®ªȁ 7§¨«¤ ³§¤ ®±¨¦¨­ « 0±¤²³®­ ²³±´¢³´±¤ ¶ ² ³ ²³¤¥´««¸ ±¤²³®±¤£Ǿ   ¦« ²² ¡®· § µ¨­¦ ­®  ±¢§¨³¤¢³´± « ±¤« ³¨®­²§¨¯ ³® ³§¤ ®±¨¦¨­ « ²³±´¢³´±¤ ¶ ²  ££¤£ Ȩ) ¢ ­­®³ ¢®­¥¨±¬ ¨¥ ³§¨² ¶ ² ³§¤ architects £¤²¨¦­ ¨­³¤­³Ǿ ¡´³ )  ²²´¬¤ ²®  ² ¨³² ®­ ³§¤¨± ¶¤¡²¨³¤ȩȁ Response to Comment C24-9: The comment is noted. Comment C25-2: )­  ££¨³¨®­ ³® ³§¨² ¯±®¡«¤¬Ǿ ) ¡¤«¨¤µ¤ ³§ ³ ®´± «®¢ « ¡¤ ¢§¤²Ǿ ¶§¨¢§  ±¤  «±¤ £¸ ¡¤¨­¦ ¡´±£¤­¤£ ¡¸ µ¨²¨³®±²Ǿ ¶¨«« ¡¤¢®¬¤ ¬®±¤ ¢±®¶£¤£ ³§ ­ ³§¤¸  «±¤ £¸  ±¤ȁ !² ¨³ ¨²Ǿ ³§¤ ¯ ±ª¨­¦ «®³²  ³ &®´­£¤±² , ­£¨­¦ "¤ ¢§Ǿ 4®¶­ "¤ ¢§  ­£ '®®²¤ #±¤¤ª  ±¤  «¶ ¸² ¥´«« ®¥ ¯¤®¯«¤ ³§ ³ £®­͖³ § µ¤ ³§¤  ¯¯±®¯±¨ ³¤ ²³¨¢ª¤±² ®­ ³§¤¨± ¢ ±²ȁ Response to Comment C25-2: The comment is noted. Comment C25-3: )  «²® ¡¤«¨¤µ¤ ³§ ³ ³§¨² §®³¤«Ǿ ±¤²³ ´± ­³  ­£ ¯®®« ¶¨««  ££ ³® ³§¤ ¯®««´³¨®­ ®¥ ®´± ²¬ «« ³®¶­ ¡¸  ££¨­¦ ¬®±¤ ¢ ± ¥´¬¤²Ǿ ­®¨²¤Ǿ ±¤²³ ´± ­³ ¶ ²³¤Ǿ ¢¤²²¯®®« ¶ ²³¤Ǿ ¯®®« ¢§¤¬¨¢ «²  ­£ ¤·³±  ¶ ³¤± ´² ¦¤  ² ¶¤««  ² «¨¦§³ ¯®««´³¨®­ȁ Response to Comment C25-3: The comment is noted. Comment C28-2: 7¤Ǿ ³§¤ ±¤²¨£¤­³² ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ £® ­®³ ¡¤«¨¤µ¤  ­®³§¤± ±¤²³ ´± ­³ȝ§®³¤« ¨² ¶ ±± ­³¤£  ³ ³§¨² ³¨¬¤ ²¨­¢¤ ¸®´ ¢ ­ «®®ª  ±®´­£Ǿ ¤²¯¤¢¨ ««¸ ­¤·³ £®®± i.e. # ¢¨͖²Ǿ Γ’- ««¸²Ǿ  ­£ ²¤¤ ³§¤ ¡´²¨­¤²²¤²  ±¤ ²³±´¦¦«¨­¦ £´¤ ³® ³§¤ ®¡³ ¨­¨­¦ ²¤ ²®­ « ¤¬¯«®¸¬¤­³  ­£ ²¤ ²®­ « «®¢ « ¤¢®­®¬¸ȁ Response to Comment C28-2: The comment is noted. 104 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Comment C28-4: 7§ ³ ¨² ³§¤ ¯« ­ ³® ª¤¤¯ ³§¤ ³± ­²¨¤­³ ³¤­ ­³² ¥±®¬ ¤­³¤±¨­¦ &®´­£¤±² 4®¶­ "¤ ¢§Ȉ 7§ ³ ¨² ³§¤ ¯« ­ ³® ¢®­³±®« ³§¤  ££¨³¨®­ « 3®´³§®«£ "¤ ¢§ 0 ²²¤² ¥®± ³§¨² ¯±®¯®² «Ȉ 7¨«« ³§¤  ££¨³¨®­ « £ ¸ ¯ ²²¤² ±¤°´¨±¤ ³§¤ ³®¶­ ³®  ££  ££¨³¨®­ « ²³ ¥¥ £´¤ ³® ³§¤ ¨­¢±¤ ²¤ µ®«´¬¤ ®¥ ³§¨² ¯±®¯®² «  ­£ ²´¡²¤°´¤­³«¸ ¨­¢±¤ ²¨­¦ ³§¤ ±¤²¨£¤­³ ³ ·¤² ¥®±   ¯±®©¤¢³ ³§ ³ ±¤²¨£¤­³\[s\] £® ­®³ ²´¯¯®±t? Response to Comment C28-4: The proposed application includes a hotel and restaurant use. There are no transient tenants anticipated from the proposed action. Beach passes will be distributed to Town residents; however, there will be no increase in staff required as a result of the proposed development. Comment C28-6:7§ ³ ¨² ³§¤ ¯« ­ ³® ¢®­³±®«  ­£ ¤­¥®±¢¤ ³§¤ ¢®£¤ ¤­¥®±¢¤¬¤­³ ²¨­¢¤ ³§¤ £¤¯ ±³¬¤­³ § ² ³±®´¡«¤ ¤­¥®±¢¨­¦ ³§¤ ¯±¤²¤­³ ±¤°´¨±¤¬¤­³² £´¤ ³® ³§¤ µ®«´¬¤ ®¥ ¢®¬¯« ¨­³²Ȉ Response to Comment C28-6: Code Enforcement is a department of the Town of Southold, under the Supervision of the Office of the Town Attorney. Code Enforcement is not within the control of the ZBA nor the applicant. It should be noted, however, that during preparation of this FEIS, the applicant modified the project scope and site plan in coordination with the ZBA’s consultants. Of importance is the elimination of outdoor events from the project scope in response to potential noise impacts that may result from hosting outdoor events. Additionally, large events will be limited to no more than 10 large events per year and no more than one large event per week. Such large events do not meet the definition of “Special Events” pursuant to Chapter 205 (Public Entertainment and Special Events) of the Town Code and will not be regulated as such. Large events will also require advanced notice to the Town and arrangement for traffic control personnel. The changes to the proposed project and scope during preparation of this FEIS are outlined earlier in this document in Section 1.3. Comment C28-7: 7¤Ǿ ³§¤ ±¤²¨£¤­³²Ǿ  ¯¯±¤¢¨ ³¤ ³§¤ 3®´³§®«£ 4®¶­ :®­¨­¦ "® ±£ \[and\] ±¤©¤¢³ ³§¤ ¢§ ­¦¤ ¨­ ¹®­¨­¦  ­£ ª¤¤¯ ®´± ¯±¤²³¨¦¤ 3®´³§®«£ 4®¶­  ² ¨³ ¨² ª­®¶­ ¥®± ¶¨­¤ ¢®´­³±¸  ­£ ¥ ±¬¨­¦ȁ 4§¨² «®³ ¶ ² ®±¨¦¨­ ««¸ ¹®­¤£ ( ¬«¤³ "´²¨­¤²² ¥®±   ±¤ ²®­Ǿ #®¬¬¤±¢¨ «¨¹¨­¦ ³§¨² «®¢ ³¨®­ ¶¨«« ¥®±¤µ¤± ¢§ ­¦¤ 3®´³§®«£ǿ  ­£ ­®³ ¥®± ³§¤ ¡¤³³¤±ȁ - ¸¡¤   £¨¥¥¤±¤­³ «®¢ ³¨®­ ¶®´«£ ¡¤ ¡¤³³¤± ²´¨³¤£ ¥®± ³§¨² ¯±®©¤¢³. Response to Comment C28-7: It is noted that the purpose of the HB Zoning District, as excerpted from §280- 44, “\[t\]he purpose of the Hamlet Business (HB) District is to provide for business development in the hamlet central business areas, including retail, office and service uses, public and semipublic uses, as well as hotel and motel and multifamily residential development that will support and enhance the retail development and provide a focus for the hamlet area.” See also the Responses to Comments H5-8, C1-10, and C18-1 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS. Comment C29-2: 7¤Ǿ ³§¤ ±¤²¨£¤­³² ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ £® ­®³ ¡¤«¨¤µ¤  ­®³§¤± ±¤²³ ´± ­³ȝ§®³¤« ¨² ¶ ±± ­³¤£  ³ ³§¨² ³¨¬¤ ²¨­¢¤ ¸®´ ¢ ­ «®®ª  ±®´­£Ǿ ¤²¯¤¢¨ ««¸ ­¤·³ £®®± ¨ȁ¤ȁ # ¢i’²Ǿ /͖- ««¸²Ǿ  ­£ ²¤¤ ³§¤ ¡´²¨­¤²²¤²  ±¤ ²³±´¦¦«¨­¦ £´¤ ³® the ®¡³ ¨­¨­¦ ²¤ ²®­ « ¤¬¯«®¸¬¤­³  ­£ ²¤ ²®­ « «®¢ « ¤¢®­®¬¸ȁ Response to Comment C29-2: The comment is noted. Comment C29-4: 7§ ³ ¨² ³§¤ ¯« ­ ³® ª¤¤¯ ³§¤ ³± ­²¨¤­³ ³¤­ ­³² ¥±®¬ ¤­³¤±¨­¦ &®´­£¤±² 4®¶­ "¤ ¢§Ȉ 7§ ³ ¨² ³§¤ ¯« ­ ³® ¢®­³±®« ³§¤  ££¨³¨®­ « 3®´³§®«£ "¤ ¢§ 0 ²²¤² ¥®± ³§¨² ¯±®¯®² «Ȉ 7¨«« ³§¤  ££¨³¨®­ « £ ¸ ¯ ²²¤² ±¤°´¨±¤ ³§¤ 105 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ³®¶­ ³®  ££  ££¨³¨®­ « ²³ ¥¥ £´¤ ³® ³§¤ ¨­¢±¤ ²¤ µ®«´¬¤ ®¥ ³§¨² ¯±®¯®² «  ­£ ²´¡²¤°´¤­³«¸ ¨­¢±¤ ²¨­¦ ³§¤ ±¤²¨£¤­³ ³ ·¤² ¥®±   ¯±®©¤¢³ ³§ ³ ±¤²¨£¤­³\[s\] £® ­®³ ²´¯¯®±³Ȉ Response to Comment C29-4: See Response to Comment C28-4 above. Comment C29-6: 7§ ³ ¨² ³§¤ ¯« ­ ³® ¢®­³±®«  ­£ ¤­¥®±¢¤ ³§¤ ¢®£¤ ¤­¥®±¢¤¬¤­³ ²¨­¢¤ ³§¤ £¤¯ ±³¬¤­³ § ² ³±®´¡«¤ ¤­¥®±¢¨­¦ ³§¤ ¯±¤²¤­³ ±¤°´¨±¤¬¤­³² £´¤ ³® ³§¤ µ®«´¬¤ ®¥ ¢®¬¯« ¨­³²Ȉ Response to Comment C29-6: See Response to Comment C28-7 above and Response to Comment C2-22 in Section 2.3.1 of this FEIS. Comment C29-7: 7¤Ǿ ³§¤ ±¤²¨£¤­³²Ǿ  ¯¯±¤¢¨ ³¤ ³§¤ 3®´³§®«£ 4®¶­ :®­¨­¦ "® ±£ ±¤©¤¢³ ³§¤ ¢§ ­¦¤ ¨­ ¹®­¨­¦  ­£ ª¤¤¯ ®´± ¯±¤²³¨¦¤ 3®´³§®«£ 4®¶­  ² ¨³ ¨² ª­®¶­ ¥®± ¶¨­¤ ¢®´­³±¸  ­£ ¥ ±¬¨­¦ȁ 4§¨² «®³ ¶ ² ®±¨¦¨­ ««¸ ¹®­¤£ ( ¬«¤³ "´²¨­¤²² ¥®±   ±¤ ²®­Ǿ #®¬¬¤±¢¨ «¨¹¨­¦ ³§¨² «®¢ ³¨®­ ¶¨«« ¥®±¤µ¤± ¢§ ­¦¤ 3®´³§®«£ǿ  ­£ ­®³ ¥®± ³§¤ ¡¤³³¤±ȁ - ¸¡¤   £¨¥¥¤±¤­³ «®¢ ³¨®­ ¶®´«£ ¡¤ ¡¤³³¤± ²´¨³¤£ ¥®± ³§¨² ¯±®©¤¢³. Response to Comment C29-7: See Response to Comment C28-7 above. Comment C30-4: , ²³«¸Ǿ ³§¤±¤ ¨²  «±¤ £¸   µ¤±¸ ²¢ ±¢¤ « ¡®± ¥®±¢¤ ³® ²¤±µ¨¢¤ ³§¤ ¤·¨²³¨­¦ ²¬ «« ¡´²¨­¤²²¤² ®­ ³§¤ .®±³§ &®±ªȁ , ¢ª ®¥   ¢®¬¬¨³¬¤­³ ³® ¯±®µ¨£¨­¦  ¥¥®±£ ¡«¤ §®´²¨­¦ ¡¸ ®´± «®¢ « ¦®µ¤±­¬¤­³ § ² ¢®­³±¨¡´³¤£ ³® ³§¨² ¥ ¢³ȁ !««®¶¨­¦ ³§¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ®¥   ¯±®©¤¢³ ³§¤ ²¨¹¤ ®¥ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤ ¶¨«« ¯´³ ¤­®±¬®´² ²³± ¨­ ®­ ³§¤  «±¤ £¸ «¨¬¨³¤£ ¶®±ª¥®±¢¤ ¶§¨¢§ ¨­ ³´±­ ¶¨«« ­¤¦ ³¨µ¤«¸ ¨¬¯ ¢³ ³§¤ ¤·¨²³¨­¦ ³ · ¯ ¸¨­¦ ¡´²¨­¤²²¤² ³§ ³ ²¤±µ¨¢¤ ®´± community. Response to Comment C30-4: See Response to Comment H1-7 in Section 2.3.14. Additionally, the Enclave Hotel project will be a tax benefit to the Town, as more fully set-forth in the Applicant’s DEIS submission. Comment C31-2: )­ ±¤µ¨¤¶¨­¦ ³§¤ ¯« ­² ¥®± ³§¨² £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ) ²¤¤ ³§¤ ®µ¤± ±¢§¨­¦  ­£ ®­«¸ ±¤ ²®­ ¥®± ³§¤ ±¤°´¤²³¤£ µ ±¨ ­¢¤ ³®  ««®¶ ³§¤ ²¨¹¤  ­£ ²¢ «¤ ®¥ ²´¢§   ¯±®©¤¢³ ³® ¡¤ ³® ¬ ·¨¬¨¹¤ ¯±®¥¨³ȁ )³ ¨² ¯®²²¨¡«¤ ¥®± ¡´²¨­¤²²¤² ³® ¢§®®²¤ ³® «®¢ ³¤ ¨­ ³§¨² ³®¶­ ¶¨³§®´³ ¬®­¤¸ ¡¤¨­¦ ³§¤ ¯±¨¬¤ ¢®­²¨£¤± ³¨®­ȁ ! "¤£  ­£ "±¤ ª¥ ²³ )­­ ²´¢§  ² ¬¨­¤ ¨² ­®³ ¬´¢§ ®¥   ¬®­¤¸ ¬ ª¤±Ǿ ¨­ ¥ ¢³ ¶¨³§®´³ ²´¯¯«¤¬¤­³ « ¨­¢®¬¤ ¥±®¬ ®³§¤± ¡´²¨­¤²² µ¤­³´±¤²Ǿ ¶®´«£ § ±£«¸ ¡±¤ ª ¤µ¤­ȁ "´³ ³§¤ ¯ ¸-®¥¥ ¨² ³§¤ «¨¥¤ ) ¢ ­ ¤­©®¸ ¨­ ³§¨² ¡´¢®«¨¢ .¤¶ %­¦« ­£  ±¤   ­£ 3®´³§®«£ ( ¬«¤³ ¨­ particular. ) ¶®±±¸ ³§ ³ ³§¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¤±² ¢´±±¤­³«¸ ¬®µ¨­¦ ¨­³® ®´±  ±¤   ­£ ¡´¸¨­¦ ´¯ ¶§ ³¤µ¤± ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ³§¤¸ ¢ ­  ±¤ ¨­ ³§¤ ¡´²¨­¤²² ®¥ ¯±®¥¨³ ®­«¸ȁ ) ­®³¨¢¤ ³§ ³ ¬ ­¸ ®¥ ³§¤²¤ ²¯¤¢´« ³®±²  ±¤ ¬¨¦± ³¨­¦ ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ( ¬¯³®­² ¶§¤±¤ ®¯¯®±³´­¨³¨¤² ¥®± £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³  ±¤ «¤²²  ³³± ¢³¨µ¤ ³§ ­ ¥®±¬¤±«¸ȁ 4§¤ 3®´³§ &®±ª ¨² ®µ¤± ¡´¨«³Ǿ ¬ ­¸ ±¤³ ¨« ¯±®¯¤±³¨¤² ¨­ ³§¤ µ¨«« ¦¤²  ­£ ³®¶­² ³§¤±¤ ¶¤±¤ ¤¬¯³¸ « ²³ ²´¬¬¤±Ǿ ±¤ « ¤²³ ³¤ ¯±¨¢¤²  ±¤ ¥ ««¨­¦Ǿ ¯ ±³«¸ £´¤ ³®   ±¤²¨²³ ­¢¤ ³® «¨µ¨­¦ ³§¤±¤ £´¤ ³® ³§¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¨²²´¤² ¢ ´²¤£ ¡¸ ®µ¤± £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ȁ )¥ ¶¤  ««®¶ ³§¤ ² ¬¤ ¦±¤¤£¸ ¬®³¨µ¤² ³® ¥ ²§¨®­ ³§¤ ¦±®¶³§ ®¥ ³§¤ .®±³§ &®±ª ¶¤ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¨­ ³§¤ ² ¬¤ ¡® ³  ­£  ±¤ ¨­ £ ­¦¤± ®¥ £¤²³±®¸¨­¦ ³§¤ µ¤±¸  ³³±¨¡´³¤² ³§ ³ ¨­¥«´¤­¢¤£ ¬®²³ ®¥ ´² ³® ¢§®®²¤ ³® «¨µ¤ §¤±¤ ¨­ ³§¤ ¥¨±²³ ¯« ¢¤ȁ 4§¤ ¡´²¨­¤²² ¦±®´¯²  ­£ £¤µ¤«®¯¤±² ­®¶ ¡´¸¨­¦ ´¯ µ ¢ ­³ ¯±®¯¤±³¸  ­£ ¯« ­­¨­¦ « ±¦¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³² ®­ ³§¤ .®±³§ &®±ª § µ¤ ¬®µ¤£ ®­ ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ( ¬¯³®­²ȁ .®¶ ¨³ ²¤¤¬²Ǿ ³§¤¸  ±¤ ³±¸¨­¦ ³® ( ¬¯³®­-¨²¤ ´²ȁ Response to Comment C31-2: The proposed application does not include a request for variance. The proposed application complies with all bulk and dimensional requirements of the prevailing zoning district. It is noted that the proposed hotel is a use that is subject to additional criteria (i.e., Special Exception Use permit criteria 106 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ set forth in §280-142 and §280-143). See Appendix I, Responses to Comments C1-19 and C18-1 in Section 2.3.1 and Response to Comment C17-5 in Section 2.3.6 of this FEIS. Comment C31-5: , ²³«¸ ) § µ¤ ³®  ²ª ¶§¸   ³®¶­ ³§ ³ § ² ¤­ ¢³¤£ ²´¢§ ²¤µ¤±¤ ±¤²³±¨¢³¨®­² ®­ ¯±¨µ ³¤ §®¬¤®¶­¤±² ¶§® ­¤¤£ ³® ±¤­³ ®´³ ³§¤¨± §®´²¤² ³® ²´¯¯«¤¬¤­³ ³§¤¨± ¨­¢®¬¤²  ­£  ¥¥®±£ ³ ·¤²  ­£ ­¤¢¤²² ±¸ ±¤¯ ¨±²Ǿ ¶®´«£ ¢®­²¨£¤± ³§¨² ¯±®©¤¢³   ¡¤³³¤± ®¯³¨®­ ¨¥ ³§¤ ¨£¤  ¨² ³® ¯±®µ¨£¤ «®£¦¨­¦ ¥®± µ¨²¨³®±²  ­£ ³®´±¨²³²Ǿ  ­£ ¨­¢±¤ ²¤£ ¢´²³®¬¤±² ¥®± ³§¤ ¡´²¨­¤²² ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ȁ 3§®±³ ³¤±¬ ±¤­³¤±² ¶¤±¤  ­ ¨¬¯®±³ ­³ ¤¢®­®¬¨¢ £±¨µ¤± ¥®± ®´± ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸  ­£ ²³®±¤² ²´¢§  ² ³§¤ )'! ¨­ 3®´³§®«£ ¶¨«« ³¤«« ¸®´ ³§ ³ ³§¤¨±  ­­´ « µ®«´¬¤ ³§¤ ¸¤ ± ¥®««®¶¨­¦ ³§¤ ΕΓΔΘ ²§®±³ ³¤±¬ ±¤­³ « « ¶ ¶ ² ±¤£´¢¤£ ¡¸ ΕΘωȁ Response to Comment C31-5:The proposed application includes a hotel, which is a permitted use subject to a special exception use permit from the ZBA and an analysis of the proposed plan is included in Appendix I of this FEIS. The proposed hotel use also meets the purpose of the HB Zoning District, which is to “provide for business development in the hamlet central business areas, including retail, office and service uses, public and semipublic uses, as well as hotel and motel and multifamily residential development that will support and enhance the retail development and provide a focus for the hamlet area.” Comment C31-6: 4§¤ « ³¤²³ ¨³¤± ³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤²¤ ±¤¦´« ³¨®­² ±¤¦ ±£¨­¦ ²¨­¦«¤ ¥ ¬¨«¸ §®¬¤² ­®¶ ¯´³² ²´¢§  ­ ®­¤±®´² ¡´±£¤­ ®­ « ­£«®±£² ³§ ³ ¨³ ¨² «¨ª¤«¸ ³® ²¤µ¤±¤«¸ ±¤£´¢¤ ³§¤  ¬®´­³ ®¥  ¥¥®±£ ¡«¤ ±¤­³ «² ¨­ 3®´³§®«£ 4®¶­ȁ 4§¤ ³®¶­ ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ¢®­¢¤±­¤£ ®­ §®¶ ³® ¡¤³³¤± ¬ ­ ¦¤ ®´± ­¤¤£² ¥®±  ¥¥®±£ ¡«¤ §®´²¨­¦  ­£ ²´²³ ¨­ ¡«¤ ¤¢®­®¬¨¢ ¦±®¶³§  ­£ ±¤©¤¢³ ²´¢§  ­ ®´³ ®¥ ²¢ «¤  ­£ ´­²´¨³ ¡«¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ¨­ ®´± ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸Ǿ ¶§¨¢§ ¬¤¤³² ­®­¤ ®¥ ³§¤²¤ £¤²¨± ¡«¤ ²tandards. Response to Comment C31-6: The proposed application and this FEIS considers the proposed development of a hotel and restaurant use at 56655 Main Road. Comment C33-8: …w¤ ¥¤¤« ³§ ³ ³he ¨­³¤­²¨³¸ ®¥ ´²¤ ¡¤¨­¦ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¥®± ³§¨² ¯±®¯¤±³¸ § ² ³§¤ ¯®³¤­³¨ « ³® ¯¤±¬ ­¤­³«¸  «³¤± ³§¤ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ¢§ ± ¢³¤± ®¥ 3®´³§®«£ ( ¬«¤³  ­£ 3®´³§®«£ 4®¶­ ¶§¨«¤ ­¤¦ ³¨µ¤«¸ ¨¬¯ ¢³¨­¦ ­ ³´± « ±¤²®´±¢¤² ¨­  ­ ¤·¢¤²²¨µ¤ ¶ ¸ȁ Response to Comment C33-8: The impacts to community character and natural resources were evaluated in the DEIS and in this FEIS, and are being considered by the ZBA as part of the special exception use permit. Comment C34-1: - ­¸ § µ¤ ¶±¨³³¤­ ³® ¸®´ ¨­ ±¤²¯®­²¤ ³® ¸®´± ±¤°´¤²³ ¥®± ¯´¡«¨¢ ¢®¬¬¤­³ ®­ ͗4§¤ %­¢« µ¤͗ ¯±®©¤¢³͖² ±¤°´¤²³ ¥®± ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤·¢¤¯³¨®­ȁ 3®¬¤ § µ¤  ¯¯±® ¢§¤£ ³§¤ ¬ ³³¤± ¥±®¬   «¤¦ « ²³ ­£¯®¨­³Ǿ ®± ¥±®¬  ­ ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « ²³ ­£¯®¨­³ȁ ) ²§ «« ­®³ ±¤¯¤ ³ ³§¤¨± ¢« ¨¬² ¤·¢¤¯³ ³®  ¦±¤¤ ¶¨³§ ³§¤¬ȁ ) ¶±¨³¤ ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ²³ ­£¯®¨­³ ®¥   ±¤²¨£¤­³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£ȁ 3§®´«£ ³§¨² ¯±®©¤¢³ ¡¤ ¯¤±¬¨³³¤£  ¢¢®±£¨­¦ ³® ³§¤ ¯« ­²  ² ³§¤¸ § µ¤ ¡¤¤­ ±¤µ¤ «¤£Ǿ ¶¤ ¶¨«« ¤­³¤± ´¯®­   ȏS«¨¯¯¤±¸ 3«®¯¤Ȑ ³§ ³ ¶¨«« ¨­£¤«¨¡«¸  ¥¥¤¢³ ³§¤ §´¬ ­ ¢§ ± ¢³¤± ®¥ ®´± § ¬«¤³ȁ 0«¤ ²¤ ¢®¬¤ ³® «¨µ¤  ­£ µ¨²¨³ §¤±¤ ¡¤¢ ´²¤ ¨³ £®¤² ­®³ «®®ª ©´²³ «¨ª¤ - ­§ ³³ ­Ǿ 1´¤¤­  ­£ . ²² ´ #®´­³¨¤²ȁ 4§¤¸ ¢§®®²¤ ³§¤ .®±³§ &®±ª ³® ³§¤ 3®´³§ ¡¤¢ ´²¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢Ǿ  «³§®´¦§ ¡´²¨¤± ¨­ ³§¤ ²´¬¬¤±Ǿ ¨² ­®³  ² ¯ ± «¸¹¨­¦ǿ  ­£ ±¤­³²  ­£ ¯±¨¢¤²  ±¤ ­®³  ² ®´³« ­£¨²§ȁ Response to Comment C34-1: The comment is noted. 107 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Comment C34-2: 4§¤ µ¤±¸ ­ ³´±¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®©¤¢³ ¯±¤²¤­³¤£ ¨­ ³§¤¨± ¯« ­² ¨² ³® ³ ª¤  ­ ¤·¨²³¨­¦Ǿ µ¤±¸  ¯¯±®¯±¨ ³¤ §¨²³®±¨¢ §®´²¤ ¶§¨¢§ ´²¤£ ³® ¡¤   ȏ"¤£  ­£ "±¤ ª¥ ²³Ȑ ¡´²¨­¤²²Ǿ  ­£ §¨£¤ ¡¤§¨­£ ¨³   ΗΗ ±®®¬ ΙΔǾΓΓΓ S°ȁ ¥³ȁ §®³¤«Ǿ ¶¨³§  ¢¢®¬¯ ­¸¨­¦ ¢ ¡¨­²Ǿ ¯®®«Ǿ ²¯ Ǿ ¢ ¥ÎǾ ¢®­¥¤±¤­¢¤ ±®®¬²Ǿ  ­£ µ¤± ­£ Ǿ  ­£ ΔΕΖ ¯ ±ª¨­¦ ²¯ ¢¤²ȁ )­  ££¨³¨®­\[,\] Λ to ΔΕ ¤µ¤­³²ȝ¶¤££¨­¦²ȝ¢®­¥¤±¤­¢¤² ¶¨«« ¡¤ ²¢§¤£´«¤£ ¤ ¢§ ¸¤ ± ¡±¨­¦¨­¦ ¨­ ­®­ §®³¤« ¦´¤²³²ȁ -´²¨¢ ¨² ¯« ­­¤£ ¥±®¬ ¬®±­¨­¦ ´­³¨« ¤µ¤­¨­¦ȁ Response to Comment C34-2: The impacts of the proposed development on soils, topography, water resources, ecological resources, land use, zoning, land use plans, transportation (including parking), aesthetic resources, community character, noise, odor, historic resources, archaeological resources, and human health and safety were evaluated in the DEIS and are being considered by the ZBA. It should be noted that during preparation of this FEIS, the applicant modified the proposed plan to eliminate outdoor events (see Section 1.3 of this FEIS) and has evaluated the cumulative noise impact from all noise sources (see Response to Comment C1-8 in Section 2.3.1 and the revised Acoustic Report in Appendix F). Comment C35-1: 4§¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ¨² ®´³ ®¥ ¢§ ± ¢³¤± ³® ³§¤ £®¶­³®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£ ¶¨³§ ³§ ³ ¶¨«« § µ¤  ­ ¨¬¯ ¢³ ³® ³§¨²  ±¤ Ǿ ¨­ ³§¤ °´ «¨³¸ ®¥ «¨¥¤  ­£ ³± ¥¥¨¢ȁ Response to Comment C35-1: The comment is noted. See Response to Comment C34-2 above, as well as Sections 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.4, and 2.3.5 of this FEIS. Comment C35-3: ! ±¤¯±¤²¤­³ ³¨µ¤  ¦¤­³ ®¥ $®´¦« ² %««¨¬ ­ ±¤¯±¤²¤­³¨­¦ ³§¤ ®¶­¤± -±ȁ 4¨¡¤³³ § ² ®­ Ε ®¢¢ ²¨®­² ¬ £¤  ­ ®¥¥¤± ®­ ¡¤§ «¥ ®¥ ³§¤ ®¶­¤± ³® ¯´±¢§ ²¤ ®´± §®¬¤ȁ 7¤  ±¤ ¥´±³§¤±Ǿ ¢®­¢¤±­¤£ ­®¶ ³§ ³ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ³® ¬¸ ¤ ²³Ǿ ΘΙΓΓΘ ¬ ¨­ ±® £Ǿ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 ¢´±±¤­³«¸ ¹®­¤£ R-ΛΓ   «®¶ £¤­¨²³¸ \[sic\] ±¤²¨£¤­³¨ «  ­£  ¦±¨¢´«³´± « ¶ ² ±¤¢¤­³«¸ ¯´±¢§ ²¤£ ¡¸ *®­ ³§ ­ 4¨¡¤³³ ®­ ΕȝΔΜȝΔΜ ¨² ΘȁΚ  ¢±¤² Δ  ¢±¤ ¥±®­³ ±¤²¨£¤­³¨ «ǿ ¬¨­¨¬´¬ Ε  ¢±¤ «®³ȁ )³ ¨² unkown \[sic\] ¦®¨­¦ ¥®±¶ ±£ ¶¨«« h¤  ¯¯«¸ ¥®±   ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤·¢¤¯³¨®­ ¥®± §¨² ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ³®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£ ¹®­¨¦ \[sic\] ¡® ±£ ®¥  ¯¯¤ «²ȁ '«¤­ (¤¨£³¬ ­Ǿ ¢®­²³±´¢³¨®­ ¢®¬¯ ­¸ «¨µ¨­¦ ¨­ 3®´³§®«£ ¥®± ®µ¤± ΗΓ ¸¤ ±² ±¤¢¤­³«¸ £¤¬®«¨²§¤£  ­£ ±¤¡´¨«³ ³§¤ ¡ ±­  ¯¯¤ ±¨­¦ ³® ¡¤ ²®¬¤³§¨­¦ ¬®±¤ ³§ ­   ¡ ±­ ­®¶ ³§ ³ ¨² ¨³ ­¤ ± ¢®¬¯«¤³¨®­  ­£ ¢®²¬¤³¨¢ ««¸ ¬ £¤ ¬¨­®± ¨¬¯±®µ¤¬¤­³ ³® ¥ ²¢ £¤ Ȭ²¨¢ȭ ®¥ §®¬¤ȁ 7§ ³  ±¤ ³§¤ ¯« ­² ¥®± ³§¨² ²¨³¤Ȉ (®¶ ¶¨«« ³§¨²  ¥¥¤¢³ ¬¸ ¯±®¯¤±³¸  ­£ °´ «¨³¸ ®¥ «¨¥¤Ȉ 3¨­¢¤Ǿ -±ȁ (¤¨£³¬ ­  ­£ -±ȁ 4¨¡¤³³  ±¤ ¯ ±³­¤±² ¨­ ³§¤ ±¤¢¤­³«¸ ±¤²³®±¤£ ¥®±¬¤± R®³§¬ ­Ȍ² ®­ - ¨­ 2® £ ³® %¨­²³¤¨­ 3°´ ±¤ «¤ µ¤² ´² ¶¨³§  ££¨³¨®­ « ¢®­¢¤±­ ®­ ¶§ ³ ³§¤¨± ¨­³¤­³¨®­²  ±¤ – ¶¨«« ¶¤ ¡¤ ² ­£¶¨¢§¤£ ¡¤³¶¤¤­ ³§¤²¤ Ε ¢®¬¬¤±¨¢ « Ȭ²¨¢ȭ ¯±®¯¤±³¨¤²Ȉ 4§¨² ´­ª­®¶­ «¤­£² ³® ¤µ¤­ ¦±¤ ³¤± opposition. Response to Comment C35-3: See Response to Comment H5-2 above. Comment C36-1: )³ ¨² ¶¨³§ ¦±¤ ³ ¢®­¢¤±­ ³§ ³ ¶¤ ®¥¥¤± ³§¨² «¤³³¤± ¥®± ¸®´± ¢®­²¨£¤± ³¨®­ ±¤¦ ±£¨­¦ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ §®³¤«  ­£ ±¤²³ ´± ­³  ³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ 3®´³§®«£ .9ȁ 4§¤ .®±³§ &®±ª ¨²   ¯« ¢¤ ®¥ ¦±¤ ³ ¢§ ±¬  ­£ ¢§ ± ¢³¤±Ǿ ®­¤ ³§ ³ ¶¤ §®¯¤ ¨² ­®³ ¢®¬¯±®¬¨²¤£ȁ !¥³¤± ±¤µ¨¤¶¨­¦ ³§¤ £®¢´¬¤­³ ³¨®­ ²´¡¬¨³³¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ­³Ǿ ¨³ § ² ¢®¬¤ ³® ®´±  ³³¤­³¨®­ ³§ ³ ³§¨² ¯±®©¤¢³ ¨² ¤­®±¬®´²  ­£ ®µ¤±¡¤ ±¨­¦  ­£ ­®³ ¢®­²¨²³¤­³ ¶¨³§ ¢´±±¤­³ ¹®­¨­¦ « ¶ȁ 7¤ ¡¤«¨¤µ¤Ǿ ³§ ³ ³§¤ ¯±¤²¤­³ ¹®­¨­¦ ¶ ² ®±¨¦¨­ ««¸ ¤²³ ¡«¨²§¤£ ³® ±¤³ ¨­   ² ¥¤  ­£ ¯¤ ¢¤¥´« «¨¥¤²³¸«¤ ¥®± ¨³² ±¤²¨£¤­³²  ­£ ²´±±®´­£¨­¦ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ȁ Response to Comment C36-1: See Response to Comment C1-10 in Section 2.3.1 and Response to Comment C31- 2 in this section. 108 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Comment C37-1: 4§¨² ¯±®©¤¢³ ¢ ««¤£ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤ ¨² ¤·¢¤¯³¨®­ «\[ly\] « ±¦¤  ­£ ¶¨«« § µ¤   ­¤¦ ³¨µ¤ ¤¥¥¤¢³ ®­ ®´± ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ȁ 4§¤ ²¨¹¤ ¨² ®´³ ®¥ «¨­¤ ¥®± ®´± ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ȁ 4§¤±¤  ±¤ ¬ ­¸ ¨­ ®´± ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ¶§® §ave ¡¤¤­ ¶®±ª¨­¦ µ¤±¸ § ±£ ³® ª¤¤¯ ®´± ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ¶¨³§ ³§ ³ ²¬ «« ³®¶­ ¥¤¤«¨­¦ȁ 4§¤ ¬ ©®±¨³¸ ®¥ ®ur ­¤¨¦§¡®±² ¥¤¤« ³§¤ ² ¬¤ ¶ ¸ȁ Response to Comment C37-1:See Response to Comment C33-8 in this section. Comment C41-3: 3¤³³¨­¦   ¯±¤¢¤£¤­³ ¥®± ¥´³´±¤ ¯±®©¤¢³² ³® ¯±®³¤¢³  ­£ ¯±¤²¤±µ¤ ®´± ³®¶­ȁ ( µ¨­¦ ¡¤¤­ ¨­ ³§¤ §®²¯¨³ «¨³¸ ¡¤£  ­£ ¡±¤ ª¥ ²³ ¡´²¨­¤²² ¥®± Λ ¸¤ ±²Ǿ ¶¤ ¶¤«¢®¬¤£ µ¨²¨³®±² ¥±®¬  «« ®µ¤± ³§¤ ¢®´­³±¸  ­£  ¡±® £ȁ 7§¤­ ¶¤  ²ª¤£ ¶§ ³ \[sic\] ³§¤¸ ¢§®²¤ ³§¤ .®±³§ &®±ªǾ ²¯¤¢¨¥¨¢ ««¸ ³§¤ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ ³§¤  ­²¶¤± ¶ ² ³§¤ °´ ¨­³­¤²² ®¥   ±´± «  ±¤  ®¥¥¤±¨­¦ ¥ ±¬²Ǿ  °´ ¢´«³´±¤Ǿ ²¬ «« ¬®¬  ­£ ¯®¯ ¡´²¨­¤²²  ­£ ³§¤ §®²¯¨³ «¨³¸ ®¥ ³§¤ «®¢ « ¯¤®¯«¤ȁ )³ ¶ ² ³§¤ ¢§ ±¬ȁ 7§¸ ¶®´«£ ¶¤  ²   ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ¶ ­³ ³® «®®²¤ Ȭ²¨¢ȭ that? Response to Comment C41-3: See Response to Comment C33-8 in this section. Comment C41-9: ' ² ¬®± ³®±¨´¬Ȉ .® ­¤¶ ²¤±µ¨¢¤ §®®ª ´¯ Response to Comment C41-9: The gas moratorium has been lifted and applications will be made to National Grid for gas service. Comment C41-13: "¤ ¢§  ¢¢¤²² ®¥¥ ( ±¡®± 4®¶­ 2® £  ­£ &®´­£¤±² "¤ ¢§ȁ ΗΗ ±®®¬² ¨²  ­ ¤²³¨¬ ³¤ ®¥  ¡®´³ ΔΓΓ ¯¤®¯«¤ ´²¨­¦ ³§®²¤ ¡¤ ¢§¤² ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ neighborsȁ ¶¨«« ³§¤¸  «« § µ¤ ¡¤ ¢§ ¯ ²²¤²Ȉ 4§¤ ®­¤² ³§ ³ £¤¢¨£¤£ ³® ²³±®«« ³® ³§¤ ¡¤ ¢§ ¶¨«« £® ²®  ­£ ³§ ³ ¬¤ ­² ²³ ­£¨­¦ ±®®¬ ®­«¸ȁȁ ­®³ ¯«¤ ² ­³ ¥®±  ­¸®­¤ȁ .¤¶ Suffolk  «±¤ £¸ ¨² ¤·¯¤±¨¤­¢¨­¦ § µ¤ ³§¤ ¶ «ª ¨­ ¯±®¡«¤¬  ­£ ¶¤ £®­Ȍ³ § µ¤   §®³¤«  ­£ ³§¤¸  ±¤ ¯ ±ª¨­¦ ¤µ¤±¸¶§¤±¤  ­£ anywhere. Response to Comment C41-13: See Response to C10-2 in Section 2.3.6 of this FEIS. Comment C42-4: )­  ££¨³¨®­ ³® ³§¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¢®­¢¤±­Ǿ ¶¤͖£ «¨ª¤ ³® ª­®¶ §®¶ ³§¤ ³®¶­ ¯« ­² ³®  ££±¤²² ³§¤ ¨²²´¤ ®¥  ¢¢¤²² ³® ³§¤ ¡¤ ¢§¤²  ³ ³§¤ ¤­£ ®¥ 4®¶­ ( ±¡®± , ­¤  ­£ &®´­£¤±² , ­£¨­¦ȁ 3¨­¢¤ ³§¤ §®³¤« ¶¨«« ¡¤ «®¢ ³¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ ²¯¤¢¨ « ¯ ±ª £¨²³±¨¢³Ǿ ¶¨«« ¦´¤²³² ¡¤  ««®¶¤£ ³® ¬¤±¤«¸ ¢±®²² ³§¤ ²³±¤¤³  ­£ ¶ «ª £®¶­ 4®¶­ ( ±¡®± ®± ¢®­³¨­´¤ £®¶­ ³§¤ ¡¤ ¢§ ³® &®´­£¤±²Ȉ 7¨«« ³§¤¸ ¡¤  ««®¶¤£ ³® ¢¨±¢´¬µ¤­³ ³§¤ ²³¨¢ª¤± ±¤°´¨±¤¬¤­³  ­£ ¯ ±ª ®­ ³§¤ ²¨£¤ ±® £²Ȉ /´± ³¨­¸ ²«¨µ¤± ®¥ 4®¶­ ( ±¡®± ¡¤ ¢§ § ²  «±¤ £¸ ²¤¤­   £± ¬ ³¨¢ ¨­¢±¤ s¤ ¨­ ¡¤ ¢§ £¶¤««¤±² ®µ¤± ³§¤ ¯ ²³ ¥¤¶ ¸¤ ±²ȁ 6 ¢ ³¨®­¤±²  ±¤ ²¯¨««¨­¦ ®­³® ¯±¨µ ³¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ³® ³§¤ ¤ ²³  ­£ ¶¤²³ ®¥ ³§¤ ²³¨¯´« ³¤£ ³®¶­ ¡¤ ¢§  ±¤ ȁ Response to Comment C42-4: See Responses to Comments C10-2 in Section 2.3.6 of this FEIS and C41-13 in this section. Comment C42-8: ! ¯« ­ ³®  ££±¤²² ³§¤ ¡¤ ¢§  ¢¢¤²² ³® 4®¶­ ( ±¡®± , ­¤  ­£ &®´­£¤±² , ­£¨­¦  ² ¨³ ±¤« ³¤s ³® ³§¤ §®³¤« ¦´¤²³²ȁ Response to Comment C42-8: See Responses to Comments C10-2 in Section 2.3.6 of this FEIS and C41-13 in this section. 109 Final %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « )¬¯ ¢³ 3³ ³¤¬¤­³ 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² – 0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΘΙΙΘΘ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΓǾ 2¤µȁ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΕΓΕΓǾ !¯±¨« ΕΓΕΔǾ - ¸ ΕΓΕΔǾ *´«¸ ΕΓΕΔ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ΒȁΏ REFERENCES Edinger GJ, DJ Evans, S Gebauer, TG Howard, DM Hunt, and AM Olivero (eds.). 2014. Ecological Communities of New York State. Second Edition. A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's Ecological Communities of New York State. (Draft for review). New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The SEQR Handbook. Fourth Edition (Draft). 2019. New York Flora Association. 2020. New York Flora Atlas. Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) Species Page. Available online at: http://www.newyork.plantatlas.usf.edu/Plant.aspx?id=2485. Website accessed on February 10, 2020. Town of Southold. 2019. Town of Southold Comprehensive Plan. Vol. 1. Available online at: https://www.southoldtownny.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7294/Southold_Town_Comprehensive_P lan_July_2019 United States Environmental Protection Agency (1977). 3¯¤¤¢§ ,¤µ¤«² ¨­ 6 ±¨®´² .®¨²¤ %­µ¨±®­¬¤­³²ȁ Karl S. Pearsons, Ricarda L. Bennett, Sanford Fidell. Available online at: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/P100CWGS.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index =1976+Thru+1980&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&To cEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQ uery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C76thru80%5CTxt%5C00000021%5CP100CW GS.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C- &MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Displa y=hpfr&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&Max imumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL. Website accessed on February 18, 2020. 110 APPENDIX A TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Southold Town Hall Southold, New York November 7, 2019 5:08 PM. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN -Chairperson/Member PATRICIA ACAMPORAMember ERIC DANTES Member ROBERT LEHNERTMember NICHOLAS PLANAMENTOMember KIM FUENTESBoard Assistant WILLIAM DUFFY TownAttorney -Environmental Consultant, Nelson, Pope & Voorhis November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing HEARING # 7046 THE ENCLAVES HOTELAND RESTAURANT (Request for Special Exception and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) nt everybody to understand doing this evening. That will be followed by a presentation by the applicant and then your request for Special Exception Permit and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) prepared for t The project is 6.75 acres and is located on the north side of Main Rd. +/-90 feet west of the intersection of Main Rd. and Town Harbor Lane. The property address is 56655 MainRd. in Southold. Plans include the conversion of an existing two story home into a 74 seat restaurant and construction of a 44 unit hotel including four detached cottages upon a parcel locatedat the address I just read particularly known as Suffolk County tax map #1000-63-3-15. Normally I have plenty of time for all of your comments and for the applicant to present their application. The purpose of this meeting is to receive input from the public on a Special Exception Permit application and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant. I already mentioned where the property is located. It is west of the intersection of MainRd. and Town Harbor Lane across from the 7-Eleven convenience store. It is in the hamlet business zone district. In review of this proposed action the ZBA assumed the role of lead Environmental Quality Review Act and found that the project the potential to result in one or more potential significant environmental impacts if not properly mitigated. As a result a positive declaration was issued by the ZBA on November 16, 2017 requiring the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the Special Exception application. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement was originally submitted by the applicant in April 2019 and November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting was reviewed for completeness by the Board and our consultants revised by the applicant and accepted by the ZBA on October 7, 2019. The Notice of this hearing and acceptance of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement were circulated to involved agencies and parties of interest review the fu would urge you to go to this website where it is published and made available to the public. If k and have you find that statement. The Board has decided that the public comment period will be extended from a ten (10) day minimum which the law requires for written comments received after the , 2019. Comments made in writing provide written comments in addition to or in lieu of any comments made in this hearing and if there are people that you know that are interested in this application and were not able to come tonight they certainly will have an opportunity to submit written comments. After the close of the comment period the ZBA will provide all written comments and a copy of the hearing transcript to the applicant and will request that the applicant prepare a response to the comments on record from this evening also referred to as the Final Environmental Impact Statement. All substantive comments on this Special Permit and Draft EIS will be addressed in the final EIS. The ZBA and its consultants will review this document to ensure that it is complete, accurate and responsive to the comments prior to its acceptance. Once the final EIS is accepted it will be available through the Town website, it will be circulated to involved agencies and will be made available for public review at the ZBA office. The Final EIS will be made available for a minimum of thirty (30) days before the town can adopt a findings statement on the EIS. The minimum is actually ten (10) days sorry but we may have the option to extend that. The Findings Statement weighs and balances relevant social, economic and environmental issues, looks at identified impacts and assesses the adequacy of identified mitigations which establish the basis for a decision on the project. After the Statement of Findings is issued the town may render a decision on the Special Exception Permit application. own set of standards that have to be met but we cannot make a determination on that until a Environmental Impact Statement. We will hold open the Special Exception Permit application until SEQRA determination is made. After the Statement of Findings is issued by the ZBA the town may then render the decision on the Special Exception Permit application, the Planning Board will then be responsible for final site plan review, tha November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting comments. If you wish to speak please raise your hand and once recognized you can come forward to one of these podium and microphones. Please state your name and address for the the Draft EIS or the Special Exception Permit application. Please speak clearly as your comments are being made part of the record and will be addressed in the Final EIS and again are being recorded. No decisions will be made this evening on this project and there are additional steps in the process that the law requires us to follow as previously just described before a decision can be made. I want to stress that all substantive comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement will need to be addressed in the Final EIS and therefore while everyone is welcomed to speak tonight, I do request that speakers refrain from making the same comments as preceding speakers (rather you may indicate that you agree with what the previous speaker said. So just for purposes of being efficie at the end of the hearing if they chose to. After tonight you may still provide written comments th to the ZBA oranyone else might and again those would be due on December 9following the get answers to everything but if there are some things that need clarification we can ask the applicant. The public needs to address the Zoning Board and not the applicant. If you have a the architect or whomeve provide a project overview to all of us before we open up the hearing for public comments. Please go ahead. CHARLES CUDDY : My name is Charles Cuddy. I have an office at 445 Griffing Ave. in Riverhead. I represent the applicant. Tonight I have with me Andrew Giambertone who is the architect, Tammy Cunha who is working for the Engineer/Planner, I have Ron Hill who is the Traffic Engineer, Sean Harkin who is the Sound Engineer. Also (inaudible) Gennaro is here who has briefly Exception is about. In the hamlet business district a hotel is permitted as long as we get approval for the Special Exception. A Special Exception is a permitted use but it also has to have significant ito say to the Board that all of these people November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting explain it in some detail. In connection with the hotel use there is standards which must be met -35B and that is relating to the hotel and the density and the type of use that you can have. We also meet that and again that will be spoken about by some of the people that follow me. When we get all through tonight we still have to go and people should know this, we still have to go to the Planning Board in this town and get matter of fact. Theapplicant here has to show that it complies with certain standards and requirements and in the town code Section 280-142 and Section 280-143 there are standards. going to read all of them to you but I have written them down. If you want a copy of it I can give going to hand those up to the Board so that they have them in th record and then I will ask some of the other speakers to follow me. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mr. Cuddy was addressing what the State statutes are that the law requires the Zoning Board to review and the applicant to address for the permitted use to be effectuated through a permit and you have actually addressed them in the Draft Environmental standards and what that standards are we use them as part of you want to say about them? MR. CUDDY : No I would at this point ask Mr. Giambertone to come forward. He is the architect. He has a model here by the way that I think is worthwhile for everybody to look at cause I think CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Since we all have copies of those elevations the renderings, why not ANDREW GIAMBERTONE : hats tonight.I am both the applicant and the architect for this particular project. Myself and my partner Mr. Jonathan Tibett came across this property some time ago. Mr. Tibetthas been ea as a demonstration of his commitment and belief in the Southold community. Most recently he was partnered with Glen Heidtmannwho is here this evening as well, purchased and renovated the Einstein Square project, restoring the buildings and providing the community with a new residence. Together John and I want to take the opportunity to do something relatively unique November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting in the world development. We feel that we wanted to develop this property with the best possible design solution as opposed to the maximum yield which is a rare commodity today. We feel that our design is respectful in terms of gh that in a few moments. As Mr. Cuddy said this is a permitted use in the zone. The building and grounds fully comply to all the regulations in this zone district. The uses in this building are relatively simple. The existing Hedges Bed and Breakfast building food service to the public as well for guests of the hotel. The proposed building will be a two story forty four room boutique hotel focusing on service and quality. It will feature interior lounge spaces, a reception lobby, a small coffee shop and an exterior pool and terrace. It is designed to accommodate guests, small business functions for local or visiting businesses, a meeting hall on the second floorand the grounds will feature nearly a three quarter acre meadow which will form as a display ground for visiting artists and local artists to display sculpture in the setting of a meadow as your entrance view of the hotel as you come up. The operations are relatively simple; the restaurant will be open in season from Monday to Thursday for dinner only, lunch as well as dinner on both Friday and Saturday and potentially brunch on Sundays along with an early dinner seating in season. The restaurant will alsooffer hotel guests a limited breakfast menu via room service and during the off season we may limit the hours of the restaurant from Wednesday through Sunday with lunch available on the weekends only. The hotel will be open year round focusing on weekend stays but available weekdays as well. In the prime season any special events such on functions focusing on the arts for local interests and culture will take place during the week in the hotel itself. In the off season we will welcome corporate functions during the week to help maximize the occupancy in the off season months. We anticipate the opportunity to do up to twelve catered affairs on site per year. Likely in the meadow under a tent with small affairs within the hotel itself. All catering will be provided by an outside catering service. The food will not be developed on the grounds. So in terms of the ba l as can the Board all see the model? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. ANDREW GIAMBERTONE : So Main Rd. is here, the existing Hedges Bed and Breakfast that mauve colored (inaudible) building along the road there will form the restaurant CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what, we need to have you speak into the mic because we the mic or move the model closer. November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting ANDREW GIAMBERTONE : The idea is tha property has really not been changed significantly from what you see now. The Hedges Bed and Breakfast was, the previse was that there was a hedge row behind the property that actually screened the bulkof the 6.75 acres from the view from the street and the concept is to reinvigorate that hedge row to create an effective veil of the building from the street view. The idea is that there will be a one way in, one way out. There will be parking (inaudible)for the traffic circle not really seeing the hotel itself until you hit that traffic circle. The premise of the hotel is that the building itself buffers the activity of the noise from the surrounding neighbors. We have to the north the Long Island Railroad, to the west we have the Witsky boatyard, to the south we have Main Rd. and there are three residents to the east. So we strategically placed the building in anL-shaped fashion with all the activities all the balconies, everything that happens on a daily basis will happen within that courtyard. On the back side the east side of the building is simply a mirror glass façade that will reflect the screened planting there. There will through that lobby space if you go through to the south is a rooftop terrace on top o effectively by the only building of any height. The building was specifically designed to be a flat roofed structure relatively low profile to help mitigate the view of the building from anywhere and in fact the only building you might possibly see would be what looks to be a restored (inaudible) barn which is actually the meeting center and forms the backdrop to the lounge area in the hotel. We have some photographs we prepared. We were asked by the Board to provide an idea of what the view to the public might be as well as the neighbors to the east so what we have here are views from this is view number one which is taken from the neighboring property directly to the east here along the drive. So when you currently stand there and look across the property this is what you see. Once the screened planting is installed, as I said what this neighbor is likely to see is just the roof of that building and the rest of the building more or less disappears. From the Main Rd. this is the view of what the bed and breakfast currently ed to be installed on the property and you can see that the landscaping as well as the hedgerow again effectively screen the view of the hotel. This view has the hotel superimposed upon. So you can be very difficult to see the building at all because the height of the building is relatively low (inaudible) the extent of the landscaping. This is a view of before and after the screened planting from the Long Island Railroad property November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting and these are the views from the two neighboring propertiesagain prior to construction, after installation of screened plantings, prior to construction and after installation of screened Boards the screened plantings immediately so it has the benefit of the construction period to grow and mature. It also helps mitigate the noise and disruption of construction from the neighbors during that period of time. The materials are all intended to be natural field stone on the barn panels. The four cottages to the farback of the property are across the courtyard where the pool resides and they provide privacy in a setting for those people who are requesting a little bit more privacy than they get in a hotel. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually let me just ask you a quick this model. One of the things the Board noticed in evaluating the site plan that you submitted was, the code requires a 15 foot wide landscaped buffer between the residential use and your property and we see that you planted some trees along that edge that property; according to not quite su ANDREW GIAMBERTONE : Part of that will I imagine will come up during the Planning Board process in terms of road alignment and whether or not we can comfortably move the driveway turn radius and that type of thing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes I just wanted to mention cause we are aware of that and we work hand in hand with the Plann know at this point? ANDREW GIAMBERTONE : Not unless you have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I want to hear from the public before we get to ours, Mr. Cuddy. TAMMY CUNHA : Good evening Engineer at 630 Johnson Ave. Bohemia, New York. As the site engineers the proposed application complies with all of the bulk dimensional requirements of the district. The proposed site is actually significantly under the maximum coverage permitted. The maximum coverage is 40% and our proposed site plan is only 16.3% coverage. The proposed plan also exceeds the minimum landscaped area requirements of 25% having a 58.62% proposed landscaped November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting development. Also our proposed site also has significantly greater lot line setbacks than what is required by the code, so in all areas of setback requirements and area coverages our application meets and or exceeds the current town zoning code. The total site parking also meets and exceeds the current zoning code being that the total site is proposed to have 160 parking spots on site comprised of 123 paved spaces and 37 grass paved spaces. The actual ces on the site itself being 56 for the hotel and 38 for the proposed restaurant. For special events we have come up with a special valet parking plan that I believe the Board has had the chance to take a look at. This actually increases the hotel parking to a total of 140 spaces for the hotel being that it is a valet situation. This special event parking would be broken down to 38 non-event parking spaces for the hotel itself, 12 employee event valet parking spaces, 75 guest valet parking spaces and then another additional 15 parking spaces as overflow. The total site itself during a special event would host 178 parking spaces including the restaurant. So we have pretty much exceeded what the zoning code requires. Now relevant to the hotel a minimum lot area that is required is 3 acres by town code. The site obviously exceeds that. The zoning also restricts the minimum number of units to one unit per every 6,000 sq. ft. or 49 units. Our proposal calls for only 44 units for the hotel.The code also restricts the size of each individual units to 600 sq. ft. and we maximum units available. As far as the landscaping plan that we have proposed we are preserving many exis also proposing to plant a lot of native species as well as some ornamental species to increase our buffer area as well. Also by planting these species that are all suited to the site, we are eliminating the need or potential need for pesticides and fertilizer. The plantings were selected by know regulatory agencies and organizations including the New York State D.E.C., the Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County and the Suffolk County Water and Land Evasive Advisory Board. The landscape plan consists of maintained turf grass with deciduous trees spread out, trimmed privet hedgerows, proposed evergreens, Leyland Cypress at eight feet on center to try to thicken up the border along the driveways and access ways and also to thicken up the border with the neighboring properties. The landscape plan will comply with the town zoning code, the landscape screening and buffer regulations. All proposed site lighting fixtures are dark skiescompliant with LED lamping. All outdoor lighting is shielded so that the light source is not visible from adjacent properties or the roadway. Proposed lighting fixtures focus indirect lighting as to contain the light within property boundaries. Lighting fixtures are proposed at 10 feet high being 4 feet less than what is allowable by code as 14 feet high. As we said the general site description is a 6.7 acre site located on the north side of Main St. approximately 90 feet west of Town Harbor Lane. The siteis proposed to maintain a one way egress that is an existing curb cut on Main Rd. and that would be to the east of the proposed restaurant. Also we have a one way means of egress and that would be to the west of the November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting proposed restaurant. The proposed site calls for the conversion of the former bed and breakfast now a residential structure and a shed into a 74 foot restaurant along the frontage of Main St. That restaurant has a setback of 17.6 feet from the front yard which is in excess of 2.6 feet from whatthe town code requires as a minimum of 15 feet. The proposed restaurant includes 38 parking spaces as per code requires. We have 27 paved parking spaces and11 grass paved parking spaces to be a little more eco-friendly. The proposed site also calls for the development of a 40 unit hotel within that L-shape and then we also have 4 detached cottages to the north of our hotel. The facility also has a swimming pool in one area and a recreational bit shielded. The proposed cottages are only 594 sq. ft. which is less than the required code. The proposed hotel facility is Rd. The proposed hotel has 96 paved parking spots under normal circumstances and we also have another 26 grass paved parking spots. The proposed development includes a sewage The proposed sewagetreatment plant will be designed to all Suffolk County Department of Health Services codes and regulations also allowing for a hundred percent expansion of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services required setbacks and code requirements and the sewage treatment plant design flow for the development is 8,820 gallons per day and I think I covered most of it. Does anyone have any questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISM leave that I want to let you finish. MEMBER DANTES : The sewage treatment plant, is it all underground? PAUL GROSSER : Paul Grosser of P. W. Grosser Consulting 630 Johnson Ave. Bohem MEMBER DANTES : Where is it on the can you point where it would be on the model. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) biologically engineered system, can you just tell all of us a little bit about what that means? essentially bacteria within the waste water is used to break down into the waste water and and without air it removes nitrogen as well. The Health Department requires the discharge November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting from this of nitrogen of less than 10milligrams per liter and it meets that requirement and usually much better than that. Does that cover it? MEMBER DANTES : So basically this is the next step up from an IA system? PAUL GROSSER : Yes. The IA system takes the nitrogen down to about 19 milligrams per liter, this is essentially a full blown sewage treatment plant that will be required, meets the about twice as goodas it (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Someone here to address traffic impacts? Engineering Associates 66 Main St. Westhampton Beach, New York. We were asked to prepare a traffic impact study for the project. We started by collecting data at four intersections that the town (inaudible) to look at, Main Rd. and Hobart, Main Rd. and Locust Lane, Main Rd. and 7-Eleven and Main Rd. and Town Harbor. We collected the data in July of 2018. We then ran existing capacity analysis using the highly capacity manual software and then we added some background traffic to account for growth and we ran a no build analysis at each one of those intersections to form the basis of our comparison of the impact. Next we went to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (inaudible) trip generation manual that provides estimated trips for a myriad of land use. We selected a full service hotel and quality restaurant as our uses to look at. Basically with that we found that during the a.m. rush hour the site would generate less than forty total trips and forty total trips in the p.m. hour on a weekday. On Saturday the generation is higher and it will generate slightly under fifty trips. As a notebecause we did counts at the 7- Eleven across the street, the 7-Eleven generates about twice that amount of traffic. We took the traffic generation, we applied that to those four intersections and we ran the analysis and comparing the results of no build. service and no changes well minor changes in delay but no level of service changes. Because fashion for a Saturday for a special event of about 250 people. We ran those numbers at each of the four intersections, we did not find any deterioration on Route 25. There was some increase, more significant increase in delay at any of the four intersections and more so at the 7-Eleven driveway because our exit is directly opposite it and that has some impacts. Our driveway will have delay coming out of it for special events but it will work. MEMBER DANTES : a level of service and delay? November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting RON HILL : Delay is number of seconds average delay at the intersection. In this case because -signalized intersections the delay all occurs on the side street making left and rights or through movements out or a left turn into the side st Level of service is when you look at the delay I forget what it is over fifty or sixty seconds A, B, C, D, E and F the delay a ten second average delay is (inaudible) level of service A, a sixty second total delay israde the intersection the hotel parking further increase that so we have significant more parking on the site on a regular basis to accommodate that peak flow our peak parking demand. Does anybody have any questions? RON HILL : Okay thank you. SEAN HARKIN : Good evening members of the Zoning Board, my name is Sean Harkin. I am here with Sound Sense LLC an office at 39 Industrial Rd. in Wainscott, New York. Sound Sense was brought onto the project in order to analyze the existing site plans in place by the applicant for and as well as the traffic study in order to assess potential disturbance to nearby neighbors. The Town of Southold does have an existing noise ordinance found in Chapter 180 of the zoning code. The noise ordinance stipulates that properties are limited to during the days of Sunday to Thursday from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., 65 dba at the boundary line from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. for 50 dba. From Friday to Saturday from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., 65 dba and from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., 50 dba. Utilizing the traffic study we collected data at the site for existing noise conditions at one second intervals and were able to manipulate the data in order to insert additional car pass byes as a result of any increased traffic. The result of the study found that there were no significant impacts as a result of increase in road noise. The study also showed that there would not be any significant impact to nearby receivers as a result of day to day operation. Regarding special events, we completed an analysis utilizing standardized levels for speech that are found in a scholarly article published in 1977 entitled Speech Levels in Various Noise Environments. This article presents different sound levels with different levels of speech stress for individuals, for men, women, children. So utilizing the sound levels in this article we were able to put together an analysis for groups of fifty and two hundred and fifty at a fifty, fifty split of men and women. The analysis showed that with speech that there would be no violation of the town of Southampton noise ordinance. As far as any amplified sound is concerned the site plan is proposing to use movable sound barriers in order to utilize for any amplified sound public address and in addition sound limiters can be placed on the system in order to limit the sound to the 65 dba at the property line. If there are any questions. November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting from the public, the Board has some questions. SEAN HARKIN : I apologize I said town of Southampton. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We all know where we live. I think that pretty much covers the scope of the presentation that we asked the applicant to be prepared to do this evening for the r public comment. If any of you would like to ask questions or make comments, voice concerns please come to the microphone and state your name and give us your address. omment is to H1-1 2.3.20 appreciate the opportunity the time to do that thoughtfully so thank you. Also I wanted to say thank you to the applicant who although I have some concerns and may have more after H1-2 2.3.20 reading the EIS. This is quite clearly a thoughtful application. I appreciate the renovation of existing buildings, I appreciate the visual buffers, I appreciate sewage treatment plant. There seems to have been some real thought put into thisand community consciousness I appreciate without any regard H1-3 One of the people mentioned that everything complies with every code. That raises a credibility 2.3.6 ation as there is a site plan. to H1-3 2.3.6 carefully. Second, the traffic is obviously a major concern and it sounded like a very thorough study. I appreciate that they took in account special events and things like that but when I hear H1-4 a comment about the traffic trips to the 7- 2.3.4 me because a 7-Eleven I mean I live here, I go to 7- generating trips because of 7-Eleven necessarily any more than these people are people who These trips that are generated by a hotel are different than trips generated by a convenience November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting sure how traffic analysis really factors thatin cause that is just fundamentally different. Another thing when I was very quickly trying I mean I learned about this today, trying to get up to speed andthe special purpose exemption in itself had a comment about noise not being audible at H1-5 the property line and that sounds like a different requirement than the one we were hearing 2.3.3 ow what there is there but there are it sounds like multiple noise standards to be considered. Then finally one of the something that needs to end up in the other agreement to allow this or if there is any way to H1-6 2.3.5 just saying. I (inaudible) law. I mean cause special events they understand are categorically different in terms of traffic impact and noise impact right. So eight to twelve, what does that I mean anyway how about this particular proposal that they this is going to create like sixty four jobs or something based on the proposal, great. These are H1-7 o 2.3.14 at needs to be happening. Another thing, I noticed that they threw in this exhibit to show us as of right that they can paint paradise H1-8 2.3.13 commercially viable so it w was an as of right plan right flags that the hamlet business zone may be wildly inappropriate for comp right this makes me particularly nervous because there is hamlet business zoned property that is vacant land like this that now there are high end condos that have been built very near. It might start bringing in all sorts of big proposals on that land. So hey you know I express H1-8 Cont'd pretty extreme such that something this big can be presented as an extremely kind and very 2.3.13 this massive project but compared to the as of right it looks like a very light footprint. So why is that the as of rig well. So I look very much forward to reading the Draft DEIS in detail. I will submit written comments when I can do that thoughtfully and I thank you for your time tonight. November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Who else, please come forward. CHARLES GUELIm Charlestituck Laurel Civic Association. I live at 470 H2-1 Laurelwood Drive Laurel, New York. I came tonight to make a pitch for affordable housing. I 2.3.13 understandthe development process. I spent fifteen years of my previous life in development and for the last twenty years I am a part owner of a Motel 6 in Pennsylvania. So I know what drives these kinds of projects and I know that the projected numbers for something like this would be higher than the projected numbers for twenty four to thirty affordable housing units but the character and environment of the North Fork is more greatly impacted by a project like this and the traffic use would be more than the traffic use by an affordable housing. The septic and water use also more than affordable housing and more than some of the culture would deteriorate. I think that the culture now on the North Fork is one of neighbors being willing to help neighbors and look out for each other and I think that the people who come to a facility like this would be looking for who could help them. I spent twenty five years in Manhasset and that environment changed greatly over those twenty five years to something that was congested with traffic, horns honking, people in stores getting impatient because they had to wait on line and I understand that the situation there has deteriorated since I left which was in 2003. I believe that twenty four to thirty affordable housing units could generate stable year round income in the range of $800,000 to a $1,000,000. I know that something like this could H2-1 recession hits. I think the community needs the affordable housing. The community does not Cont'd need a hotel. I believe that a series of mistakes that I made during my career in working 2.3.13 through them I can conclude that building something that the community needs works out the best for everyone involved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. H3-1 2.3.6 attention. The first one is community characterwhich is very hard to define and I also want to and although the plan has not been formally adopted by the Town Board, every single hamlet in this town has met numerous times and given their thoughts to the Panning Board which has put everything into our Draft Comprehensive Plan which is on line. The applicant has not referred to that at all should take that into consideration for the following reasons; the applicant has used historical references from the 2005 Hamlet study and an update in 2007 as well as a Southold Sub Water Shed Plan from 2013. To my mind those are old and outdated. The Comprehensive Plan H3-2 2.3.6 although it has some of the same things that Southold hamlets (inaudible) was wanted back November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting H3-2 2.3.6 the residents here want to maintain and enhance our communities sense of place. A residential rule on historic character by encouraging mixed small scale commercial on residential H3-3 e traffic that will be generated. In the Comprehensive Plan 2.3.4 the people who live in Southold hamlet express a great desire for the town to somehow divert truck traffic to Rt. 48. I think that this complex will add some truck traffic on a weekly basis and maybe even a daily basis to service the restaurant which is not great. Also the location, I think that the exit being right across the street from the 7-Eleven is going to be a really huge problem H3-4 I patronize a lot of the businesses just west of this site an 2.3.4 misses with people coming in and out of the 7-Eleven which often does not have enough may not have caught that. I noticed that the traffic study was done in July of 2018 and that H3-5 2.3.4 traffic study consisted if I read it right, manual turning movement counts which is fine but a lot of the other data included reports from 2015 to 2017 not 2019. So I would urge that maybe a tr. The conclusion that the applicant made overall is that there would be no undue increase in accidents on the Main Rd. I hardly H3-6 2.3.4 ct and if you figure in special events on weekends I mean already if I go to the Southold IGA on a Saturday or Sunday in the summertime I could be waiting past the 7-Eleven for traffic to move. So traffic is the number one issue on the North Fork next to affordable housing. I think we have to think very seriously about putting a project in this location at this density. Eight to twelve special events H3-7 talks in the DEIS about you know most visitors would probably walk to the hamlet to use the 2.3.4 going to be a lot more in and out traffic from this hotel than they expect. In terms of the community character issue I also have some environmental concerns. One is the traffic and one is the water supply. This project give me a second to find it, is going to use an enormous H3-8 2.3.8 amount of water and it includes a pool. The water demand would increase and this is in the eport done by we could be looking at real trouble with our water system. So this would use a huge amount of water every day from our aquafer and I think that couldbe an issue. Water demand is going to H3-9 be very high. Overall one of the conclusions the applicant comes to is that the proposed hotel 2.3.6 would service a catalyst for existing businesses to extend evening operating hours and encouraged the development of new b type of business that we want to see in the hamlet. To my eyes it kind of looks like something November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting ANTHONY house at the back end of this property but before I just need recorded. ANTHONY FORGIONE : I just had eye surgery and I just need somebody to read, I put a letter together but I have a couple of questions. I just need to know can I touch this? Can you tell me where CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No you have to ask the Board. ANDREW GIAMBERTONE : That was included, view number three was taken approximately here at the property line without trying to trespass on to neighboring properties as best we could. H4-1 ANTHONY FORGIONE 2.3.7 very inaccurate picture. He took the best possible picture of the debris and trees that are behind that property line. If he or the crew had taken a picture from my side it is all bare open and dead just to point that out. I do have another question, the code for the sewage plant H4-2 system the Board of Health requires a distance code especially from to a resident can you 2.3.9 sewage to my property line? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you please answer that,I guess the site engineer. Can you just speak really loudly. PAUL GROSSER : ANTHONY FORGIONE : 75 feet. PAUL GROSSER : Right, this is for this type of treatment plant where it (inaudible) ANTHONY FORGIONE : Which means it will be just if not CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on let him answer. ANTHONY FORGIONE : 75 feet. November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : From the property not your dwelling from the property line not your dwelling. ANTHONY FORGIONE : And the dwelling is to code? H4-3 s 2.3.9 biodegradable which means there willbe an aroma in the air ANTHONY FORGIONE : I always wanted one in my bac appreciate your answer. (inaudible) forget about the character of the town of Southold which is Events cause was also a caterer forthirty five years, owned delis we know that the noise levels (inaudible) a lot of people understand that if you throw liquor, noise, music the amount of the H4-4 people (inaudible) in a room it gets louder and louder that is in my back yard as well so we 2.3.3 know between the traffic, the noise, people enjoying themselves whatever that noise thing is caterer and we get constant complaints from the neighbors that are acres away not next door acres away. So this is a constant problem we have as caterers. So imaging that being in your back yard as well. I not here but this buffer zone twelve feet those trees (inaudible) forty to fifty H4-5 feet tall are not going to block the view that I 2.3.7 up to read this for me. Sorry I just had surgery. CONNIELASANDRO : Connie Las read everything but ANTHONY FORGIONE : I wish you could. CONNIE LASANDRO : Okay. November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can also submit that by the way in writing so that we will have it. CONNIE LASANDRO : We understand that Southold tax increases are $13,031 to approximately H5-1 $125,000 is obviously beneficial. However at homeowners this proposeddevelopment will have 2.3.12 an adverse impact on the quality of life expected when purchasing our home not to say a decrease in value should we want to sell. Associates of the owners represented Mr. Tibett have contacted them on behalf of them regarding our pro the property to our east which is 56905 Main Rd. in Southold just currently zoned for R80 a low H5-2 th 2.3.20 density residential and agricultural has been purchased by Mr. Tibett on February 19. This is 5.7 acres with a one acre front resident minimum two acre lots. This unknown going forward will he apply for a Special Exception for this property with the Town of Southold Zoning Board? My understanding Glen I think is Heidtmann is the construction company also a resident of Southold has recently demolished and rebuilt the barn and cosmetically made improvement to the façade of this home. What are the plans for this site? How will this affect my property and e recently restored former Rothmans on Main Rd. Einstein Square leaves us additional concern on what their two commercial properties? This unknown lends us to greater opposition. The following are some concerns and questions with regard to this proposed development. Construction period is H5-3 said to be eighteen to twenty months. Our bedrooms are on the east side of this development 2.3.10 of the property and during the summer, summer enjoyment of outside living with our pool etc. will no longer exist challenging to say the least with the equipment noise and dust etc. The H5-4 advance on the site sewage treatment facility to be constructed on the northern extent of the 2.3.9 subject property odor adversely impact the quality of life and very close to their property line. The roof top terrace now brings the proposed two story building to actually a three story H5-5 privacy and noise concerns. Meeting rooms, conferences proposed twelve events per year 2.3.16 which we all know will be many more, weddings, fund raisers, community events with an Noise will certainly exceed that town noise code. Traffic increase, now during the summer and H5-6 2.3.4 H5-7 fall it can take anywhere from fifteen to twenty minutes to get out of our driveway. The lighting 2.3.7 referred to in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement never not once strangely or better yet H5-8 2.3.1 on purpose refers or shows the two residences occupied homes adjacent to the property line except I see it now in the model. dwellings there. We have an actual aerial photo that shows the proposed site and it shows the actual homes. We will be submitting written comments further and should the Town of Southold Board of Appeals grant this Special Exception and for a hotel, cottage, restaurant our Attorney Ron Harrerri will be filing an Article 78 challenging actions of said decision of this November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting any of your homes you would concur. Thank you and I hope you will deny the Special Permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else? JOYCE BARRY : ou do H6-1 2.3.6 referred to the front building quite a few times as a bed and breakfast referring that it was still being rented. So it is not a bed H6-2 2.3.12 a bed and breakfast owner that was my biggest obstacle in my business was finding help. Good enough help out here because we do not have housing for these people H6-3 2.3.14 restauran sive project for H6-4 2.3.12 are bed and breakfasts that open their businesses so they could live here and continue to live here and retire here. We went through the Air B&B nonsense. I had a little cottage I rented. Guess who followed the new regulations that were put in place for that? The only ones that it. This is going to affect quaint bed and breakfasts, which would you prefer? Would you prefer a hotel with forty four do. We refer people to local businesses, to quaint little wineries; that will become obsolete ot going to cause CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, anybody else? LAUREN BAI live at 56755 Main Rd. next to the project site. MEMBER DANTES : Can you point out your house on the model. H7-1 LAUREN BARRY : My house is this one here. So to go back to the buffer, as the plans currently 2.3.2 are there is not a significant buffer between the proposed driveway of the Enclaves and my November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting H7-1 othing. So Cont'd 2.3.2 in the DEIS summary it does say in the traffic section, forty six new vehicle trips per hour will be generated at peak hours. Forty six cars per h feet away from this un- groundwater use. It sa H7-2 2.3.9 ear of sewage treatment water that goes into their treatment facility and then gets pumped back out into the million gallons of water a year out of the clean aquafer to irrigate their new landscape of treatment process it does you know take some of the nitrogen out but there is still nitrogen in there. What we also know from ot affluent that treated affluent is pharmaceuticals like the number one chemical is caffeine, number two is birth control hormones and what happens is with that it goes into our ground water. It produces endocrine changes in not only humans when they drink it but fish and H7-2 Cont'd nitrogen and pharmaceuticals plus there are certain microbes and microorganisms and bacteria 2.3.9 t increase of what is currently estimated to go into the ground as is. T leached back into the groundwater. So what I think the environmental impact statement is missing is what does that mean for us? What does 278 lbs. of nitrogen do to the groundwater? tement says that there are no invasive species being H7-3 introduced to the site, so they have introduced the pond and they list the species as being both 2.3.11 plant and animals; coy gold fish, water lilies and water hyacinths. The pond has the footprint of e and this new pond all of the species they listed are invasive. So I was wondering if the applicant can explain the purpose of introducing a foreign eco-system other than for decorative purposes. November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting will have to address everything mment on that now we can. Would someone like to do that? WILLIAM BOMAN : Good evening ladies and gentlemen of the Board, my name is William statement about the no use of invasive plants was based on the terrestrial landscaping. Some nearby freshwater wetlands. Similarly we would not expect coy to propose any risk in nearby that would be on the Suffolk County do not (inaudible) LAUREN BAs experienced that H7-4 2.3.11 picking up the fish, dropping it out of his mouth and it goes somewhere else. So there are ways for species like fish to come out of a pond and get somewhere else. There are freshwater wetlands close by that water hyacinths, bird comes in pollinate not pollinate but bird comes in takes a seed, drops a seed it ends up somewhere else. This is how these things happen and I have another question about dust control that H7-5 layer of the soil and they are expected to become airborne as traffic moves throughout the site 2.3.10 and that the dust mitigation plan is to have an environmental technician on site who is monitoring the dust but the problem with that is that to monitor dust there has to be dust. So wh takes ex-amount of time to get a hose out and you know hose it down to mitigate the dust. I ding salt on the site and I think you know you put salt over this large of an area it leaches down to the groundwater. I next door have a (inaudible) landscape so when my plants are looking for water in the summer no water H7-5 dust mitigation plans. So not only their landscaping be affected long term but my landscaping Cont'd 2.3.10 H7-6 acceptable mitigation. I am concerned about the Special Events eight to twelve times a year 2.3.5 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting means you know that could be spread out or that could be every single weekend in summer H7-6 Cont'd that live in the house next door and whenever they come home I hear them talking quietly in 2.3.5 what a wedding is going to sound like. I can imagine what a H7-7 2.3.11 far as the ecological resources go, the loss of early (inaudible) communities would result in decreased habitat available the plants, birds, wildlife species present this is what the statement from the executive summary. I agree with that. Also stated is the resulting habitat loss and subsequent reductions and local abundance of bird and wildlife speciesis not a significant adverse environmental impact as succession hardwood forests and successional old fields are classified by the New York Natural Heritage Program as demonstrably secure both in New York State and globally. So what happens is this is rea condition. So when you take data from New York State upstate area which underrepresentsus and it skews the data and I think that for such a situation like this we need to look at patches, we need to look at our local environment and this H7-7 Cont'd needs to be evaluated fairly on that scale. If this was from their data the New York Natural 2.3.11 Heritage Pr look at these early successional communities as important valuable ecological areas. I just concerned who checks this environmental statement? Who checks the resources, who decides urate. WILLIAM BOMAN within the proposed decorative ponds so those species that are any plants species put in there are similarly be natives and no plants or animal invasive species would be added to those decorative ponds in keeping with the terrestrial landscaping. Regarding the assessment of the present on this site they have developed on this site since about 1980 when there was farmland for several decades before. So in the ecologic conditions they are typical what you would teen inch caliper largely early successional trees black cherry, eastern red cedar. Now those habitats do have some value but the point of the citing the New York Natural Heritage Program which is the e and is charged with biodiversityrelated issues. They give that demonstratively secure classification abundant within the Town of Southold as well so that all demonstratively secure does meet November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting address them. ss the Board please come forward. MARILY MARX : Hello my name is Marilyn Marx. I live on 54300 Rt. 48 in Southold. I am the Shorecrest Bed and Break H8-1 2.3.12 everything Joyce just said about the difficulty of finding help in the town especially in the summer. All the restaurants all the hospitality businesses here are desperately looking for help in the summer and then there is no business in the winter which makes it extra hard. I support the comments they submitted this company submitted is disingenuous at best. I live on Rt. 48, my heart sank when I heard my friend Ann mention sending all the trucks there because they have (inaudible) like at least three times actually because of the ferry traffic going to casinos in Connecticut. miserable. This is already very uncomfortable to be in Southold in the summer months because H8-2 2.3.4 of the traffic. This sm small amount of people or a small amount of traffic. As the other major issue I think is H8-3 orking in this business 2.3.14 are going to be on minimum wage at best. Some of them will be working for tips. Where are reading the report the submission, the as of right section really struck me because what we H8-4 2.3.13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, anyone else? H9-1 2.1 -commercial lending for BNB Bank so I see so many projects come around you know of what people want to build what people want to do out here. The cats a little bit out of the bag. I moved out here because I like it peaceful, I worry about the water quality, I worry about the water usage but H9-1 ject compared to other things that come across my desk to look Cont'd 2.1 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting H9-1 So when I looked at this I thought oh well this is Cont'd great what a great usage, it is a business zoned property so something is going to go there and 2.1 to me this seems like a great use. I mean this is a tourist area, an office building what Committee, I understand H9-1 Cont'd 2.1 development and I think if we get a project that is reasonable like this that is not going to be too intrusive for the neighborhood we should really back it and consider it. WILLIAM WILSKI : Good evening my name is William Wilski I live at 532 Laurel Ave. in Southold. valid points were brought up tonight from both sides, pro and con and I really appreciate the opportunity to A. listen to my fellow Southolders with their concerns as well as the opportunity the purple farm out there to the east as well as our pumpkins to the west here. Traffic is always H10-1 going to be an issue in this town whether we like it or not. I leave that property and enter that 2.3.20 waiting to get just to make a left hand turn is probably two or three minutes okay. Yes there is A lot of environmental concerns I would be (inaudible) saying H10-2 2.3.20 essential part of this town that we needto address. Having said that I would like to see the little bit d H10-3 who wish to put in this place. It is a business zone, this town has got a lot of beautiful open 2.3.20 land. I remember that as a vacant lot, I remember the horses, I remember my dog chasing the should we put there just more vacant land? We have a lot of vacant land, should we preserve all of it? Yeah it would be a great idea to put it off but we need tax structure, we need people to H10-4 pro con on t 2.3.20 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting H10-5 2.3.20 going to affect the entire character of this town. M and con. The tax H10-6 2.3.20 start addressing the issue of more affordable housing. We need (inaudible) somewhereand good luck with everything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your comments. At this point it might be useful to alright go ahead. I was going to saywe have some questions from the Board but that can wait. BRIAN BRADY : Thank you my name is Brian Brady, I live at 115 Masters Rd. in Laurel on the a position in the hospitality world. I started when I was nineteen at Peconic Bay Winery. I worked at a private club for seven years and most recently opened up a project very similar to this in Riverhead. I grew up in Farmingdale. I was lucky enough to have grandparents that had a summer house out here. I wanted to make a life out here. becoming Huntington or Farmingdale. I know that for a fact cause I go back to see my mother as much as often back in Farmingdale. My goal is to get her out here, my goal is to live in H11-1 2.3.20 been able to with successful management keep people working for me and as much as it is a or the ownership than it is for housing and everything else like that. Even demanding a good salary I rent out here cause I understand the housing better than anyone. The customer (inaudible) they will come regardless of this project being approved or not.I think approving it is positive for Southold.At the end of the day this will be a walking H11-1 Cont'd 2.3.20 probably keep the events down to about twelve per year. You can see that at the higher end at term is pro bono because this Einstein Square is going to be a huge positive for the town and you know while they will come whether it will be H11-1 enforced I think this is a positive move. I understand the concerns of the neighbors but I know Cont'd this group and I know this group well and they will do everything to accommodate anyworries. 2.3.20 Thank you. November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting relationship that my ownership where I was formerly working knows thisgroup. forty five minutes below Acron which we know what the rubber city capital. I grew up in farm fields. Twenty nine years ago my husband and I chose to come to Southold cause he grew up We came here with two little kids and looked at many, many properties, what house should we buy and I kept kids. So we bought way off the beaten path on Waterview Drive. We have many businesses on 25 in the hamleittle North Fork H12-1 Chamber of Commerce last year fourteen years. One of our issues was we need people to stop 2.3.20 cause Greenport has so many things to offer them and yes a beautiful waterfront community. beautiful little place. I personally envision that hopefully someday bringing my grandbabies sit at Einstein Square maybe ice cream, coffee whatever we need a walking community like Love H12-1 a plac Cont'd 2.3.20 families that maybe that live next I think we have a beautifulcommunity, I think the Heidtmannre doing is amazing. Somebody said earlier how this has been so thought through. I think they really went above the town, let our CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your comments. November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting LINDA SWEENEY : My name is Linda Sweeney and I live at950 Strohson Rd. in Cutchogue and H13-1 Carlson. I too am on the Board of Chamber and business is good for business and just want to 2.1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : With your indulgence we can have more comments and questions that you may find come to mind as I ask some questions on behalf of the Board and bear in mind that you also will have an opportunity until December to submit. If you go home and think saying but if you think of something else and you want to submit something in writing you have ample time to do that. You have other opportunities to tell people that you know who are and some of them have to do with th going to enter them into the record. The applicants may address them if they wish or they may simply make note of these questions because they will have to be addressed in writing as I said in the H14-1 2.3.5 projects sponsor anticipates hosting special events approximately 8 to 12 times per year (during osing. They indicate that such events would likely consist of wedding, fundraising events, etc. and that larger events will be hosted on the lawn area adjacent to the proposed pond. I believe you mentioned that this evening. The Draft EIS noise analysis indicated that events would be limited to 6pm to 10pm on Fridays, 2pm to 11pm on Saturdays, 2pm to 6pm on Sundays. The use of sound barriers, noise limiters etc. has been mentioned but how does the applicant propose to ensure the enforcement of the hours ofoperation identified and identified noise mitigation measures to ensure that they are adhered to? For example who is responsible for adjusting the limiter and like to address it you may. SEAN HARKIN : My understanding is that if we want to have a special event we have to apply to the Town of Southold for a special event permit. I would suspect that if there were complaints from a previous event that was approved by the town and there were issues raised those would have to be raised to satisfaction of the town prior to issuing an additional permit for the next we can getapproved by the town. The town has the opportunity to review the application to st arbitrary through the town of Southold. November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting H14-2 be applied for but I will tell you now, you are proposing eight to twelve but that does not limit 2.3.5 you unless there are covenants and restrictions or other conditions upon approval that would do so. I used to grant or deny all of those permits until I managed to convince the Town Board th elected officials should be monitoring these special events. They are now doing so but through the recommendation of a special event committee that I sit on. That committee consists of exactly the same people when I was there to make that decision but I reached out to Police Department, Land Preservation, (are the development rights intact or sold), Suffolk County Land Preservation, Planning Board, Building Department, Fire Marshall and others. You are right H14-2 Cont'd in theory that we can enforce these by Code Enforcement and so on but we all understand that 2.3.5 So let me ask you another q noise. You mention movable fencing presumably insulated with some sort of acoustical devices? SEAN HARKIN : So as far as the composition, I do have some samples here of a material that we have used in the past for live sound and for situations like this with much success before for summer communities and different areas that are going to have live music, live events. As far as the height and location it (inaudible) everyone that that be analyzed with some of the individual layouts at the time of a special event being set up. If we were to put a blanket statement and a blanket location for the sound barrier to be used at one specific location the efficacy of that barrier varies greatly depending on where the specific sources are going to be for the noise and in for some of the first events to be had that these plans be reviewed in order to come up with a realistic fence situation that is going to address the noise concerns at that time with those various situations. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you also say that you will occasionally use a tent and that the H14-3 tent itself will be an acoustical environment but surely in the middle of summer nobody is going 2.3.3 going to mitiga outdoors there are so many variables as you know as a specialist for acoustical issues. The type of sound system, the direction of the speakers, who monitors the speakers. Are you going to that mean? November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting SEAN HARKIN : As a part of normal business operations the hotel itself and the way everything has been oriented acts as very effective acoustical barrier. So as far as sound at the pool, that is not really a major concern of ours. The hotel and the orientation and the sheath acts as a very effective sound barrier for sound from the pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Depending on what direction. SEAN HARKIN : Well all of the direction would have to be towards the west just because of the orientation. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : And you talk about the sound ordinance which at the property line is H14-4 2.3.3 conversation and when you begin toput noise from just ambient noise from people gathering, to have a combination along with additional traffic impacts. That is a concern to this Board. So we really need to take a look at that. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Leslie, could someone show us where the tent would be on the property? ANDREW GIAMBERTONE: The premises that sound baffles would be used from within and outside the tent to help prevent noise migration, the tent is intended to be along installed on the meadow and the goal is to install obviously as far away from the adjacent properties as possible. ss to the extent that we can install sound baffles commit to it but at this point in time we are willing to commit to providing sound attenuating counts both within and outside the tent. As far as noise around the pool as Sean stated the goal is that you know y intended for background music and that type of thing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You also have four detached cottages and families could easily come H14-5 2.3.3 in with kids and with their own you know nowadays we have little speakers. Everybody has you verytough problem and it would be true on any site, acoustics are always very, very difficult. November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting H14-6 MEMBER DANTES : What exactly is 65 decibels? Like a jet ski running at full speed or 2.3.3 SEAN HARKIN : No that would be more of around 85 to 90 decibels. So 65 decibels would really be the level of conversation that you and I would be having on a typical day to day basis two to three feet from each other. That would be around what 65 decibels is. Obviously 65 decibels means something a little bit different when it is received from further away. If I speak to you at what around 65 decibels is. CH H14-7 2.3.5 ould rather that we all have an opportunity to address them head on and come to grips to how you can propose really serious mitigation measures that will satisfy everybody that noise can be properly contained on that project without having really adverse impacts on businesses and on the streetscape and on other residential properties. I mean what are the other meaningful ways that you can do that? Between eight and twelve in the warmer months could mean as one person said that one or two major weddings can reflected light. There are a number of factors. I know you have a very talented team and I know through that DEIS which is with this. With regard to the music by the H14-8 2.3.3 pool, have you considered what hours you would be using this music? ANDREW GIAMBERTONE : early in the day. it would probably be in the afternoonand early evening and at that point after inside. People go to dinner people go to sleep. So we limit it with aside from the concern of the neighbors we have the concern of the guests and the guests are not necessarily going to hotel is to try and accommodate the needs and desires of our occupants and so noise mitigations are concerns to them as well. November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting H14-9 d to have music around the pool. Everybody has earbuds that they can 2.3.3 stick in their ears for pleasure. I think it might just be an added nuisance by having the music, something to consider. H14-10 described them as smaller things like fundraisers and small private gatherings maybe fifty 2.3.5 calculations, and then the indoor dining area has thirty seats, then you have a private eight seat dining room. So could you please describe those indoor events in more detail because those would not necessarily require permits. Those are more or less part of a business model. ANDREW GIAMBERTONE : As a resident in the town I can state that my partner has a concerted interest in seeing the culturalaspects of Southold growth. He was very excited at the prospect the arts and some of the events we would expect to have would be small you know art gallery art displays. The opportunities for (inaudible) students to display their work and perhaps have the opportunity to sell them but it would primarily be geared around more cultural events other than those few times a year as I said during the off season where we might entertain some corporate retreats and there would be events that would be organized around that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The assumption being a seminar rooms that your conferencerooms fairly small rooms. ANDREW GIAMBERTONE : Right (UNNAMED SPEAKER) : I was reading the hamlet business right and it mentions special - 35 it talks about the number 4 transient hotels motels and you go down further in that and entertainment or sorry I flipped so I music, entertainment or loud speaker systems shall be audible from beyond the property line. manage that but here we can stay here till midnight. What I want you to be aware of is that there are a long list of things aside from the DEIS what they have to address, a special exception permit which we November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting cannot approve or disapprove until a SEQRA determination has been made which is what that DEIS thing is. We decided there were potential impacts and they had to fill out this big long form that investigates all of them and then if we find there are problems they have to come up ve described earlier what the procedure and how we work and what the law requires us to go through step by step. noise also which is not necessarily assessed for,special events or even for just normal business operations. Part of the special use criteria requires the applicant demonstrate the proposed use special exception e bout those various standards you can find Let me introduce a new one, H14-11 the site is to be operated during both weekdays and weekends but the noise monitoring is only 2.3.3 conducted during one short period between 12 and 1pm and 7:45 and 9pm on a Thursday in SEAN HARKIN : the baseline data that is really more conservative than using data from a weekendas you would expect there to be increase noise due to traffic from the weekend. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it seems to me we have looked at other noise studies that have H14-11 been far more developed in terms of the number of measurements they took and the times Cont'd 2.3.3 they took them, the number of days they took them and this basically is one little snapshot in picture and unfortunately if we asked to try to do it again the problem is we are now off season H14-12 ary systems for special events on top of the onsite STP 2.3.5 during special events. ANDREW GIAMBERTONE : As with many special events of size you have these portable trailers November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting - contained and then trucked offsite at the conclusion of the event. So there would be no demonstrated that our development concept for this is respectful given the parameters (inaudible) to be developed onsite as possible satisfaction of the Board. They came back to us with comments. We had to address their comments before we can be here was in fact an independent consultant who was not necessarily looking to work to our benefit but to strictly accommodate the concerns of the Board and if you saw alot of the commentary back and forth they were very detailed. A couple of other just real quickly, as far as the screening of the restaurant that you know as far as the front of the property goes, we selected the driveway location based on the existing curb cut. We just thought it would be natural not to adequate fifteen foot screening. Special events we already touched on. In terms of housing on this property, there was a financially viable housing project proposed for this property prior to our purchasing it. It resulted in a lengthy and divisive law suit because I wrote MEMBER DANTES : No I was on the Affordable Housing Commission for this. That owner never asked to there was a outcome was. T. A. DUFFY : pending. ked at for this site in the past, it has and obviously it has not proven to be either financially viable or welcomed by the town in terms of the perhaps the density that was proposed but even a twenty four to thirty unit development would require a varianc suspect that anythingwe would do on other properties would be well within the confines of the zone on those properties. November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for bringing up the fact that we working to evaluate cause this is very technical as you can see and the Board has considerable ANDREW GIAMBERTONE : It started out it was just a couple of pages and it still (inaudible) but this was a document submitted to the consultants and this is the resulting document after the this in a vacuum. We have experts that are working to make sure that our decisions are informed properly and that the data is properly collected and that the analysis is properly to keep people here till midnight but I want to enter into the record H14-13 special it is estimated 55 vehicles will make an eastbound left turn into the site during Saturday 2.3.4 peak hour against an estimated 612 westbound through vehicles. As Main Rd. is one lane in each direction, eastbound left turn vehicles will have to wait for a suitable gap in the westbound direction to safely complete the left turn. These left turning vehicles will block the eastbound through vehicles creating queues on Main Rd. Has the applicant measured gaps in oncoming traffic to ensure sufficient gaps exist in the westbound Main Rd. traffic stream to allow eastbound left turn vehicles to safely access the site? We will provide all of these During special events about 91 vehicles will be exiting the site during the Saturday peak hour. H14-14 As the traffic showed the eastbound approach will operate at LOS F (the worst level) with 2.3.4 anticipated long queues in the site driveway. These long queues will create on-site circulation issues and difficulty for patrons to leave their parking spaces. What types of mitigation is proposed to address both delays due to queuing on Main Rd. and on-site circulation? Another one, special event analysis shows that the analyzed intersections are significantly impacted. H14-15 However, no mitigation measures are recommended. What is proposed to address impacts at 2.3.4 nearby intersections? Cars regularly pull in and out of the 7-Eleven store which is across the H14-16 streetas well as other nearby businesses. If the proposed project is causing vehicles to queue 2.3.4 on Main Rd. cars may be blocked from entering and exiting these businesses. Has the traffic assessment considered anticipated queue lengths and how they may impact nearby site driveway locations? The cumulative effects of this traffic with these businesses should be considered to ensure public safety and to minimize traffic congestion. Since overflow parking is H14-17 being proposed in the vicinity of the proposed restaurant which is anticipated to be 2.3.4 occasionally used by hotel guest and during special events, pedestrian walkways/sidewalk should be provided to connect these two areas and provide safe and convenient access. November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting H14-18 Another one, the plans involve the elimination of someon-street parking in front of the 2.3.4 property to facilitate access and egress from the site. How many spaces will be lost? Will this adversely affect the parking supply for the other businesses in the area? Those are the kinds in depth questions that need tobe answered for us to really get a sense of how this project will function and the affect it will have for good and for not so good and the not so good they will I ne could have access to through and with the help of our consultant who understands the technicalities that are in some ways beyond the scope of what we typically deal with which is why we hire a consultant who will advise us on. They will also be reviewing the final draft that will incorporate all these the consultant and the Board not fully satisfied then we go back to them and ask for more. If we are and only then can we make a findings statement and make a SEQRA determination and proceed with special exception permit. Now is there anything that anyone else in the audience would like to say at this point? Please come forward and state your name and address. MAUREEN HOYT : Maureen Hoyt Maple Lane, Southold down from the Fire Department. I was H15-1 just wondering if this is part of Founder Landing access use and whether that has been brought 2.3.20 up or considered, the impact on that beach because there are events that are held in that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Southold Park District. MAUREEN HOYT : For Founders Landing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would be the Southold Park District. MAUREEN HOYT : I think Founders Landing is just for immediate area which this proposal might uses it but MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think it came up earlier where there was a discussion about Founders Landing it is within the park district. of the park district and as such guests would be permitted they have to get a parking sticker but you know they would be permitted November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting know the answer to that? You have to come up to the mic sorry to make you stand up. JOYCE BAR have three to five of those, but it does crowd the beaches. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does that allow for a car to be parked there? JOYCE BARRY : Yes. a parking permit which allows beach access. T. A. DUFFY : Town beach not district. ow Those are town beaches, that would be allowed. A park district is different you have to be a resident. Any other comments or questions from anybody at this point? LAUREN BARRY : 56755 Main Rd. next door. I was just wondering who the consultant is and how they were chosen? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The consultant is Nelson, Pope Voorhies. The Town of Southold has ltants and by the way you should be aware of the fact that the applicant is obligated to pay for our consultant. T. A. DUFFY : The choice is made through our (inaudible) procedure, they supply quotes for rates and also their qualifications. MEMBER PLANAM live on the Main Rd. frontage of the neighboring site and Mr. Forgione lives in the back lot, is the property owner of the middle lot here? ANTHONY FORGIONE : Bill. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is Bill here? November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Was he here earlier? ANTHONY FORGIONE : No. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : All three of you live full time in these homes or the property for two and a half years now I would likeit if it could be amended on all the hould do that. MEMBER DANTES : Mr. Forgione had a concern about the R80 district on the other side of this house (inaudible) MEMBER DANTES : Mr. Forgione had some concerns about the R80 zoned land that is on the use for the code but it is a residential likely end up being houses if anything. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : A two acre zone MEMBER DANTES : And the other concern brought up about the permitted uses on the site, we als We have opinions on it that are private you have to go to them for actual (inaudible) ANTHONY FORGIONE : Can I ask you a question, if those events do come up and the people with you know another thing to address. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting ANTHONY GIAMBERTONE : I would like to address one thing, when we were looking to this was not the first thought we had to develop a hospitality site within Southold because we felt there was a genuine need for it. There are very few pieces of property in the hamlet business district which would prevent either a hotel or a sizable office building that are available. Most hamlet business district properties are relatively small homes on the Main Rd. that have a half acre of property. That could never possibly be developed into anything significant such as this. This was a very rare piece of property to come by that was zoned hamlet business that was neighbored on two sides, one by the Long Island Railroad and oneby a commercial boatyard so that you were really not bringing a commercial use into a residential community. So it seemed to have the best potential for development that we could put something together in a respectful that with the design of the building and the intent to screen the noise. H14-19 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Can I ask (inaudible) also, the STP system can that be relocated 2.3.9 anywhere else on the site, I noticed in the other sort of as of right program you could place it well being proposed in the same location but can it be placed on the west side of the property? erty to do that. Keeping it part is right at the front door. PAUL GROSSER : We would have to reconfigure with the cottage because this has to be 75 foot setback from the plants to cottages to habitable dwellings so it would have to be reconfigured somehow. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But that is a point to think about. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good. One last question about special events cause this comes up all H14-20 the time particularly with wineries. Many businesses have said that without being able to 2.3.5 realize some income from special events their business model is not going to be successful. How important are those events to your successful business? ANTHONY GIAMBERTONE : When we undertook this project we did so with having a studydone in terms of the financial viability of it. The study was done intentionally leaving out special events so that we felt that based upon what we would build we wanted to assure ourselves that the building would be financially viable with or without special events. That being said you November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting in the area and the ability to have special events definitely takes the edge off of the pain of carrying it through the winter. but our initial business plan was not predicated on the ability to have special events. s an important comment, anything else from t really done much with addressing the SEQRA application, those (inaudible) events will have to be addressed anyway again not special events, Special Exception Permit and particularly at this point about that or should we simply leave that open and you know kind of her hearing on the Special because the priority really is to get the SEQRA determination first. Would you like to enter into Special Exception Permit application? ANDREW GIAMBERTONE : Actually I would ask a question to the Board. I believe Mr. Cuddy did submit CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have submitted in writing. ich is fairly extensive are there any concerns of the Board relative to the Special Exception Permit that we should consider in preparing our next presentation? Section 280- DEIS. MR. CUDDY : Those are separate statements from the DEIS. They (inaudible) solely special exception. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So most of the standards that are in here will be addressed by the questions that were raised tonight. Just for your informat reasonable use of adjacent properties or properties in adjacent use districts. So that was like impacts on other businesses, impacts on the neighbors, residences so on and so forth. The use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use permitted or legally established uses in the district whereas the proposed use is to be located or permitted or legally established uses that are adjacent use district this all sounds repetitive but the safety, health, welfare, comfort, November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting convenience or the order of the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use. They nd then explain their reasons. The character of the neighborhood, the community in general with regard to visibility scale and overall appearance and it goes on. Proposed structures, equipment and material shall readily accessible for fire and police protection. Finally the proposal complies with the requirements of storm water management code or in the alternative Zoning Board of Appeals shall condition such approval on compliance with Chapter 236. So those are the general things they have to address before us before we can say yes the use is permitted but only if you can tellus how these are all going to fit within those standards. Then there are a whole other series of other those or something like that. us. This is what small town democracy looks like. I want to thank all of you, the applicant for their professional preparation for this. I want to thank our consultant and I want to thank all of Your comments as neighbors we take very seriously and the applicant will as well when it co there any other comments from the Board? MEMBER DANTES : I think in the next submission if they (inaudible) flush out like a drought (inaudible) landscapes and water usage and then look at the rain sensors for irrigation and to make a motion to close the DEIS hearing subject to being open till th December 9for written comments from anyone from the public. We want to get those comments to the applicant as soon as we can because they need to address them. So anything you give tothe Zoning Board take them to Kim, email them in if you want or drop off something in writing and we will make it an official part of our public record and will be as important as rybody knows th comments up until December 9, is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) plicated so you know as soon as possible. Does that make sense to everybody? Mr. Cuddy. can get this done shortly after we finish with the DEIS. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I anticipate that it would be in the beginning months of next year that we would be back before the public for that special exception permit hearing. T. A. DUFFY : The problem is Charles we have the draft and then we have to final (inaudible) have a without a date. from anybody? Bear in mind that the applicant in addition to the findings statement on the SEQRA and the Special Exception Permit application will then have to go to the Planning Board for site plan approval and they may require certain changes with the buffers and landscaping addre curb cuts exactly there may be some modifications with site plan. We did not have a vote on that the application for the SEQRA determination which is do we have an application number we should not SEQRA for the Special Exception. BOARD SECRETARY : It is 7046. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so application #7046.e is there a second? November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. If anybody wants to have a quick you know a better look this is actually proposing. (See Minutes for Resolution) November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting C E R T I F I C A T I O N I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of Hearings. Signature : ______________________________________ Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : APPENDIX B OFMTPO-QPQF'WPPSIJT-MMD FOWJSPONFOUBMQMBOOJOHDPOTVMUJOH xxx/ofmtpoqpqfwppsijt/dpn M EMORANDUM To:Leslie Weisman, Chairperson;Members of Southold Zoning Boardof Appeals From: Date:12/9/19 Re:The Enclaves Hotel and RestaurantDraftEnvironmentalImpactS accepted October2019DEIS is review as described in this memo isto assist the ZBA, as Lead Agency, in atechnical and substantive review of the DEIS tohelp to ensure that all potential significant impacts have been properly analyzed and that appropriate impact prevention and mitigation strategies have been identifiedto minimize potential impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Comments associated withthis review must be addressed along with any other substantive comments received from the Town, otherinvolved and interested agencies, and the general public in a Final Environmental publiccomment period(December 9, 2019). 1.0Technical Review Comments Site Planssubmitted with the DEIS Atransitional buffer is not provided along the proposed access driveway on the east side C1-1 of the property. While the lotadjacent to eastis not residentially zoned, it is a residentially 2.3.2 used property. Alimited landscape strip between the driveway and property line. This landscape strip should be evaluated as it does not appear -Leyland Cypressproposed within the strip. Appropriate screening to preserve privacy on the adjacent residentially used properties, reduce visual intrusionfrom cars/headlights entering the site, and noise abatement is necessary. The site plan should be revised to provide a more complianttransition buffer at the southeast corner of the siteas notedby the Town Code (§ 280-94 B.(1)). The site plan should alsobe updated toinclude dimensions for all required zoning setbacks, as well as the dimensions from the eastern property line to the new building. The Landscape Plan and Details (Sheet C-400) shows several existing deciduous trees that C1-2 will be retained along the easterly property line adjacent to residentially zoned and 2.3.2 DPSQPSBUFPGGJDFIVETPOWBMMFZPGGJDF 683!XBMU!XIJUNBO!SPBE-!NFMWJMMF-!OZ!22858.3299267!Spvuf!6:-!Tvjuf!D7-!TVGGFSO-!OZ!21:12 Q IPOF;)742*538.6776!!G BY;)742*538.6731Q IPOF;)956*479.2583!!!!G BY;)956*479.2683 DEIS Review The Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant C1-2 Cont'd 2.3.2 the easterly buffer is proposed to consist of a double or single row of evergreens. The preservation of mature trees helps to provide diversification ofspecies and improved buffers that arepermitted bythe Code (§ 280-92 D.). However, these deciduous trees do not provide a buffer for areas below the canopy or during winter months. Additionally, the face the residential propertiesto the east. The proposed Leyland Cypress trees to buffer -16 C1-2 trees, the second floor rooms of the hotel would have unobstructed views into the Cont'd residential properties to the east for several years while the trees mature.Additional 2.3.2 measures are necessary to adequately screen the proposed hotel rooms relative to the existing residential uses to the eastand demonstrate conformance withSection 280-94 C. of the Code.Additionally, increasing the distance between the property line and the hotel building wouldalso aid in improving the buffer between the two uses. What screening/enclosures/fencingare proposed for the proposed sewage treatment plant? C1-3 The DEIS indicates that odor control will be provided, which requires the continual use of fans for operation. The location and any screening to address the noise of the fans should 2.3.2 be addressed, as well as any area limiting fence or measures proposed for security proposes. The sewage treatment plant will also require that a sludge truck access the building regularly for maintenance. The site plan should demonstrate adequate access and circulation fora sludge truckto the STP building. The location forthe proposed garbage area is proximate to the neighboring residential land C1-4 uses. The applicant shouldrelocate the garbage enclosure away from the residential land 2.3.2 use and provide details of the proposed enclosure (plantings, height, the materials to be used, etc.). Since overflow parking is being proposed in the vicinity of the restaurant which is C1-5 anticipated to be occasionally used by hotel guests, then a pedestrian walkway or sidewalk 2.3.2 should be installed to connect these two areas and provide safe and convenient access. It appears that one of the outdoorlights along the westerly property boundary next to the entrance to the hotel -500) exceeds the lighting standard under § 172-5.C.(1),which states thatthemaximum C1-6 illuminance at the property line between two nonresidential properties may be as high as 2.3.2 0.1 foot-; however, the data provided on the lighting plan indicatesthat the levels at this location are between 0.1and 0.5FCat the property line. Therefore, several statementsinDEIS (pp. x, 6, 77, 84, and 120) indicating that there would be no offsite lighting impactsfrom any of the light poles proposed seems inaccurate. The applicant should confirmthat the proposed lighting plan will bedesigned in compliancewith the Town Code,which wouldtherefore result in no off-site lightpollution. The Proposed Drainage and Grading Plan shows several catch basins, leaching pools, floor C1-7 drains, a swimming pool drainage structure, and pervious overflow parking areas to address 2.3.2 runoff. Page 38of the DEIS, mentions the use of swales for controlling drainage; however,there is no indication as to where these swales will be located,theirsize or any other pertinent information and they are not shown on the proposed Site Drainage and Grading Plan (Sheet C-200). NP&V Page 2of 6 DEIS Review The Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant notes that there are opportunities to incorporate green infrastructure improvements such as C1-7 rain gardens, vegetated swales, or other bioretention features into the project design, to Cont'd enhance the appearance of the site and provide visual interest in certain locations, while 2.3.2 containing, controlling, treating and recharging stormwater runoff. Please provide a description of any proposed green infrastructure, their locations on the site, and relevant details . Draft EIS Comments Executive Summary, page viii, fourth paragraph discusses that the applicant anticipates 8- 12 special event permits per year. The DEIS indicates that such events would likely consist of weddings, fundraising events, etc. and that larger events would be hosted on the lawn area adjacent to a proposed pond. The noise analysis indicates that events would be limited to 6pm to 10pm on Fridays, 2pm to 11pm on Saturdays and 2pm to 6pm on Sundays. The C1-8 DEIS has identified a number of mitigation measures to address noise (use of sound 2.3.1 barriers, noise limiters, etc.). However, the applicant has not provided a means for ensuring the proposed mitigation measures are followed and therefore effective at mitigating the potential impact. (For example, who is responsible for adjusting the limiter and checking the noise level at the property line of sensitive receptors?) Based on the comments C1-9 identified herein related to special event noise and traffic concerns, the applicant has not 2.3.1 adequately criteria contained in Section 280-142 (A, B) and 280-143. The following factors associated with the SE Permit standards for the hotel use should be addressed: o Page 82, Subsection A. (SE Permit standards review): Applicant should discuss C1-10 the zoning and indicate conformity or lack of conformity to 2.3.1 location relative to the Hamlet Center and residential neighborhoods, the LIRR, and changes to and preservation of the restaurant. o Page 83, Subsection C. (SE Permit standards review): Please briefly discuss the 7- C1-11 11 convenience store and Salone Dei Capelli accesses/egresses relative to site 2.3.1 access/egress and how the proposed project will affect traffic congestion and public safety. Please indicate mitigations if needed. o Page 85, Subsection G. (SE Permit standards review): Please discuss how the C1-12 elimination of on-street parking in front of the site may affect public parking for 2.3.1 other land uses in the area. Is it currently used? How many spaces would be lost? Is this an impact, and if so, what if any mitigation is proposed? o Page 86, Subsection M. (SE Permit standards review): A discussion of C1-13 conformance or lack of conformance to use and dimensional zoning requirements 2.3.1 should be provided. The DEIS indicates that a proposed rooftop terrace would be used for gatherings, however very little information is provided regarding this feature. A full description including but C1-14 not necessarily limited to its size in square feet and capacity in terms of total number of 2.3.1 people, its purpose, when it would be used, whether there would be amplified sound, dining, a bar or any other significant element or activities on the roof, and the potential for any noise and visual/aesthetic impacts and intrusion on the privacy of adjoining neighbors. Page 3 of 6 DEIS Review The Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant C1-14 Cont'd A thorough description of the techniques and methods for preventing noise, aesthetic, and 2.3.1 privacy impacts on adjoining neighbors must be included in the FEIS. C1-15 The roof of the hotel will be flat. Will HVAC units be located on the roof, and if so, will 2.3.1 these features be properly screened to prevent or mitigate visual and noise impacts? The DEIS indicates that odor control will be provided for the proposed STP. Please outline C1-16 the Suffolk County Department of Health Services requirements for the design and ongoing 2.3.1 maintenance requirements to ensure that the odor control system remains effective over time. Page 47 of the DEIS organically at first; if the organic treatment fails then specific, approved pesticides will be C1-17 utilized. The application of these pesticides will be limited to the impacted areas and would 2.3.1 this recommendation and how will this standard be implemented/followed or enforced during the critical period of plant survival? Page 98 NP&V recommends providing a pedestrian link (sidewalk and/or path) between the hotel C1-18 and restaurant to enhance pedestrian connectivity to the restaurant/hotel and ensure public 2.3.1 safety. Also, it should be noted that signage must be consistent with Chapter 280 Article istent with the historic character of the restaurant building and Hamlet. Pages 103-106, the following considerations should be discussed relative to o Page 103: The response to Policy 1 should also indicate how the proposed project will protect the residential character of adjacent residential development to the east C1-19 in terms of lighting, noise, landscaping, and signage. 2.3.1 o Page 103: The response to Policy 4 does not indicate how stormwater runoff and flooding will be controlled on and off-site and discuss any green infrastructure as suggested in other parts of the DEIS. o Page 105: The response to Policy 8 should discuss dumpster enclosures on-site, how they will be enclosed and the characteristics of the enclosure to prevent errant trash from being blown into the street or on to adjoining properties, and how dumpsters and possibly dumpster enclosures will be screened from public view and adjacent residences. o Page 106: Regarding Policy 13, please clarify or confirm that the historic restaurant building will not include solar panels on the roof and that the panels would be mounted on the hotel building only. Page 113 of the DEIS states that the S92 bus route passes by the subject property every C1-20 hour in both directions between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM. Please indicate whether there is a 2.3.1 bus stop nearby or whether there is the potential for a new bus stop in the area. Subsection 3.6, Page 137: Due to the potential occupancy of the hotel, it is expected that before a Building Permit is issued, that the Fire District, Building Department and/or Fire C1-21 Marshal, as applicable, will ensure that any fire hydrants that may be needed are installed, 2.3.1 emergency access is sufficient, and that the hotel and restaurant are built to applicable Page 4 of 6 DEIS Review The Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant building and fire codes. Text in the DEIS states that some responses from emergency C1-21 service providers are pending. If responses have been received from community service Cont'd providers, please provide those responses and indicate if any actions will be taken to 2.3.1 address the comments. The photos and renderings submitted do not clearly show the visual impact to the streetscape and neighboring properties when the proposed entry and exit driveways, proposed landscaping, parking lot and the hotel have been completed. For example, Figures C1-22 22 and 23 -Development Views 2.3.1 does not provide such trees at the locations identified by the view legend. The photo- simulations must be accurately completed based on the proposed site plans, including landscaping, site grades and improvements. Additional views should be provided to demonstrate how the proposed project will appear to passersby on foot and in cars and from the adjacent areas east and west. The BURBS Nitrogen Loading Model provided in Appendix F of the DEIS uses a C1-23 residential fertilization rate. It is unclear why a commercial rate was not used to be more 2.3.1 consistent with the commercial nature of the proposed project. Please explain and indicate what the difference is if any. Traffic: During Special Events, it is estimated that during the Saturday Peak hour, 55 vehicles will make an eastbound left turn into the site going against 612 westbound through vehicles. C1-24 Being that Main Road is one lane in each direction, eastbound left turn vehicles will have 2.3.4 to wait for a suitable gap in the westbound direction to safely complete the left turn. These left turn vehicles will block the eastbound through vehicles creating long queues on Main Road. A gap study needs to be conducted to ensure sufficient gaps exist in the westbound Main Road traffic stream to allow eastbound left turn vehicles to safely access the site. Cars regularly pull in and out of the 7-Eleven store, which is across the street, as well as other nearby businesses. If the proposed project is causing vehicles to queue on Main C1-25 Road, cars may be blocked from entering/exiting these businesses. Has the traffic 2.3.4 assessment considered anticipated queue lengths and how they may impact nearby site driveway locations? The cumulative effects of this traffic with these businesses should be considered to ensure public safety and to minimize traffic congestion. The Special Event analyses also show that the analyzed intersections are impacted, resulting in changes to level of service. However, no mitigation measures are recommended. The exit of the site shows that approximately 91 vehicles will be exiting C1-26 the site during the Saturday peak hour. As the analyses show, the southbound approach 2.3.4 will operate at LOS F with anticipated long queues in the site driveway. These long queues will create on-site circulation issues and difficulty for patrons to leave their parking spaces. How does the applicant intend to manage traffic during these Special Events to mitigate impacts to area traffic and on-site circulation? Noise C1-27 The property adjoins residentially zoned areas and neighboring houses. Part of the Special 2.3.3 Exception Use criteria requires that the applicant demonstrate that the proposed use will be Page 5 of 6 DEIS Review The Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant compatible with its surrounding and not cause noise disturbances. It is not clear how the application has addressed these criteria given the noise analysis submitted both for typical use and special event use.Specifically: C1-27 o The DEIS indicates that the proposed hotel would be expected to use an outdoor Cont'd sound reinforcement system to play music within the pool area during regular 2.3.3 daytime hours of operation. The DEIS indicates that a limiter would be placed on this system to ensure that the resulting soundlevels cannot exceed the limits set in 1. the Town of Southold Noise Ordinance for commercial musicIt is not clear if the assessed for outdoor special events. o The DEIS indicates that the STP will have an odor control system. These systems C1-28 require the use of continuously running fan to operate. The noise related to the use 2.3.3 of this equipment should also be considered given the proximity to residential uses. Please seeadditionalcomments attached from thenoise consultantretained by the Zoning Board of Appeals for review of this application. 1 Sunday through Thursday, 65 dB(A) between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm and 50 dB(A) between 7:00 pm and 7:00 am; Friday and Saturday, 65 dB(A) between 7:00 am and 11:00 pm and 50 dB(A) between 11:00 pm and 7:00 am Page 6of 6 PROJECTMEMORANDUM TO:Carrie OFarrell,Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC FROM:Kenneth Skipka, Principal SUBJECT:Substantive Review of DEIS for The Enclaves 6655Main Road, Hamlet of Southold, NY DATE:December 6, 2019 Thismemorandumpresents ourSubstantive review comments on the DEIS Noise Section for The Enclaves project located at 56655Main Road, Hamlet of Southold, NY,revised October2019and the Acoustic Report in Appendix J of the DEIS. Acoustic Report (Appendix J)Comments 1.Or,remove the C2-1 Sound Energy ChangeA change can represent an increase or 2.3.3 Sound Energy Changepresents a decrease in noise level. 2.are presentedin Section 2.5. Thesestandardsare applied to federally funded projects and areintended to protect potential residents in aproposed federally funded project from the existing or expected noise environment. C2-2 2.3.3 They are not normally intended as standardsto protect neighboring sensitive receptors from noise generated from thistype of project. With that said, the project may adopt thesestandardsas one of theProject impact criteria for adjacent properties. However, the project should clearly state that this is the case. C2-3 3.In Section 3.6, thetext states 4 minutes rather than 6minutes. 2.3.3 4.-Night Noise Equivalent Level C2-4 (L) needs to be added to Section 3-Definitions. Lis not equivalent toLand cannot be used dndneq 2.3.3 interchangeably. 5.The monitoring conditions (e.g. date of monitoring period, precipitation, cloud cover, air pressure, C2-5 winds speeds, wind direction, etc.) should be explicitly presented in the text of Section 4.In 2.3.3 i:\\2009\\09015\\npv\\2017-on-call seqra review\\enclaves\\seqra review\\deis review\\2019_12_6 enclaves noise comments.docx The Enclaves at Southold December 6, 2019 Page 2 of 4 C2-5 Cont'd addition, monitoring for weekday and weekend days should be conducted during the operational 2.3.3 hours of The Enclaves or for a full 24-hour period if the HUD criteria is to be used. 6. The proposed site is to be operated during both weekdays and weekends. Different noise characteristics for weekdays and weekend days are the norm rather than the exception. Noise C2-6 2.3.3 monitoring should have been conducted to characterized existing weekend noise environment and serve as the baseline for the weekend. C2-7 7. In Section 5.1, the report should better explain the methodology and assumptions used to 2.3.3 extrapolate the Future traffic noise condition based on a linear traffic growth. 8. selected. This seemed inconsistent. Also, the Report does not present how the peak hour and C2-8 quietest period were determined if only two short periods of the day were sampled. The applicant 2.3.3 should verify the values quoted in Table 5.1.1 as the L and L values appear to be reversed. This 1090 could not be checked since the applicant did not provide the raw data. 9. It is not clear from the report how changes in L will be greater than the L changes under future 9010 conditions with increased traffic. In general, increase traffic will result in greater L increases than 10 C2-9 L increases because individual vehicle passbys are an intermittent event. The L does not reflect 9090 2.3.3 intermittent noise as well as L. For example, single quick passing loud truck would likely not 10 increase L due to the short duration of the passby. This is why the NYS Department of 90 or L, never L. 10eq90 C2-10 10. The expected traffic growth should be presented in the report as well as induced traffic volumes. 2.3.3 11. Parking noise activity, usually due to vehicular movement, is a concern often brought up by the public and should be proactively addressed. It is not clear whether Table 5.1.2 incorporated parking C2-11 lot activity. If so, the report should explain the methodology for determining noise level from 2.3.3 parking lot activity. C2-12 12. Section In 2.3.3 addition, crowd noise is during special events was not evaluated. 13. C2-13 sound levels cannot exceed the limits set in the Town of Southold Noise Ordinance for commercial 2.3.3 musiccannot be assessed The Enclaves at Southold December 6, 2019 Page 3of 4 and thereforeisproblematic. Noise level is highly dependent on speaker placement and what is C2-13 Cont'd in addition to crowdnoise can vary greatly. More detail is required on 2.3.3 14.It is the combinedimpact of noise sources from the property that is not allowed to exceed the Town Noise Ordinance. It has not been shown that these noisesources haveconsistent noise levelsand C2-14 2.3.3 maytherefore require adjustmentsto the limiter. This brings in to question of whoisresponsible foradjustingthe limiter and checking the noise level at the property line of sensitive receptors. 15. provided by C2-15 2.3.3 demonstrate there will be no impact. It should be made clear whether the acoustic consultant is contracted by the Project or the Town. C2-16 16.The Report did not address the potential noise impact of otherpotential noise sources such as an 2.3.3 HVAC system. 17.Average sound level spectra C2-17 for male and female speaking voices at a raised voice effort levelneeds to present 2.3.3 the reference level as well as cite the source. C2-18 18. 2.3.3 during these special events. It is unclear how this limiter would work, especially if outside sound C2-19 19. 2.3.3 20.In discussing speaker placement, noise barriers, special events, and landscaping, a scaled drawing C2-20 would be helpful. 2.3.3 C2-21 21.For Section 6, the methodologies and reference noise levels for the mathematical calculations were 2.3.3 not presented. The Enclaves at Southold December 6, 2019 Page 4of 4 The Enclaves DEIS: Chapter 3.4 NoiseComments For the most part, the comments for the DEIS Noise sectionparallelthe commentsnoted above for theAcoustic Report (Appendix J), which it summarizes. 1.Town Code §180-7(A)(6) was cited, which exempts non-amplified noise generated from lawful C2-22 athletic or recreational activities, events or facilities. It is questionable whether this applies to a 2.3.1 commercial property and its use. The Town may need to render an interpretation of this item in their Code. C2-23 2.The Report did not identify the Saturday peak hour. 2.3.1 3.It is important to C2-24 explained, to include proposed procedures on how it will be implemented. 2.3.1 C3-1 2.3.8 C3-2 2.3.9 C4-1 2.3.9 C4-2 2.3.2 C5-1 2.3.4 C5-2 2.3.14 C5-3 2.3.8 C5-4 2.3.6 C6-1 2.2 C6-2 2.3.4 C7-1 2.3.4 C7-2 2.3.7 C7-3 2.3.8 C7-4 2.3.8 C7-5 2.3.9 C7-6 2.3.3 C7-7 2.3.12 C7-8 2.3.6 C7-8 Cont'd 2.3.6 C8-1 2.2 C9-1 2.3.15 C9-2 2.3.15 C10-1 2.3.20 C10-2 2.3.6 C10-3 2.3.6 C11-1 2.3.17 C11-2 2.3.20 C11-3 2.3.4 C11-4 2.3.12 C11-5 2.3.13 C11-6 2.3.13 C12-1 2.2 C13-1 2.3.4 C13-2 2.3.8 C13-3 2.3.13 C14-1 2.3.19 C15-1 2.3.4 C15-2 2.3.13 C16-1 2.3.10 C16-2 2.3.10 C16-3 2.3.8 C16-4 2.3.8 C16-5 2.3.8 C16-5 Continued 2.3.8 C16-6 2.3.2 C16-7 2.3.4 C16-8 2.3.4 C16-8 Continued 2.3.4 C16-9 2.3.4 C16-10 2.3.3 C17-1 2.3.20 C17-1 Continued 2.3.20 C17-2 2.3.20 C17-3 2.3.4 C17-4 2.3.12 C17-5 2.3.6 C17-5 Continued 2.3.6 C18-1 2.3.1 C18-2 2.3.1 C18-3 2.3.1 C18-3 Continued 2.3.1 C18-4 2.3.1 C18-5 2.3.1 C19-1 2.3.8 C19-1 Continued 2.3.8 C19-2 2.3.20 C20-1 2.3.4 C20-2 2.2 C21-1 2.2 C22-1 2.3.1 C22-2 2.3.19 C22-3 2.3.1 C22-4 2.3.1 C22-5 2.3.1 C22-6 2.3.1 C22-7 2.3.9 C22-8 2.3.8 C22-9 2.3.8 C22-10 2.3.7 C22-11 2.3.10 C22-12 2.3.4 C22-13 2.3.4 C22-14 2.3.4 C22-15 2.3.3 C22-16 2.3.5 C22-17 2.3.5 C22-18 2.3.20 C22-18 Continued 2.3.20 C23-1 2.3.4 C23-2 2.3.20 C23-3 2.3.20 C24-1 2.3.13 C24-2 2.3.12 C24-3 2.3.12 C24-4 2.3.20 C24-5 2.3.9 C24-6 2.3.20 C24-7 2.3.4 C24-8 2.3.20 C24-9 2.3.20 C24-10 2.3.7 C24-10 Continued 2.3.7 C25-1 2.3.4 C25-2 2.3.20 C25-3 2.3.20 C25-4 2.3.19 C26-1 2.3.8 C26-2 2.3.4 C27-1 2.3.6 C27-1 Continued 2.3.6 C27-2 2.3.1 C27-3 2.3.1 C27-4 2.3.6 C27-5 2.3.4 C27-6 2.3.11 C27-7 2.3.6 C28-1 2.3.4 C28-2 2.3.20 C28-3 2.3.12 C28-4 2.3.20 C28-5 2.3.3 C28-6 2.3.20 C28-7 2.3.20 C29-1 2.3.4 C29-2 2.3.20 C29-3 2.3.12 C29-4 2.3.20 C29-5 2.3.3 C29-6 2.3.20 C29-7 2.3.20 C30-1 2.3.2 C30-2 2.3.1 C30-3 2.3.8 C30-4 2.3.20 C31-1 2.3.19 C31-2 2.3.20 C31-2 Continued 2.3.20 C31-3 2.3.12 C31-4 2.3.12 C31-5 2.3.20 C31-6 2.3.20 C32-1 2.2 C33-1 2.3.6 C33-2 2.3.11 C33-3 2.3.8 C33-4 2.3.8 C33-4 Continued 2.3.8 C33-5 2.3.4 C33-6 2.3.4 C33-7 2.3.3 C33-8 2.3.20 C34-1 2.3.20 C34-2 2.3.20 C34-3 2.3.7 C34-4 2.3.3 C34-5 2.3.4 C34-3 Continued 2.3.7 C35-1 2.3.20 C35-2 2.3.12 C35-3 2.3.20 C35-3 Continued 2.3.20 C35-4 2.3.10 C35-5 2.3.9 C35-6 2.3.3 C35-7 2.3.16 C35-8 2.3.16 C35-9 2.3.3 C35-10 2.3.4 C35-11 2.3.7 C35-12 2.3.7 C36-1 2.3.20 C36-2 2.3.7 C36-3 2.3.4 C36-4 2.3.6 C37-1 2.3.20 C37-2 2.3.8 C37-3 2.3.8 C37-4 2.3.8 C37-3 Continued 2.3.8 C37-5 2.3.11 C37-3 Continued 2.3.8 C37-6 2.3.11 C37-7 2.3.4 C38-1 2.1 C39-1 2.1 C40-1 2.2 C41-1 2.3.7 C41-1 Continued 2.3.7 C41-2 2.3.5 C41-3 2.3.20 C41-4 2.3.9 C41-5 2.3.8 C41-6 2.3.18 C41-7 2.3.8 C41-8 2.3.10 C41-9 2.3.20 C41-10 2.3.7 C41-11 2.3.11 C41-12 2.3.8 C41-13 2.3.20 C42-1 2.3.4 C42-2 2.3.7 C42-3 2.3.5 C42-4 2.3.20 C42-4 Continued 2.3.20 C42-5 2.3.7 C42-6 2.3.4 C42-7 2.3.3 C42-8 2.3.20 C42-9 2.3.13 ae� " a )7-CAMS ry lei as APPENDIX C APPENDIX D Our, c AP" 1 limp, V lig (Do 7-Eleven ON I APPENDIX E LAND USEUNITS OF CODELAND USE DESCRIPTIONMEASURE (X)AM PEAK HOUR *PM PEAK HOUR *WEEKDAY DAILY TRIPS *WEEKEND PEAK HOUR *WEEKEND DAILY TRIPS * 850SupermarketSQ. FEETX/1000*7.07X/1000*9.48X/1000*102.24X/1000*18.93X/1000*177.59 851Convenience MarketSQ. FEETX/1000*73.10X/1000*53.42X/1000*737.99X/1000*77.11X/1000*863.10 853Convenience Market with Gas PumpsSQ. FEETX/1000*42.86X/1000*62.57X/1000*845.6X/1000*45.94X/1000*1448.33 854Discount SupermarketSQ. FEET(X/1000)*6.33(X/1000)*8.34(X/1000)*90.86(X/1000)*9.65(X/1000)*111.85 857Discount ClubSQ. FEET(X/1000)*3.37(X/1000)*4.63(X/1000)*41.80(X/1000)*6.37(X/1000)*53.75 860Wholesale MarketSQ. FEETX/1000*0.58X/1000*0.52X/1000*6.73X/1000*0.23X/1000*2.3 861Discount ClubSQ. FEET(X/1000)*3.68(X/1000)*4.76(X/1000)*41.80(X/1000)*6.85(X/1000)*53.75 862Home Improvement SuperstoreSQ. FEET(X/1000)*2.57(X/1000)*3.17(X/1000)*30.74(X/1000)*8.03(X/1000)*56.72 863Electronics SuperstoreSQ. FEET(X/1000)*3.46(X/1000)*4.5(X/1000)*45.04(X/1000)*6.26(X/1000)*57.29 864Toy/Children's SuperstoreSQ. FEET(X/1000)*4.99(X/1000)*4.99(X/1000)*49.9(X/1000)*5.53(X/1000)*55.3 870Apparel StoreSQ. FEET(X/1000)*4.8(X/1000)*4.2(X/1000)*66.4(X/1000)*4.8(X/1000)*66.4 880Pharmacy/Drugstore w/o Drive-ThroughSQ. FEET12.05*(X/1000)-46.21(X/1000)*11.07EXP(0.99*LN(X/1000)+4.51)(X/1000)*11.07EXP(0.99*LN(X/1000)+4.51) 881Pharmacy/Drugstore w/Drive-ThroughSQ. FEET(X/1000)*8.36(X/1000)*9.91(X/1000)*96.91(X/1000)*8.20(X/1000)*96.91 890Furniture StoreSQ. FEET(X/1000)*0.4(X/1000)*0.53(X/1000)*5.06(X/1000)*0.95(X/1000)*4.94 895Video ArcadeSQ. FEET(X/1000)*17.6(X/1000)*56.81(X/1000)*96.0(X/1000)*37.87(X/1000)*176.0 911Banks w/o Drive-inSQ. FEETX/1000*11.63X/1000*20.98X/1000*94.05X/1000*20.98X/1000*94.05 912Banks w/Drive-inWINDOWSX*21.64X*33.24X*139.25X*28.78X*59.82 925 Drinking PlaceSQ. FEETX*0X/1000*15.49X/1000*15.49X/1000*77.45X/1000*85.2 931Restaurant, QualitySQ. FEETX/1000*5.57X/1000*9.02X/1000*89.95X/1000*10.82X/1000*94.36 932Restaurant, High Turnover (Sit-Down)SQ. FEETX/1000*13.33X/1000*18.49X/1000*127.15X/1000*18.46X/1000*158.37 933Restaurant, Fast Food w/o Drive throughSQ. FEETX/1000*63.5X/1000*52.4X/1000*716X/1000*54.55X/1000*696 934Restaurant, Fast Food w/Drive throughSQ. FEETX/1000*53.61X/1000*47.30X/1000*496.12X/1000*72.74X/1000*722.03 936Coffee/Donut Shop without Drive-Thru WinSQ. FEETX/1000*108.38X/1000*40.75X/1000*1083.8X/1000*65.96X/1000*1083.8 937Coffee/Donut Shop with Drive-Thru WinSQ. FEETX/1000*101.40X/1000*42.80X/1000*818.58X/1000*84.52X/1000*818.58 941Oil/Lube FacilitySERVICE BAYSX*4X*5.19X*40X*7X*42 942Automobile Care CenterSQ. FEETX/1000*2.83X/1000*3.51X/1000*23.72X/1000*3.51X/1000*23.72 999Multiple Use?00000 W09Banquet HallSEATSX*0.16X*0.3X*2.86X*0.33X*2.81 X01Service Station With Gas OnlySTATIONSX*71X*92X*1012X*92X*1012 X02Service Station With Gas & Service BaysSTATIONSX*81X*86X*781X*86X*781 X03Service Station With Gas & MinimartSTATIONSX*128X*129X*1224X*129X*1224 X04Service Station With Gas & Car WashSTATIONSX*108X*94X*1174X*108X*1174 X05Service Station w/Minimart,CarWash & GasSTATIONSX*110X*151X*1288X*151X*1288 X06Wholesale Club (USE DISCOUNT CLUBS BUILDINGSX*77X*550X*5500X*700X*7000 X07Car Wash, TunnelTUNNELX*39X*58X*388X*58X*388 Y01Water TowerTOWERSX*2X*2X*4X*2X*4 Y02Water Treatment FacilityPRKNG SLOTSX*1X*1X*4X*1X*4 Y03Maintenance YardEMPLOYEESX*2X*2X*4X*2X*4 Y04Miniature Golf18 HOLESX*18X*28X*280X*53X*530 Y05Driving RangeTEEX*0.657X*1.0X*10.0X*1.514X*15.14 Y06Batting CageCAGEX*0.78X*1.11X*11.11X*1.67X*16.67 Y07Ice Cream Parlor (Sit-Down, no take out)SQ. FEETX/1000*71.428X/1000*71.428X/1000*521.428X/1000*71.428X/1000*546.428 Y08Baseball StadiumPARKIN SPOTSX*0X*1X*2X*1X*2 Y09FirehouseEMPLOYEESX*2X*2X*4X*2X*4 Y10State Police HeadquartersSQ. FEETX/1000*1.01X/1000*1.962X/1000*11.679X/1000*1.01X/1000*4.279 Y11Liquor StoreSQ. FEET(X/1000)*4.444(X/1000)*14.074(X/1000)*147.037(X/1000)*14.074(X/1000)*106.296 Y12Home Depot (DON"T USE ANY MORE !!!)FACILITYX*300X*495X*4950X*950X*9500 Y13U-Haul Type of FacilityTRUCKSX*0.75X*0.75X*3X*1.5X*6 Y14Parking LotSPACESX*1X*1X*10X*1X*10 Y15Farm Stand/MarketFACILITYX*20X*38X*375X*52X*480 Site Traffic Analyses for 250 patronsBuild Condtions 03/12/2021 3: 7-Eleven Access/Site Access & Main Road MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)0652370599241612042164 Future Volume (Veh/h)0652370599241612042164 Sign ControlFreeFreeStopStop Grade0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.500.500.50 Hourly flow rate (vph)07094006512617122842128 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median typeNoneNone Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume6777491522140672914161413664 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol6777491522140672914161413664 tC, single (s)4.14.27.16.56.27.16.56.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s)2.22.33.54.03.33.54.03.3 p0 queue free %100100759995229972 cM capacity (veh/h)91583869138421108137459 Direction, Lane #EB 1WB 1NB 1SB 1 Volume Total74967740214 Volume Left001784 Volume Right402622128 cSH1700838130199 Volume to Capacity0.440.000.311.07 Queue Length 95th (ft)0030248 Control Delay (s)0.00.044.4134.2 Lane LOSEF Approach Delay (s)0.00.044.4134.2 Approach LOSEF Intersection Summary Average Delay 18.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.0%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 Synchro 10 ReportHCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis OSBPage 1 Site Traffic Analyses for 100 patronsBuild Condtions 03/12/2021 3: 7-Eleven Access/Site Access & Main Road MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)0652370599241612021132 Future Volume (Veh/h)0652370599241612021132 Sign ControlFreeFreeStopStop Grade0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.500.500.50 Hourly flow rate (vph)0709400651261712242264 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median typeNoneNone Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume6777491458140672914161413664 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol6777491458140672914161413664 tC, single (s)4.14.27.16.56.27.16.56.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s)2.22.33.54.03.33.54.03.3 p0 queue free %100100819995619986 cM capacity (veh/h)91583891138421108137459 Direction, Lane #EB 1WB 1NB 1SB 1 Volume Total74967740108 Volume Left001742 Volume Right40262264 cSH1700838162199 Volume to Capacity0.440.000.250.54 Queue Length 95th (ft)002371 Control Delay (s)0.00.034.342.8 Lane LOSDE Approach Delay (s)0.00.034.342.8 Approach LOSDE Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.1%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 Synchro 10 ReportHCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis OSBPage 1 Intersection Capacity Analyses Summaries Attachment 1 Attachment 2 GAP COUNT SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS Left-turn from Proposed Driveway to Main Road Southold, Suffolk County, New York Count Conducted: 10/24/2020 SE&D Job No.: NYC-200251 AVAILABLE GAPS (SECONDS) TIME0 - 7.097.1 - 10.5910.6 - 14.0914.1 - 17.5917.6 - 21.0921.1 - 24.5924.6 - 28.0928.1+ 11:00 AM 405322010 11:05 AM 444330200 11:10 AM 362430021 11:15 AM 395620200 11:20 AM 356233200 11:25 AM 526800000 11:30 AM 506520000 11:35 AM 714220000 11:40 AM 533143000 11:45 AM 535510001 11:50 AM 483320200 11:55 AM 634211000 Total Gaps 11:00 AM-12:00 PM Peak 5845344259832 Vehicles/Gap 01234567 Vehicular Capacity (11:00 AM-12:00 PM Peak) 53887536401814 Total Capacity (Vehicles):324 Gap Required For: Base Critical Gap: 7.1 seconds1 Vehicle:7.1 seconds Follow-Up Gap: 3.5 seconds2 Vehicles:10.6 seconds 3 Vehicles:14.1 seconds 4 Vehicles:17.6 seconds 5 Vehicles:21.1 seconds 6 Vehicles:24.6 seconds 7 Vehicles:28.1 seconds Z:\\LIC\\NYC\\2020\\NYC-200251 PWGC - 54455 Main Road, Southold, NY\\Field Notes & Photos\\Counts\\2020-10-24\\Data\\2020-10-24 Left Out Gaps.xlsx GAP COUNT SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS Left-turn from Proposed Driveway to Main Road Southold, Suffolk County, New York Count Conducted: 10/24/2020 SE&D Job No.: NYC-200251 AVAILABLE GAPS (SECONDS) TIME0 - 7.097.1 - 10.5910.6 - 14.0914.1 - 17.5917.6 - 21.0921.1 - 24.5924.6 - 28.0928.1+ 12:00 PM 567032000 12:05 PM 552431000 12:10 PM 507610000 12:15 PM 676400000 12:20 PM 576311000 12:25 PM 533531000 12:30 PM 567210000 12:35 PM 575311000 12:40 PM 596311000 12:45 PM 493522000 12:50 PM 513311100 12:55 PM 419402100 Total Gaps 12:00 PM-1:00 PM Peak 65164421712200 Vehicles/Gap 01234567 Vehicular Capacity (12:00 PM-1:00 PM Peak) 648451481000 Total Capacity (Vehicles):257 Gap Required For: Base Critical Gap: 7.1 seconds1 Vehicle:7.1 seconds Follow-Up Gap: 3.5 seconds2 Vehicles:10.6 seconds 3 Vehicles:14.1 seconds 4 Vehicles:17.6 seconds 5 Vehicles:21.1 seconds 6 Vehicles:24.6 seconds 7 Vehicles:28.1 seconds Z:\\LIC\\NYC\\2020\\NYC-200251 PWGC - 54455 Main Road, Southold, NY\\Field Notes & Photos\\Counts\\2020-10-24\\Data\\2020-10-24 Left Out Gaps.xlsx GAP COUNT SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS Left-turn from Proposed Driveway to Main Road Southold, Suffolk County, New York Count Conducted: 10/24/2020 SE&D Job No.: NYC-200251 AVAILABLE GAPS (SECONDS) TIME0 - 7.097.1 - 10.5910.6 - 14.0914.1 - 17.5917.6 - 21.0921.1 - 24.5924.6 - 28.0928.1+ 1:00 PM 547111001 1:05 PM 465302110 1:10 PM 568311000 1:15 PM 644301000 1:20 PM 5010311000 1:25 PM 664301000 1:30 PM 384221101 1:35 PM 495240000 1:40 PM 425211200 1:45 PM 674201100 1:50 PM 467501000 1:55 PM 4110400000 Total Gaps 1:00 PM-2:00 PM Peak 61973331011512 Vehicles/Gap 01234567 Vehicular Capacity (1:00 PM-2:00 PM Peak) 7366304425614 Total Capacity (Vehicles):258 Gap Required For: Base Critical Gap: 7.1 seconds1 Vehicle:7.1 seconds Follow-Up Gap: 3.5 seconds2 Vehicles:10.6 seconds 3 Vehicles:14.1 seconds 4 Vehicles:17.6 seconds 5 Vehicles:21.1 seconds 6 Vehicles:24.6 seconds 7 Vehicles:28.1 seconds Z:\\LIC\\NYC\\2020\\NYC-200251 PWGC - 54455 Main Road, Southold, NY\\Field Notes & Photos\\Counts\\2020-10-24\\Data\\2020-10-24 Left Out Gaps.xlsx GAP COUNT SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS Right-turn from Proposed Driveway to Main Road Southold, Suffolk County, New York Count Conducted: 10/24/2020 SE&D Job No.: NYC-200051 AVAILABLE GAPS (SECONDS) TIME0 - 6.196.2 - 9.499.5 - 12.7912.8 - 16.0916.1 - 19.3919.4 - 22.6922.7 - 25.9926+ 11:00 AM 211441012 11:05 AM 145023212 11:10 AM 113040033 11:15 AM 140011133 11:20 AM 181400133 11:25 AM 171331004 11:30 AM 83513023 11:35 AM 153252101 11:40 AM 261161311 11:45 AM 163441202 11:50 AM 94321014 11:55 AM 214721121 Total Gaps 11:00 AM-12:00 PM Peak 19029333415111729 Vehicles/Gap 01234567 Vehicular Capacity (11:00 AM-12:00 PM Peak) 29661026055102203 Total Capacity (Vehicles):617 Gap Required For: Base Critical Gap: 6.2 seconds1 Vehicle:6.2 seconds Follow-Up Gap: 3.3 seconds2 Vehicles:9.5 seconds 3 Vehicles:12.8 seconds 4 Vehicles:16.1 seconds 5 Vehicles:19.4 seconds 6 Vehicles:22.7 seconds 7 Vehicles:26.0 seconds Z:\\LIC\\NYC\\2020\\NYC-200251 PWGC - 54455 Main Road, Southold, NY\\Field Notes & Photos\\Counts\\2020-10-24\\Data\\2020-10-24 Left Ins-Right Outs Gaps.xlsx GAP COUNT SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS Right-turn from Proposed Driveway to Main Road Southold, Suffolk County, New York Count Conducted: 10/24/2020 SE&D Job No.: NYC-200051 AVAILABLE GAPS (SECONDS) TIME0 - 6.196.2 - 9.499.5 - 12.7912.8 - 16.0916.1 - 19.3919.4 - 22.6922.7 - 25.9926+ 12:00 PM 234243201 12:05 PM 164213103 12:10 PM 164230113 12:15 PM 256512210 12:20 PM 81022033 12:25 PM 253231013 12:30 PM 253421411 12:35 PM 273231122 12:40 PM 167440031 12:45 PM 233300312 12:50 PM 91321104 12:55 PM 104200404 Total Gaps 12:00 PM-1:00 PM Peak 22343312514191327 Vehicles/Gap 01234567 Vehicular Capacity (12:00 PM-1:00 PM Peak) 436275569578189 Total Capacity (Vehicles):598 Gap Required For: Base Critical Gap: 6.2 seconds1 Vehicle:6.2 seconds Follow-Up Gap: 3.3 seconds2 Vehicles:9.5 seconds 3 Vehicles:12.8 seconds 4 Vehicles:16.1 seconds 5 Vehicles:19.4 seconds 6 Vehicles:22.7 seconds 7 Vehicles:26.0 seconds Z:\\LIC\\NYC\\2020\\NYC-200251 PWGC - 54455 Main Road, Southold, NY\\Field Notes & Photos\\Counts\\2020-10-24\\Data\\2020-10-24 Left Ins-Right Outs Gaps.xlsx GAP COUNT SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS Right-turn from Proposed Driveway to Main Road Southold, Suffolk County, New York Count Conducted: 10/24/2020 SE&D Job No.: NYC-200051 AVAILABLE GAPS (SECONDS) TIME0 - 6.196.2 - 9.499.5 - 12.7912.8 - 16.0916.1 - 19.3919.4 - 22.6922.7 - 25.9926+ 1:00 PM 155522102 1:05 PM 116220112 1:10 PM 233633111 1:15 PM 253421311 1:20 PM 165752002 1:25 PM 863501111 1:30 PM 127410003 1:35 PM 154352011 1:40 PM 154122004 1:45 PM 303111002 1:50 PM 92261113 1:55 PM 84403012 Total Gaps 1:00 PM-2:00 PM Peak 187524234178734 Vehicles/Gap 01234567 Vehicular Capacity (1:00 PM-2:00 PM Peak) 5284102684042238 Total Capacity (Vehicles):626 Gap Required For: Base Critical Gap: 6.2 seconds1 Vehicle:6.2 seconds Follow-Up Gap: 3.3 seconds2 Vehicles:9.5 seconds 3 Vehicles:12.8 seconds 4 Vehicles:16.1 seconds 5 Vehicles:19.4 seconds 6 Vehicles:22.7 seconds 7 Vehicles:26.0 seconds Z:\\LIC\\NYC\\2020\\NYC-200251 PWGC - 54455 Main Road, Southold, NY\\Field Notes & Photos\\Counts\\2020-10-24\\Data\\2020-10-24 Left Ins-Right Outs Gaps.xlsx APPENDIX F ACOUSTIC REPORT Rev. 7 Survey of Existing Acoustic Conditions and Expected Acoustic Impacts at: The Enclaves 56655 Route 25 Southold, NY Prepared for: PW Grosser Consulting Attn: Bryan Grogan Engineers: Sean Harkin Dr. Bonnie Schnitta May 19, 2021 ! The Enclaves 56655 Route 25 Southold, NY Acoustical Report Rev. 7 5/19/21! EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This document serves to summarize the evaluation of the existing acoustic conditions at the proposed Enclaves Restaurant and Hotel Proposed Location, as well as the analysis of the expected acoustic impacts to be incorporated into the SEQRA review of the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Location inclusive of the as-of-right development of the property. This acoustic report has incorporated the concerns raised during the public comment period after presentation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, as well as additional comments raised by the the course of the FEIS review. th SoundSense visited the Proposed Location on July 19, 2018, during time periods which had been submitted in the draft scope and approved by the zoning board, to take existing noise level readings that would allow the quantification of the existing sound levels. Existing 20-minute Leq sound levels measured during data collection ranged from 43 dBA to 62 dBA. These readings were then used as a baseline noise level for worst case scenario for acoustic design. The data collected during this site visit characterized the current acoustic nature of the neighborhood surrounding the Proposed Location, including the commercial properties on Route 25 as well as the residential properties further setback off the roadway. The measured sound levels were used in conjunction with the traffic study provided by Dunn Engineering to assess the potential increase in sound level at the receivers of concern due to both the natural increase in traffic due to population growth and the further increase in sound level due to traffic entering and exiting the Proposed Location. Projections were quantified by inserting vehicle passbys into acoustic data collected. This modeling performed included additional trips during weekday peak hours and Saturday peak hour 44 dBA using anticipated traffic growth data from the Traffic Study. This No Build sound level was utilized in the analysis. Typical site activities from additional noise sources such as the Pool, Cottages, Parking Lot, Rooftop Lounge, and Sewage Treatment Plant have all been considered as well as an allowance for mechanical equipment and sound levels from any future indoor special events as described above. Standardized data for speech were used to project crowd noise as well as additional background music were included in the analysis. In addition, sound from the possible indoor special events space has been considered in the analysis by including an allowance for additional sound from the space. Exterior façade design during the site planning process would be completed to ensure the sound levels used in this document and analysis would be met. No Build projected sound levels were added back into all projections so that the background sound levels were always included in the projected sound levels. In addition to these sources, an allowance for mechanical sound levels has been included in cumulative calculations. Predicted cumulative noise levels ranged from Calculations determined that cumulative sound levels would increase background sound levels by no more than 5 dB over the No Build predicted noise levels. The predicted noise levels ranged from 47 dBA to 49 dBA and would meet the Town of Southold Noise Ordinance and are not considered a noise impact per the NYSDEC guidelines, which have been adopted as the project criteria. Details regarding the analysis can be found in Section 5 below. Additionally, the acoustic impacts of the as-of-right development of the property, including an office traffic due to the Alternate Site Plan as detailed in the Traffic Study. !Qbhf!2!pg!26 ! ! The Enclaves 56655 Route 25 Southold, NY Acoustical Report Rev. 7 5/19/21! EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (Continued): This report is organized as follows: Section 1: Equipment used to take acoustic readings. Section 2: Discussion of Noise & Noise Criteria. Section 3: Definitions of terms used throughout this report. Section 4: Analysis of Existing Acoustic Conditions. Section 5: Prediction of Expected Noise Levels. Section 6: Proposed Mitigation Measures. Section 7: Analysis of Alternate Site Plan. Appendix A: Marked Copy of Site Plan. Appendix B: Reference Data Utilized for Analysis SECTION 1 - EQUIPMENT: Frequency Analyzer: Bruel & Kjaer Model 2250, Serial No. 2739677 Type 1 Microphone: Bruel & Kjaer Model 4190, Serial No. 2731530 Sound Calibrator: Bruel & Kjaer Model 4231, Serial No. 2730164 NOTE: All equipment was factory calibrated within the past year. Additionally, the microphone is Type 1 per ASTM Standards and was calibrated before and after the readings. SECTION 2 DISCUSSION OF NOISE & ACOUSTIC CRITERIA: 2.1 Town of Southold Noise Ordinance Chapter 180 § 180-5 General prohibition. No person or persons owning, leasing or controlling the operation of any source of noise on any lot or structure within the Town shall permit the establishment of a condition of noise pollution. Except as provided in §180-6, the use of amplifiers, speakers or other machines or devices capable of reproducing amplified or airborne sound from the premises, dwelling or building within the Town shall be considered noise pollution and shall be prohibited at all times. !Qbhf!3!pg!26 ! ! The Enclaves 56655 Route 25 Southold, NY Acoustical Report Rev. 7 5/19/21! SECTION 2 DISCUSSION OF NOISE & ACOUSTIC CRITERIA: 2.1 Town of Southold Noise Ordinance Chapter 180 (Continued) § 180-6 Standards. No person shall create or cause to be emitted any noise pollution which when measured on a sound- level meter from the property line of a complaining property owner exceeds the following standards: A. Sunday through Thursday: (1) From 7:00 a.m to 7:00 p.m., airborne or amplified sound in excess of 65 dBA; and (2) From 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., airborne or amplified sound in excess of 50 dBA. B. Friday and Saturday: (1) From 7:00 a.m to 11:00 p.m., airborne or amplified sound in excess of 65 dBA; and (2) From 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., airborne or amplified sound in excess of 50 dBA. § 180-7 Exceptions. A. The provisions of §§180-5 and 180-6 shall not apply to the following: (2) Construction activities between 7:00 a.m. through 7:00 p.m. and the associated use of construction devices or the noise produced thereby, provided that such activities and such equipment and their use comply with the other provisions hereof. (6) Nonamplified noise generated from lawful athletic or recreational activities, events or facilities. (11) Emergency construction or repair work. 2.2 Table 2.2.1: NYSDEC Thresholds for Significant Sound Pressure Level (SPL) Increase Sound Level Impact Need for Mitigation Increase (dB) 0 3 No appreciable effect on receptors No need Potential for adverse noise impact in cases Mitigation may be needed for most 3 6 where the most sensitive of receptors are sensitive receptors such as present churches and theaters Potential for adverse noise impact depending Mitigation may be needed for most 6 10 on existing SPL and character of surround receptors, depending on existing land use and receptors conditions Deserves consideration of avoidance and mitigation measures 10 or more Adverse impact in most cases !Qbhf!4!pg!26 ! ! The Enclaves 56655 Route 25 Southold, NY Acoustical Report Rev. 7 5/19/21! SECTION 2 DISCUSSION OF NOISE & ACOUSTIC CRITERIA (Continued): 2.2 New York State Table 2.2.2: Increase in Sound Pressure (dB) Human Reaction Under 5 Unnoticed to tolerable 5 - 10 Intrusive 10 - 15 Very noticeable 15 - 20 Objectionable Over 20 Very objectionable to intolerable 2.3 HUD Site Acceptability Standards While the HUD site acceptability standards do not specifically apply to this project, they are provided to offer a frame of reference for site acceptability as has been determined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Day-night average sound Noise Zone Special approvals and requirements level (in decibels) Acceptable Not exceeding 65 dB None Environmental assessment and attenuation required for new construction Normally Above 65 dB but not Unacceptable exceeding 75 dB Attenuation strongly encouraged for major rehabilitation Environmental impact statement required Attenuation required for new construction Unacceptable Above 75 dB with approval by the Assistant Secretary of CPD or certifying officer !Qbhf!5!pg!26 ! ! The Enclaves 56655 Route 25 Southold, NY Acoustical Report Rev. 7 5/19/21! SECTION 3 - DEFINITIONS: 3.1 Ambient In this document ambient refers to the current sound levels measured during the data collection period th on July 19, 2018. Predicted sound levels as a result of natural traffic growth have been referred to as the No Build sound level in this document for comparison to predicted sound levels. 3.2 Decibel (dB) Definition: The term used to identify ten times the common logarithm of the ratio of two like quantities proportional to power or energy. Thus, one decibel corresponds to a power ratio (10 to the 0.1 power) to the n power. Since the decibel expresses the ratio of two like quantities, it has no units. In this document, all decibels are presented using industry standard 20 ¶Pa as the reference quantity. Note: A-Weighting dBA This weighting metric is commonly applied to sound pressure levels as it is an approximation of the hearing response of the human ear which is more responsive to higher frequencies than lower frequencies. 3.3 Equivalent-Continuous Sound Level (Leq) Definition: Equivalent-continuous, frequency-weighted sound pressure level over a specified averaging time is the equivalent steady level, in that time interval, of the time-mean-square, frequency-weighted sound pressure produced by the sources of steady, fluctuating, intermittent, irregular, or impulsive sounds. The equivalent-continuous sound level of a time-varying sound is equal to the level of an equivalent steady sound at a measurement location for the same measurement duration. Specifically, Leq is 10 times the common logarithm of the ratio of the time-mean-square sound pressure over time period to the square of the standard reference sound pressure . Measured in dB the Leq is: 3.4 Standards The information within this findings document is based on the ASTM Standards. Any variation to the ASTM criteria is based on additional research by such groups as the Acoustic Society of America and INCE that focuses on the well-being of humans in the presence of noise. 3.5 Statistical Sound Levels (L10, L50, L90, etc.) The sound level that is exceeded for the percentage of time of that level during a period of time. Example: During a 1-hour measurement, an L10 of 60 dBA means the sound level was at or above 60 dBA for a total of 6 minutes, whereas an L90 of 60 dBA means the sound level was at or above 60 dBA for a total of 54 minutes. This is often used to demonstrate ambient sound levels. In addition to these sound levels, minimum and maximum sound levels measured are typically provided and denoted as Lmin and Lmax. !Qbhf!6!pg!26 ! ! The Enclaves 56655 Route 25 Southold, NY Acoustical Report Rev. 7 5/19/21! SECTION 4 ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS: 4.1 Ambient Measurements at Proposed Location and Nearby Receivers Daytime ambient sound level measurements were taken at several receiver locations near the Proposed Location, as shown in Figure 4.1.1. Locations were selected in order to characterize the acoustic environment of the Proposed Location and surrounding areas. Access to the majority of the property was limited due to vegetation growth. Location 1 was selected in order to characterize the existing ambient sound pressure levels at the front of the Proposed Location and characterize the acoustic environment at the street and to the nearby commercial receivers. During collection of acoustic data at Location 1, timestamps were collected of various acoustic events such as various car passbys in order to utilize in future calculations for this acoustic study related to traffic. Locations 2-4 characterize the acoustic conditions in the rear of the property near the adjacent homes and businesses. Collectively, all the acoustic data gathered provides a clear picture of the existing soundscape of the area. Readings were collected as close to nearby residential receivers as possible. In addition to the location, the times of the acoustic readings were selected in order to survey a variety of acoustic conditions. For example, acoustic readings were collected during the day in order to characterize typical sounds due to traffic and acoustic readings collected during the nighttime readings were coordinated with a passby of an LIRR train at to the North of the property. An acoustic consultant remained with the meter for the duration of each 20-minute measurement period, noting the activities contributing to the soundscape of the area, and noting high sound level events such as car and truck passbys. The existing ambient soundscape in the area of the Proposed Location is characterized mainly by traffic on Route 25, which includes cars, busses, mid and large-sized trucks, emergency vehicles and motorcycles, traffic from the existing 7-11, as well as the nearby LIRR commuter train route, planes, and helicopters. Results of the ambient sound level measurements can be found in Table 4.1.1 below. !Qbhf!7!pg!26 ! ! The Enclaves 56655 Route 25 Southold, NY Acoustical Report Rev. 7 5/19/21! SECTION 4 ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS (Continued): 4.1 Ambient Measurements at Proposed Location and Nearby Receivers (Continued) Figure 4.1.1. Locations of Ambient Measurements near Proposed Location Table 4.1.1: Weekday Ambient Sound Levels at Receivers near the Proposed Location on th Thursday July 19, 2018 Measurement Leq Lmin Lmax L01 L10 L50 L90 Time Period Location (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) 12:24pm 12:46pm 62 42 85 70 64 59 51 Location 1 7:47pm 8:04pm 60 43 69 68 64 58 48 12:52pm 1:13pm 45 38 54 52 48 43 40 Location 2 8:06pm 8:26pm 47 39 66 58 49 43 40 1:14pm 1:34pm 46 37 56 53 50 44 40 Location 3 8:27pm 8:47pm 44 38 58 53 47 43 40 1:35pm 1:46pm 43 37 53 50 46 43 39 Location 4 8:48pm 9:09pm 47 38 61 59 48 45 43 Historical weather data from the nearest weather station on Long Island at East Hampton Airport in East Hampton, NY reported winds between 10-12mph from the SW during the early afternoon period with minimal cloud cover and 8-10mph from the SW during the nighttime reading period with minimal cloud cover. Air pressure was between 29.77-29.85 in. with 0 in. of precipitation. !Qbhf!8!pg!26 ! ! The Enclaves 56655 Route 25 Southold, NY Acoustical Report Rev. 7 5/19/21! SECTION 4 ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS (Continued): 4.1 Ambient Measurements at Proposed Location and Nearby Receivers (Continued) The measured sound levels are typical of a residential area nearby a busy roadway. The sound levels at Location 1, which are representative of the acoustic environment at the commercial and residential receivers on Route 25, are dominated by the traffic sounds on Route 25. It should be noted that while the readings collected occurred during the week and that the majority of operations will occur on the weekend, the data present a worst-case scenario. As sound levels would typically be higher during the weekend due to the increased activity in the area, the data collected during the week provides a more stringent background noise level for use in the acoustic report and calculations. The effect of Route 25 on Location 1 is especially evident in the elevated Leq measurements which are typically used to characterize the background noise levels. The sound levels at Locations 2, 3 and 4 are generally consistent and represent the acoustic environment at the residential receivers to the east of the Proposed Location. These measured sound levels are typical of semi-rural residential areas near a busy road, such as Route 25, and are used in the modeling of the predicted sound levels from the Proposed Location, which are found in Section 5 of this report. 4.2 Acoustic Criteria for the Project The special exception permit criteria requires that the noise generated on the property must be contained on the property, meaning that sound be inaudible at the property line. This requirement of inaudibility places a subjective criterion which varies from person to person. Consequently, objective noise criteria are the proper means to determine noise levels, instead of the subjective use of audibility. Due to various states of hearing acuity and degradation, the limit for audibility has an extremely wide range. Per NYSDEC criteria, an increase by less than 5 dB is not considered to have an adverse impact. All cumulative sound levels are expected to fall within this criterion. It should be noted that the sound levels outlined in this document are all less than the permissible limits dictated by the Town of Southold Noise Ordinance. Compliance with the more stringent NYSDEC criteria also mean compliance with the Town of Southold Noise Ordinance. For reference, sections of the ordinance have been provided in Section 2.1 of the report. !Qbhf!9!pg!26 ! ! The Enclaves 56655 Route 25 Southold, NY Acoustical Report Rev. 7 5/19/21! SECTION 5 PREDICTION OF EXPECTED NOISE LEVELS: 5.1 Predicted Sound Levels due to Increased Traffic from the Proposed Location SoundSense modeled the expected change in sound level at the four receivers of interest based on the expected increase in traffic documented in the Traffic Study. Increases in the number of trips and For details on the traffic distributions he FEIS and Appendix B of this report for additional details on additional trips and reference data for trip passbys utilized. Table 5.1.1 shows the expected increase in the Leq and L10 sound levels based on the expected increase in traffic due to projected natural background traffic growth. Table 5.1.2 shows the expected further change in sound level at the four receivers due to entering and exiting traffic at the Proposed Location. In order to determine the worst-case scenario impacts for each receiver, the baseline sound levels were selected to be either the morning or evening readings, depending on which time of day was generally quieter at each location. In this way, the analysis shows the expected worst-case scenario impact if all of the additional traffic occurred during the quietest periods of the day at each receiver. The quietest periods for each location are defined as the lowest 20-minute Leq collected at each location from the data collected and presented in Table 4.1.1. For this analysis, the evening sound levels were used for Locations 1 and 3, while the early afternoon sound levels were used for Locations 2 and 4. Table 5.1.1: Expected Sound Levels at Receiver Locations due to Background Traffic Growth in Summer 2020, No Build Expected Change in Expected Change in Receiver Condition Leq from Existing L10 from Existing Conditions (dBA) Conditions (dBA) 2020 No Build Weekday Peak Hour 0.7 0.6 Location 1 2020 No Build Saturday Peak Hour 1.2 0.9 2020 No Build Weekday Peak Hour 0.3 0.4 Location 2 2020 No Build Saturday Peak Hour 0.5 0.7 2020 No Build Weekday Peak Hour 0.1 0 Location 3 2020 No Build Saturday Peak Hour 0.2 0 2020 No Build Weekday Peak Hour 0.4 0.5 Location 4 2020 No Build Saturday Peak Hour 0.8 0.9 !Qbhf!10!pg!26 ! ! The Enclaves 56655 Route 25 Southold, NY Acoustical Report Rev. 7 5/19/21! SECTION 5 PREDICTION OF EXPECTED NOISE LEVELS (Continued): 5.1 Predicted Sound Levels due to Increased Traffic from the Proposed Location (Continued) Table 5.1.2: Expected Further Sound Level Increases at Receiver Locations due to Proposed Location in Summer 2020 Expected Expected Receiver Condition Change in Change in Expected Impact Leq (dBA) L10 (dBA) 2020 Build Weekday Peak Hour 1.5 0.7 No Impact Location 1 2020 Build Saturday Peak Hour 2.0 1.1 No Impact 2020 Build Special Events 2.6 1.8 No Impact 2020 Build Weekday Peak Hour 0.6 0.6 No Impact Location 2 2020 Build Saturday Peak Hour 0.9 0.7 No Impact 2020 Build Special Events 1.1 0.7 No Impact 2020 Build Weekday Peak Hour 0.3 0 No Impact Location 3 2020 Build Saturday Peak Hour 0.4 0 No Impact 2020 Build Special Events 0.5 0 No Impact 2020 Build Weekday Peak Hour 1.0 0.5 No Impact Location 4 2020 Build Saturday Peak Hour 1.2 0.6 No Impact 2020 Build Special Events 1.6 0.7 No Impact While the Leq is similar to an average of the sound level over a given period, the L10 value is that which is exceeded only 10% of the time of a measurement. The L10 value is the common standard used to characterize an intermittent environmental acoustic disturbance and often correlates with the community reaction to the noise. Projections were formulated by sorting the logged data collected at 1s intervals. Once the data was sorted, sound pressure levels from new vehicle passbys were inserted into the data set in place of the sound pressure levels with the lowest sound levels. This method provides a worst-case scenario by providing a more significant raise to the Leq than is likely to occur since new trips will not always occur during the lowest sound pressure level periods. As shown in Table 5.1.2 above, no conditions are expected to result in an exceedance of the 5 dB threshold for acoustic impact from a potential increase in traffic. Additional trips and reference data for a representative vehicle passby at each location utilized for the calculations performed can be found in Appendix B. Based on this analysis, sound levels for increased traffic due to the Proposed Location will not negatively impact nearby residential and commercial receivers and falls well within the 5 dB criteria. In addition, projections will not approach the NYSDOT criterion of 67 dBA during the loudest period. To evaluate, the measured Leq of 62 dBA at Location 1 was added to the predicted increase of 2.6 dBA at Location 1 during special events. This results in a predicted sound level of 65 dBA, which complies with the 67 dBA criterion. !Qbhf!11!pg!26 ! ! The Enclaves 56655 Route 25 Southold, NY Acoustical Report Rev. 7 5/19/21! SECTION 5 PREDICTION OF EXPECTED NOISE LEVELS (Continued): 5.1 Predicted Sound Levels due to Increased Traffic from the Proposed Location (Continued) As background sound levels are predicted to increase even in the No Build scenario, the No Build sound level at Location 4 of 44 dBA has been utilized as the background level to compare any impact from the project to as it was the lowest No Build sound level projected for all four locations. Using the 5 dB above background criterion from the NYSDEC, this would result in a sound level of 49 dBA. 5.2 Predicted Sound Levels from Typical Site Activities The following sections provide predicted sound levels for various typical site activities at the Proposed Location. In Sections 5.1.1 - 5.1.6, predicted sound levels are sound levels only due to the individual source or sources evaluated and do not have the background sound levels included. Section 5.1.7 provides all the individual sound levels previously submitted as well as the background sound level from Location 4 with the added contribution of any additional traffic from Special Events, as noted in Table 5.1.2. As sound levels were predicted to raise by 1.6 dB in the worst-case scenario, the background sound level used in the cumulative calculations will be 45 dBA. Cumulative sound levels can then be compared to the No Build sound levels and NYSDEC criteria. Predicted sound levels always used the worst-case scenario receiver for each source to anticipate impact. Four receiving locations were utilized for the analysis. These receiving locations can be found in an excerpt from the marked-up site plan below in Figure 5.2.1. The full copy of this site plan can be found in Appendix A. Figure 5.2.1: Receiving Locations on Marked Site Plan !Qbhf!12!pg!26 ! ! The Enclaves 56655 Route 25 Southold, NY Acoustical Report Rev. 7 5/19/21! SECTION 5 PREDICTION OF EXPECTED NOISE LEVELS (Continued): 5.2 Predicted Sound Levels from Typical Site Activities (Continued) 5.2.1 Predicted Sound Levels from Pool Typical site activities which could potentially cause a disturbance were identified as the Pool, Rooftop Lounge, and Parking Lot. In order to mathematically model the noise at the pool, speech levels were used from a technical report published by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in 1977 titled {ƦĻĻĭŷ \[ĻǝĻƌƭ źƓ ğƩźƚǒƭ bƚźƭĻ 9ƓǝźƩƚƓƒĻƓƷƭ written by Karl S. Pearsons, Ricarda L. Bennett, and Sanford rd Fidell. This report characterizes typical 1/3 octave band sound pressure levels for males, females, and children at five vocal effort levels. These vocal effort levels are characterized as casual, normal, raised, loud, and shout. The reference data utilized for this analysis can be found in Appendix B. Using the data provided in this report, raised vocal effort levels from 25 males and 25 females were used at a raised vocal effort level, while 10 children were used at a loud vocal effort level. These sound levels were combined in order to determine cumulative sound levels of these individuals speaking simultaneously. Added to this cumulative loud speech data was the pool music since the pool area also proposes to have a low level of background music. This background music was added to the speech levels at 60 dBA. To keep the sound levels from amplified sound to 60 dBA, the speaker system will have a limiter placed on it in order to manage noise levels created by the sound reinforcement system. The limiter is a very similar tool to the audio compressor in that it reduces the dynamic range of a signal that passes through it. A compressor gradually reduces the signal level above a certain threshold, but a limiter completely prevents a signal from exceeding a specified setting. The limiter utilized must have the ability to control sound at individual frequency bands, but the exact hardware and associated tamper prevention full or partial enclosure will be determined once the audio system has been selected and purchased in order to integrate seamlessly with the audio system desired so that the limits set cannot be exceeded once initially set. As limiters are set with the installation of an audio system, these systems are tried and true passive mitigation measures. While it would be rare, these projections include all sources creating sound at the same time. The results of these calculations can be found below in Table 5.2.1. Table 5.2.1: Projected Overall Sound Pressure Levels from Pool Activities at Receiving Locations Predicted Sound Pressure Levels Predicted Sound Pressure Levels Description from Speech and Music (dBA) from Speech Only (dBA) Receiver 1 36 31 Receiver 2 39 31 Receiver 3 38 31 Receiver 4 37 29 Location 4 No Build Level 44 44 !Qbhf!13!pg!26 ! ! The Enclaves 56655 Route 25 Southold, NY Acoustical Report Rev. 7 5/19/21! SECTION 5 PREDICTION OF EXPECTED NOISE LEVELS (Continued): 5.2 Predicted Sound Levels from Typical Site Activities (Continued) 5.2.2 Predicted Sound Levels from Rooftop Lounge In addition to the pool, a rooftop lounge area was identified as a concern during the DEIS comment review period. While the roofline directly to the east and parapet facing south both act as an acoustic barrier, a with an STC rating of 28 has been included. This barrier is anticipated to reduce noise levels by 1-2 dBA further than the case for the parapet and façade alone. The worst-case scenario for sound exposure would come from the direct path to the east-southeast to the To acoustically model this direct path the same methodology was used when modeling the pool, albeit with a different distribution of occupants. As 50 people would be the approximate maximum capacity, 50 people were utilized for the analysis. A distribution of 25 females and 25 males all speaking at a raised vocal effort level were used for the analysis. It is anticipated that it would be uncommon for this area to have that many occupants on a regular basis. Furthermore, the analysis had that number of people speaking simultaneously, which is extremely unlikely. In addition, music was also added into the source levels with A weighted octave bands of 65 dBA. Due to cumulative sound levels at the nearest residential receivers, a distributed sound level no higher than 65 dBA would be recommended for the rooftop lounge and can be controlled with a limiter. The results of the calculations can be seen below in Table 5.2.2. Table 5.2.2: Projected Overall Sound Pressure Levels from the Rooftop Lounge with 25 Males and 25 Females Used for Speech Levels Predicted Sound Pressure Levels Predicted Sound Pressure Levels Description from Speech and Music (dBA) from Speech Only (dBA) Receiver 1 27 23 Receiver 2 30 25 Receiver 3 33 29 Receiver 4 34 32 Location 4 No Build Level 44 44 5.2.3 Predicted Sound Levels from Parking Lot Noise In addition to projections for increased traffic on Route 25, sound levels from the parking lot were identified as a concern during the DEIS hearing. Sound pressure levels have been mathematically modeled from the Cottage Parking Area closest to the lot marked on the site plan Anthony Forgione In order to mathematically model parking lot noise, acoustic readings of a 2014 Jeep and compared to a library of noises of cars running or doors closing. Acoustic readings were collected of a car door closing, a car idling, and the car passing by driving through the lot at 15 mph. The data collected and used for this analysis can be found in Appendix B. These sound levels were then used in a mathematical model in order to project sound pressure levels at the nearest residential property line. An acoustic model was constructed using five cars passing, five car doors closing, five cars idling, and five males speaking at a raised vocal effort level, and five cars passing at 15 mph all simultaneously. Although this scenario is rarely expected to happen, it was identified as a worst-case scenario. !Qbhf!14!pg!26 ! ! The Enclaves 56655 Route 25 Southold, NY Acoustical Report Rev. 7 5/19/21! SECTION 5 PREDICTION OF EXPECTED NOISE LEVELS (Continued): 5.2 Predicted Sound Levels from Typical Site Activities (Continued) 5.2.3 Predicted Sound Levels from Parking Lot Noise (Continued) Results of the calculations can be seen below in Table 5.2.3. As these would be considered to be high projections, another analysis including one door closing, two cars idling, one male speaking at a raised vocal effort level and one car passing at 15 mph was also calculated. These results can be seen in Table 5.2.4. at the property line. Further detail regarding the acoustic barrier can be found in Section 6.1. As can be seen below, mitigation measures are predicted to reduce noise levels by as much as 7 dB at Receiver 1. Table 5.2.3: Projected Overall Sound Pressure Levels from the Parking Lot with 5 Idling Cars, 5 Doors Closing, 5 Males Talking at Raised Vocal Effort, and 5 Passing Vehicles at 15mph Predicted Sound Pressure Levels Predicted Sound Pressure Levels Description with no Mitigation(dBA) with Mitigation (dBA) Receiver 1 51 44 Receiver 2 40 37 Receiver 3 20 20 Receiver 4 19 19 Location 4 No Build Level 44 44 Table 5.2.4: Projected Overall Sound Pressure Levels from the Parking Lot with 2 Idling Cars, 1 Door Closing, 1 Male Talking at Raised Vocal Effort, and 1 Passing Vehicle at 15mph Predicted Sound Pressure Levels Predicted Sound Pressure Levels Description with no Mitigation(dBA) with Mitigation (dBA) Receiver 1 45 38 Receiver 2 37 31 Receiver 3 15 15 Receiver 4 15 15 Location 4 No Build Level 44 44 !Qbhf!15!pg!26 ! ! The Enclaves 56655 Route 25 Southold, NY Acoustical Report Rev. 7 5/19/21! SECTION 5 PREDICTION OF EXPECTED NOISE LEVELS (Continued): 5.2 Predicted Sound Levels from Typical Site Activities (Continued) 5.2.4 Predicted Sound Levels from Cottages To address sound from the cottages, individuals were acoustically modeled at the hot tubs. Sound levels from 2 males and 2 females with raised vocal effort levels at each hot tub were included in the model at each hot tub at the four cottages. While the number of occupants is higher than anticipated, it is provided to demonstrate a worst-case scenario. Along with the noise sources, mitigation was also included in the form of be found in Section 6.1, and a markup of the site plan indicating locations can be found in Appendix A. Results of the calculations can be found in Table 5.2.5 below. Table 5.2.5: Projected Overall Sound Pressure Levels from Pool Activities Predicted Sound Pressure Levels from Speech at Description Hot Tubs (dBA) Receiver 1 39 Receiver 2 22 Receiver 3 19 Receiver 4 19 Location 4 No Build Level 44 5.2.5 Predicted Sound Levels of Mechanical Equipment During the DEIS hearing and public comment period, concerns were noted regarding mechanical equipment and its impact. As mechanical systems have not yet been designed, it is not possible to project noise levels due to mechanical equipment or evaluate mitigation measures for specific pieces of mechanical equipment which could be used on the project. However, using the cumulative sound level analysis, allowable sound levels due to mechanical equipment independent of any contribution due to background levels was calculated and determined for use in cumulative noise level analysis. Results of the cumulative analysis can be found below in Table 5.2.8. Proposed sound levels due to mechanical equipment at each receiver location can be found below in Table 5.2.6. As architectural and MEP design of the Proposed Location progresses, SoundSense will review any mechanical plans to ensure that any and all mechanical units meet the requirements detailed below with appropriate spacing and mitigation from mechanical units. !Qbhf!16!pg!26 ! ! The Enclaves 56655 Route 25 Southold, NY Acoustical Report Rev. 7 5/19/21! SECTION 5 PREDICTION OF EXPECTED NOISE LEVELS (Continued): 5.2 Predicted Sound Levels from Typical Site Activities (Continued) 5.2.5 Predicted Sound Levels of Mechanical Equipment (Continued) Table 5.2.6: Criteria for Maximum Mechanical Noise Contributions at Receiving Locations Used for Cumulative Analysis Design Maximum Sound Level from Mechanical Description Equipment (dBA) Receiver 1 37 Receiver 2 37 Receiver 3 41 Receiver 4 41 Location 4 No Build Level 44 5.2.6 Predicted Sound Levels of Special Events Outdoor special events are no longer a component of this project. However, the site plan indicates that an indoor space for special events is possible. During the site planning process, which includes design of the special event space, any façade and window assemblies will be acoustically designed so that anticipated cumulative noise increase for the project will not exceed 5 dB. Based on the cumulative analysis completed to be presented in Section 5.2.7, maximum sound levels were set for Location 4 to comply with the 5 dB increase with all noise sources considered. Using this sound level, reductions in noise levels were considered for Receivers 1-3 to determine anticipated noise levels. To estimate noise levels during the site planning process and ensure appropriate façade and window design, a methodology similar to the projections completed for the rooftop lounge will be used. Individuals attending the event would be acoustically modelled within the special event space with any amplification due to being indoors considered. In addition to sound levels from attendees, sound from a live band with amplification would also be included. SoundSense has collected data from various amplified with amplification would be utilized to include contributions from music. Table 5.2.7: Criteria for Maximum Special Events Noise Contribution at Receiving Locations Used for Cumulative Analysis Design Maximum Sound Level from Special Description Events (dBA) Receiver 1 35 Receiver 2 38 Receiver 3 42 Receiver 4 45 Location 4 No Build Level 44 !Qbhf!17!pg!26 ! ! The Enclaves 56655 Route 25 Southold, NY Acoustical Report Rev. 7 5/19/21! SECTION 5 PREDICTION OF EXPECTED NOISE LEVELS (Continued): 5.2 Predicted Sound Levels from Typical Site Activities (Continued) 5.2.7 Cumulative Sound Level Projections Using the projections provided above for individual noise sources and activities, all noise sources were added together to various receiving locations at the residential receivers to the east. Four receiving locations were considered for analysis. These receiving locations can be found in the marked copy of the site plan found in Appendix A. As with the individual projections performed, ambient sound levels measured were reintroduced to all projections to include the existing background noise levels. Results of these calculations can be found in Table 5.2.6. As can be seen in the table, sound levels are not expected to increase the ambient sound level by more than the project criteria of 5 dB at each receiving location and comply with all requirements of the Town of Southold Noise Ordinance. Table 5.2.8: Predicted Cumulative Sound Levels at Nearby Receiving Locations Predicted Predicted Predicted Predicted Sound Sound Sound Sound Description Levels at Levels at Levels at Levels at Receiver Receiver Receiver Receiver 1 (dBA) 2 (dBA) 3 (dBA) 4 (dBA) Maximum Predicted Noise Contribution from Traffic during Special Events and Existing Ambient Sound 45 45 45 45 Levels per Section 5.2 Noise Contribution from Pool per Table 5.2.1 36 39 38 37 Noise Contribution from Rooftop Lounge per Table 27 30 33 34 5.2.2 Noise Contribution from Parking Lot Noise with 44 37 20 19 Mitigation per Table 5.2.3 Noise Contribution from Cottages per Table 5.2.5 39 22 19 19 Design Contribution from Mechanical Equipment 37 37 41 41 Design Contribution from Indoor Special Events 27 33 43 45 Cumulative Sound Level 49 47 48 49 Location 4 No Build Level 44 44 44 44 NYSDEC Criteria (5 dB Increase Over No Build) 49 49 49 49 Town of Southold Daytime Noise Ordinance 65 65 65 65 Town of Southold Nighttime Noise Ordinance 50 50 50 50 !Qbhf!18!pg!26 ! ! The Enclaves 56655 Route 25 Southold, NY Acoustical Report Rev. 7 5/19/21! SECTION 5 PREDICTION OF EXPECTED NOISE LEVELS (Continued): 5.3 Expected Noise Impact of Sewage Treatment Plant As mechanical specification is complete for was completed in order to evaluate predicted sound levels to the nearest residential receiver to the East. Inside the structure the most significant noise producers are the two Cincinnati Fan Company PB9 Blowers. Utilizing information provided by the supplier for the fans, the fans can be installed with a silencer which reduces sound pressure levels to 65 dBA at 3 Any mechanical equipment located indoors or near a structure can have sound pressure levels become amplified due to reverberation amplification. Reverberation amplification occurs when acoustic waves are able to persist in a space due to an overwhelming number of reflective surfaces. In order to manage reverberation amplification in the Blower Room of the STP, it is recommended that the walls of the Blower Room, except for the wall between the Blower Room and Control Room, and the ceiling be acoustically treated with an absorber such as QA-2 or an approved equivalent with an NRC of 0.85 or greater. This material is Class A fire rated per ASTM E-84. On the exterior of the structure, two Greenheck CUE-095D1/8 fan proposed to be mounted facing the north as to point away from the nearest receiver. Greenheck reports sound pressure levels of these fans measured at 59 dBA as measured at 5 proposed along the north wall. These louvers are specified as Greenheck EAD-- -In order to calculate the acoustic transmission through the exterior wall to the north, a composite STC calculation was performed taking the STC of the CMU and the size of the louver and acoustic properties into account. The expected composite STC of the exterior wall to the north is a 29. Combining the contributions from the wall mounted exhaust fans with sound exiting through the acoustic louver on the north wall, mechanical equipment is projected to be 37 dBA at the closest Residential property line with no acoustic mitigation. The predicted sound level of 37 dBA meets the requirement of mechanical equipment which was set forth above in Section 5.2.5. It should be noted that during commissioning of the equipment, acoustic readings can be collected. Should any sound pressure levels be higher upon measurement, many solutions to further reduce noise are available. One such solution, without impacting airflow, are k CUE running acoustic barriers can further reduce sound pressure levels by 7 dBA and can be installed if necessary. The acoustic barriers should have an STC of 29 and should include an acoustic barrier such as NoiseOut 2, LV- 1R, or be comprised of CMU/masonry. If determined to be necessary, acoustic absorbers will be included in the barrier. The exact solution will be mathematically modeled if necessary upon review. !Qbhf!19!pg!26 ! ! The Enclaves 56655 Route 25 Southold, NY Acoustical Report Rev. 7 5/19/21! SECTION 5 PREDICTION OF EXPECTED NOISE LEVELS (Continued): 5.4 Predicted Sound Levels of Construction Noise The construction phase of the project is expected to last 18-22 months and will occur on weekdays Ordinance does not apply to construction noise during the proposed construction periods, it is possible to reduce the expected impact of the construction noise on the neighboring receivers. Acoustic barriers will be utilized during the construction period to minimize the impact of the construction activities on the surrounding residential and commercial receivers. The requirements of these barriers can be calculated once the construction plan for the Proposed Location is completed and the expected sound levels of the necessary equipment is known. SECTION 6 MITIGATION MEASURES: 6.1 Mitigation Measures to Address Airborne Noise due to Proposed Location during Typical Operation Acoustic barriers are recommended for the eastern property line as well as around the rear of the cottages coustic barrier with a minimum STC of 29 such as NoiseOut 2 or LV-1R. The fence can be any type of fence (stockade, chain link, tongue and groove cedar), as long as it includes the acoustic barrier and that barrier makes full contact with the ground in order to complete the acoustic seal. Landscaping should be completed on the Enclaves side of the fence in order to reduce additional acoustic reflections. 6.2 Mitigation Measures for Special Events Building While outdoor special events have been eliminated from the site plan, a building for indoor special events is possible for the property. As discussed in Section 5.4, the direct contribution from special events can be up to 43 dBA. During the site planning process, façade and window composition would be analyzed to calculate the expected STC/OITC rating for the façade. Using the calculations for the composite STC/OITC rating, projections can be made to ensure that the appropriate criteria can be met. !Qbhf!20!pg!26 ! ! The Enclaves 56655 Route 25 Southold, NY Acoustical Report Rev. 7 5/19/21! SECTION 7 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATE SITE PLAN: 7.1 Description of Alternate Site Plan for an as-of-right use of the same property as the Proposed Location. The Alternate Site Plan includes an office building and a quality restaurant. Expected increases in traffic due to the Alternate Site Plan were obtained from the Traffic Study in order to model the expected impact of the Alternate Site Plan on the nearby commercial and residential receivers. 7.2 Predicted Sound Levels of Increased Traffic due to As-of-Right Development SoundSense modeled the predicted change in sound level at the four receivers of interest based on the expected increase in traffic due to the Alternate Site Plan documented in the Traffic Study. Table 7.2.1 shows the expected further change in sound level beyond the linear background traffic growth expected for Summer 2020 at the four receivers due to entering and exiting traffic. As in the previously discussed analysis of the Proposed Location, the worst-case scenario sound levels of noise sources and ambient noise were used to determine the impact if all additional traffic occurred at the quietest times measured at each receiver. Table 7.2.1: Expected Further Sound Level Increases at Receiver Locations due to Alternate Site Plan in Summer 2020 Receiver Condition Expected Change Expected Change Expected in Leq (dBA) in L10 (dBA) Impact 2020 Build Weekday Peak Hour 2.6 1.3 No Impact Location 1 2020 Build Saturday Peak Hour 1.2 0.8 No Impact 2020 Build Weekday Peak Hour 1.1 1.1 No Impact Location 2 2020 Build Saturday Peak Hour 0.5 0.7 No Impact 2020 Build Weekday Peak Hour 0.5 0 No Impact Location 3 2020 Build Saturday Peak Hour 0.2 0 No Impact 2020 Build Weekday Peak Hour 1.6 0.9 No Impact Location 4 2020 Build Saturday Peak Hour 0.6 0.5 No Impact As shown above, the additional traffic due to the Alternate Site Plan is not expected to negatively impact the nearby receivers. However, sound levels due to increases in traffic are expected to be greater under the alternate site plan that the Proposed Location project. !Qbhf!21!pg!26 ! ! The Enclaves 56655 Route 25 Southold, NY Acoustical Report Rev. 7 5/19/21! APPENDIX A MARKED COPY OF SITE PLAN: The following page includes a marked copy of the site plan noting location measures for acoustic treatment as well as receiving locations used for cumulative analysis. !Qbhf!22!pg!26 ! Acoustic Fence Location - STC 29 Acoustic Barrier at 6.5' High Receiver 1 Receiver 2 Receiver 3 Receiver 4 Acoustic Treatment Prepared by SoundSense www.SoundSense.com ! The Enclaves 56655 Route 25 Southold, NY Acoustical Report Rev. 7 5/19/21! APPENDIX B REFERENCE DATA UTILIZED FOR ANALYSIS: The following tables provide the reference data utilized for analyses presented in the acoustic report. rd Table B.1: 1/3 Octave Band Reference Levels of Various Female Vocal Effort Levels Presented in a Technical Report by United States Environmental Protection Agency in 1977 titled {ƦĻĻĭŷ \[ĻǝĻƌƭ źƓ ğƩźƚǒƭ bƚźƭĻ 9ƓǝźƩƚƓƒĻƓƷƭ written by Karl S. Pearsons, Ricarda L. Bennett, and Sanford Fidell Vocal Effort Level (dB* Frequency (Hz) Shout Loud Raised Normal Casual 125 20 20 25 25 25 160 30 33 34 34 34 200 41 48 50 48 46 250 50 55 52 47 44 315 55 55 49 43 39 400 60 55 53 49 46 500 64 59 57 50 46 630 68 62 55 48 44 800 70 61 55 46 38 1000 72 61 52 42 36 1250 75 62 53 43 36 1600 75 62 52 42 36 2000 71 58 48 39 35 2500 67 55 45 37 31 3150 68 54 45 38 30 4000 65 54 45 39 30 5000 60 49 42 36 30 6300 56 47 40 36 32 8000 55 46 40 35 34 10000 52 42 36 32 32 Calculated 82 70 64 57 53 Overall (dBA* !Qbhf!23!pg!26 ! ! The Enclaves 56655 Route 25 Southold, NY Acoustical Report Rev. 7 5/19/21! APPENDIX B REFERENCE DATA UTILIZED FOR ANALYSIS (Continued): rd Table B.2: 1/3 Octave Band Reference Levels of Various Male Vocal Effort Levels Presented in a Technical Report by United States Environmental Protection Agency in 1977 titled {ƦĻĻĭŷ \[ĻǝĻƌƭ źƓ ğƩźƚǒƭ bƚźƭĻ 9ƓǝźƩƚƓƒĻƓƷƭ written by Karl S. Pearsons, Ricarda L. Bennett, and Sanford Fidell Vocal Effort Level (dB* Frequency (Hz) Shout Loud Raised Normal Casual 125 43 50 51 48 44 160 43 55 49 44 43 200 68 57 51 48 46 250 66 60 56 52 46 315 68 63 55 51 43 400 69 65 58 53 47 500 75 68 60 54 49 630 78 69 58 52 46 800 78 66 54 46 38 1000 78 64 53 46 38 1250 80 67 54 47 39 1600 78 64 51 44 39 2000 73 59 47 40 35 2500 73 59 47 41 34 3150 70 58 46 41 34 4000 68 55 44 38 36 5000 62 49 40 34 35 6300 61 47 41 35 34 8000 59 46 38 33 34 10000 56 43 34 30 30 Calculated 87 76 66 61 56 Overall (dBA* !Qbhf!24!pg!26 ! ! The Enclaves 56655 Route 25 Southold, NY Acoustical Report Rev. 7 5/19/21! APPENDIX B REFERENCE DATA UTILIZED FOR ANALYSIS (Continued): rd Table B.3: 1/3 Octave Band Reference Levels of Various Child Vocal Effort Levels Presented in a Technical Report by United States Environmental Protection Agency in 1977 titled {ƦĻĻĭŷ \[ĻǝĻƌƭ źƓ ğƩźƚǒƭ bƚźƭĻ 9ƓǝźƩƚƓƒĻƓƷƭ written by Karl S. Pearsons, Ricarda L. Bennett, and Sanford Fidell Vocal Effort Level (dB* Frequency (Hz) Shout Loud Raised Normal Casual 125 24 24 24 23 24 160 45 26 26 26 26 200 43 42 42 42 41 250 59 51 51 51 47 315 52 65 54 47 39 400 61 68 53 47 44 500 66 61 55 53 49 630 66 61 58 52 47 800 67 63 57 49 43 1000 72 61 53 44 39 1250 72 62 53 43 38 1600 73 63 54 44 38 2000 71 60 50 42 38 2500 65 55 47 38 33 3150 66 55 47 39 33 4000 65 55 48 40 33 5000 63 52 45 38 33 6300 57 49 43 36 33 8000 54 49 43 37 33 10000 53 46 41 36 33 Calculated 80 73 65 59 55 Overall (dBA* !Qbhf!25!pg!26 ! ! The Enclaves 56655 Route 25 Southold, NY Acoustical Report Rev. 7 5/19/21! APPENDIX B REFERENCE DATA UTILIZED FOR ANALYSIS (Continued): Table B.4: Additional Trips Utilized for Traffic Noise Analysis per Traffic Impact Study Build Additional Trips Alternate Site Plan No Build Due to Description Due to Enclaves Build Additional Trips Due to Projected Growth Only Alternate Site Plan Only Weekday 26 39 70 Weekend 47 46 38 Special Events N/A 33 N/A Table B.5: Reference Vehicle Passby Data for Traffic Analysis 1s Leq Sound Pressure Level (dB) Time Before Peak Passby (s) Description -4 -3 -2 -1 - +1 +2 +3 +4 Location 1 54.2 56.9 62.4 67.9 68.9 64.7 62.0 59.6 57.1 Location 2 42.1 42.2 44.8 48.4 49.0 45.8 44.7 43.7 42.9 Location 3 40.8 40.9 42.8 46.4 47.2 44.7 43.0 41.9 40.8 Location 4 36.6 39.3 44.8 50.3 51.2 47.1 44.4 42.0 39.5 Table B.6: Reference Data Utilized for Parking Lot Analysis Sound Pressure Level (dBA) Male Voice Raised - 2014 Jeep Cherokee 2014 Jeep Cherokee 2014 Jeep Cherokee Frequency (Hz) 3' Reference Door Closing - 5' Engine Idling - 5' Passby at 15mph - 5' Distance Reference Distance Reference Distance Reference Distance Overall (dBA* 64 52 63 67 !Qbhf!26!pg!26 ! APPENDIX G !LJ 0 J_ TOWN HARBOR v� U'i LANE ILIJ CS' 0 >0 !�! U- 1 0 LAND NOW OR FORMERLY OF r_ cf) 0 0 Ir- z (f) VALERIE M. SCOPAZ PROPOSED PERVIOUS D LAND NOW OR FORMERLY OF 0 r-4 S.C.T.M. NO. 1000-63-03-16 RESTAURANT PARKING ANTHONY FORGIONE LAND NOW OR FORMERLY OF Z >- F7 WOOD POSTS (GRASS PAVERS) VINCENT DOLOMITE&ILEANA DOLOMITE 0 Z 0 WITH NETTING Strategic Environmental and Engineering Solutions S.C.T.M. NO. 1000-63-03-17.3 0 06 - F— 13 LINE OF EXISTING S.C.T.M. NO. 1000-63-03-17.4 EXISTING 1 STORY FRAME EO(SEE SIGN _J 0 DRIVEWAY TO BE REMOVED SHED TO BE RENOVATED AND SCHEDULE INCORPORATED INTO MAIN 310.00' STRUCTURE THIS SHEET) P W. GROSSER CONSULTING ENGINEER 622.78' S07'44'40"E — AND HYDROGEOLOGIST, P.C. S07'38'10"E _�IGN L chain link 0"0" EXISTING WELL i C 1 630 Johnson Avenue. - Suite 7 chain link fence— RELOCATE EXISTING 1 NEW PROPOSED 4= 4= -2618 tockade fence I Bohemia . NY - 11716 S e fenc I RELOCATED AS LO STORYFRAME DRIVEWAY IRRIGATION WELL C14 -6353 . Fax: (631) 589-8705 GARAGE TO REMA 0 Phone: (631) 589 < pi 01-- E-mail: INFO@PWGROSSER.COM of ZD EXISTING TO B 2-7 0 01 IREMOVED 0 — Of < U) col CONSULTANTS EXISTING TO 2 STORY STRUCTURE TO REMAIN SIGN PROPOSED RESTAURANT ch, < s —4 FF:27.5 AREA '0" 0 0 0- (D PROPOSED < PERVIOUS _4> ——————— PROPOSED ADDITION TO 0 OVERFLOW 22'.0" EXISTING STRUCTURE LU W HOTEL z z /slate < < 0 PARKING > 66 WALKWAY _J _J (D CI CI 4 D TRUCK R P E PE OUS z z SIGN r RESTA NT P KING F LOADING slatelL EXISTING TO BE (GRAS P VE S) RM :2 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - BERTH AREA REMOVED PROPOSED PERVIOUS 7c;q — �R I-- I-_ :::, LAWN SCULPTURE 2 OVERFLOW R7-8(SEE SIGN U) U) GARDEN 0' HOTEL SCHEDULE W < PARKING 0 THIS SHEET) LLJ F r il PWGC F11 3 24'-0" OS UR S Ld (D PROPOSED GRADE EL.30.5' PARKING AREA 0 R7-1(SEE SIGN ""�R5-1 (SEE SIGN NEW PROPOSED DRIVEWAY ED I W AND PARKING Lu �: SCHEDULE SCHEDULE z z _4> 0 THIS SHEET) THIS SHEET) .8 HOT COTTAGE 1 _4> TUB CHESS BOARD LL VN af Lu POOL CABANAS Lu TW:30.5 TW:30.5 R6-5P SHED N04'45'20"W 7.25 BW:27.25 FISH POND (SEE SIGN 178.00' c �4 R1-1 (SEE SIGN-F SCHEDULE 0 0 COTTAGE 2 THIS SHEET) 2 R3-1 (SEE SIGN SCHEDULE HOT SCHEDULE THIS SHEET) 0 TUB THIS SHEET) clo (n GRADE EL.27.5' ui R1-5(SEE SIGN 0 /-HOT PROPOSED SCHEDULE 0 PERVIOUS 0 TUB OVERFLOW THIS SHEET) U_ 0 LL HOTEL < R7-8&R7-8b(SEE SIGN 0 ---------- PARKING SCHEDULE HOT COTTAGE 3 RIDGE < -1 SIGN POOLAREA of NYR3-14(SEE SIGN THIS SHEET) 0 TUB > > Of Of SCHEDULE W PLAY COM TRUCK W THIS SHEET) Lu Q LOADING (0 clo GRADE EL.27.5' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J C) 0 0 ce VHOT BERTH AREA 0 0 TUB of 0 LAND NOW OR FORMERLY OF HOT COTTAGE 4 0 0 BW:27.20 BW:27.25 45 LIGHTED R6-5P(SEE z W 30 5—RAMP 0 ENCLAVES SIGN SIGN __ZUB I F__T EUGEN TOMASIC&MIRELLA TOMASIC (SEE ARCHITECTURAL SCHEDULE S.C.T.M. NO. 1000-63-03-14 LOCUSTLANE PLANS) WALKWAY THIS SHEET) ,,—R4-7A(SEE SIGN THIS SHEET) PROPOSED PERVIOUS 1 NEW PROPOSED DRIVEWAY OVERFLOW -41-——— ——— all HOTEL cb LU I PARKING SIGN CUPRESSOCYPARI 13 LU I PROPOSED PARKING AREA LAND NOW OR FORMERLY OF LEYLAND11(19) CD!Lq _0' Qq _4> JANET L. RYAN S.C.T.M. NO. 1000-63-03-13 .1 cb co 22'-0" LO 00 Cf) N05'30'50"W 616,57 __T'UC' D \—R4-7A(SEE SIGN LOA ING 4-8A(SEE SIGN 7 R7-8(SEE SIGN R7-1 R7-8b BERTH AREA SCHEDULE SCHEDULE 6 SCHEDULE (SEE SIGN R4-8A(SEE SIGN THIS SHEET) THIS SHEET) LAND NOW OR FORMERLY OF 5 THIS SHEET) SCHEDULE SCHEDULE PROPOSED PILLES REALTY HOLDING LLC 4 UPDATED PARKING CALCULATION 10/2/2019 (TYP.FOR 4) THIS SHEET) THIS SHEET) PERVIOUS (TYP.FOR 2) OVERFLOW S.C.T.M. NO. 1000-63-03-12 3 0\DDRESSED TOWN COMMENTS 08/26/2019 R7-8b(SEE SIGN HOTEL SCHEDULE PARKING 2 1 ADDRESSED DEIS COMMENTS 07/17/2019 1 IREV.TO 44 ROOMS-UPDATE UTILITIES 104/11/2017 4 05'30,50"W THIS SHEET) PROPOSED SITE PLAN Number Revision Description Revision Date 51.34' LAND NOW OR FORMERLY OF SCALE: 1 40' CHARLES W.WITZKE Designed By Date Submitted S.C.T.M. NO. 1000-63-03-28.1 0 40 80 TC 01/20/17 TM Drawn By TC Date Created 08/23/16 SCALE: 1 40' Approved By BG Scale ASSHOWN Client: THE ENCLAVES arking Calculations 1111 56655 ROUTE 25 "fraffic Control Sign Schedule "fraffic Control Sign Schedule SOUTHOLD, NY Project: RESTAURANT PARKING SPACES REQUIRED SPACES PROVIDED 74 SEATS/3 24.6 SPACES(1 ADA INC.) 38 SPACES(2 ADA INC.) OR SIGN SIGNS OR MUTCD 2009 ED. SIZE OF SIGN SIGN SIGNS OR MUTCD 2009 ED. SIZE OF SIGN 1 PER 100 SF FLOOR AREA 3,806 SF=38 SPACES(2 ADA INC.) 38 SPACES(2 ADA INC.) DESIGNATION SYMBOL PLAQUES SECTION NO. CONVENTIONAL DESIGNATION SYMBOL PLAQUES SECTION NO. CONVENTIONAL SITE PLAN PROVIDING 2 GRASS PAVED OVER FLOW PARKING ON SITE ROAD ROAD HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE PARKING TOTAL RESTAURANT PROVIDED:27 PAVED SPACES(2 ADA INC.)AND 11 GRASS PAVED SPACES:38 TOTAL �NITH VAN-ACCESSIBLE PARKING NO ARKING R7-1 A4Y NO PARKING 12"x18" R5-1 DO NOT ENTER 30"x3O" HOTEL PARKING SPACES REQUIRED SPACES PROVIDED TVAE Project Address: 1/UNIT-44 UNITS 44 SPACES(2 ADA) 96 SPACES(4 ADA INC.) IE'Ev 1 0 56655 ROUTE 25 OR 96"MIN� 96'MIN�— R7-8 P�RKIN ADA PARKING 12"x18" SOUTHOLD 1/EMPLOYYEE(12)+1/UNIT(44) 56 SPACES(2 ADA,INC.) 96 SPACES(4 ADA) 9 A�MIN k NYR3-14 Id ALL TRAFFIC 24"00" SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEWYORK PROVIDING 26 GRASS PAVED OVER FLOW PARKING ON SITE r7l 7AN—1 TOTAL HOTEL PARKING PROVIDED:96 PAVED SPACES(4 ADA INC.),26 GRASS OVERFLOW SPACES:122 TOTAL R7-8b ACCESSIBLE VAN ACCESSIBLE 18 X9 County Tax Map Number: 1000-63-3-15 Contract Number: R6-5P ALTERNATIVE HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE PARKING ROUND ABOUT 30"x3O" Regulatory Reference Number: 13 INITH VAN-ACCESSIBLE PARKING PAINTED El - DIRECTIONAL Title of Drawing: TOTAL SITE REQUIRED:38 RESTAURANT+56 HOTEL= 94 PARKING SPACES ARROW TOTAL SITE PROVIDED:38 RESTAURANT+122 HOTEL=160 TOTAL PARKING SPACES COLOR-WHITE ENTER �PROVIDED OVERFLOW:40 HOTEL PAVED+26 GRASS PAVED=66 OVERFLOW 132"MINI 60"MIN.�96"�MIN. EO ONLY ENTER ONLY 18"X18" VAN R1-1 STOP 2B.05 30"x3O" PROPOSED SITE ADA Parking Calculations 0 9 R4-7A KEEP RIGHT 24"00" TRAFFIC CONTROL STANDARD PARKING SPACES R3-1 NO RIGHT TURN 24"x24" 20' 0 R4-8A KEEP RIGHT 24"00" AND PARKING PLAN 22 ACCESSIBLE SITES AND EXTERIOR FACILITIES REQUIRED ADA PARKING .0 T TOTAL PARKING MINIMUM NUMBER i2 IN LOT OF ACCESSIBLE SPACES 9'MIN. 1 Drawing Number. 1 TO 25 26 TO 50 2 51 TO 75 3 GRASS PAVED PARKING SPACES 76 TO 100 4 20 Er 101 TO 150 5 C = 1 00 B 151 TO 200 6 201 TO 300 7 9'MIN. Sheet of 12 HOTEL RESTAURANT 3 16 .9 96 ON SITE PAVED PARKING STALL PROVIDED 27 ON SITE PAVED PARKING STALL PROVIDED �6 3 STALLS ADA COMPLIANT PARKING STALLS 1 STALLS ADA COMPLIANT PARKING STALLS PVIGC Project Number: 1 ADA VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL 1 ADA VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL Unauthoriz 8d alteration or addition i� to this drawing and related documents AVG 1601 isa violation of Section 7209 of the NeA York State Education Law APPENDIX H December 7, 2020 VIA OVERNIGHT CARRIER Martin Flatley, Chief of Police Town of Southold Police Department 41405 Route 25 P.O. Box 911 Southold, New York 11958 Re: State Environmental Quality Review Application for The Enclaves – Proposed Hotel and Restaurant 56655 Route 25 Hamlet of Southold, Town of Southold Dear Chief Flatley: Thank you for your prompt reply and comments on the proposed development. In response to each of your comments, we would like to note the following: A comprehensive Traffic Impact Study was prepared for the hotel development project (the “Project”), which concluded that the Project can be accommodated by the existing road system. Its presence will not create any undue burden on the existing Police Department. The Project site plan shows the positioning of the 7-Eleven driveway directly across the street (Main Road) from the proposed site exit. Its positioning is consistent with good engineering practice so as to not create offset intersections and the entrance is located further to the east so as to minimize potential conflicts. The capacity analysis conducted as part of the Traffic Impact Study indicates that the site driveway and the 7-Eleven driveway will operate with no changes in operating Levels of Service. The traffic created by the Project can be accommodated by the existing road system. The Traffic Impact Study examined the potential impact of weddings and similar events. The result of the analysis indicates that there will be some minor impact for short durations of approximately one- half hour, which will occur eight to 12 times a year. Weddings will not be necessarily as large as Special Events hosted in the Town of Southold and no special events may occur without the permission of the existing Town Policy and procedure already addresses weddings and similar events. Regarding the potential for noise complaints, a comprehensive noise analysis was performed, and the applicant has offered mitigation to reduce the impacts on the surrounding properties. These mitigation measures include: All outdoor events on the lawn area of the hotel will be hosted in tents, which will be brought to the site in advance of the event and removed thereafter. A barrier passageway will be used to block sound from exiting the tent. A maximum of 12 events will be held per year and the event times will be scheduled consistent with the Town’s Noise Ordinance. Specifically, the events will be limited to the following times/days: Between 6pm and 10pm on Fridays, between 2pm and 11pm on Saturdays, and between 2pm and 6pm on Sundays. The Projectwill have an acoustic consultant responsible for the speaker placement and ensuring a limiter on speaker volume is set to avoid any potential for noise exceedances. The Projectwill be marketed as a boutique luxury hotel experience for those wanting a quiet getaway. Guest-only spa services, an outdoor pool and lounging area with controlled “low-energy” background music, and on-property room service, will be targeted to a particular market sector. The Projectwill have security on-site to monitor and handle complaints and management staff will also be available 24/7. Regarding the usage of the beaches, the Hotel will have its own amenities on-site and many of the guests would be expected to remain on the grounds to utilize such. For guests who wish to visit local parks or beaches, a shuttle van operated by the Hotel would be offered as a convenience service. This would limit the use of private vehicles and for-hire services (such as Uber or Lyft). This also eliminates the need to walk to area beaches. Please feel free to contact the undersigned at rmorrow@pwgrosser.comwith any additional questions. Thank you. Sincerely, enc. November , 2020 VIA OVERNIGHT CARRIER Martin Flatley, Chief of Police Town of Southold Police Department 41405 Route 25 P.O. Box 911 Southold, New York 11958 Re: State Environmental Quality Review Application for The Enclaves – Proposed Hotel and Restaurant 56655 Route 25 Hamlet of Southold, Town of Southold Dear Chief Flatley: At the request of the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals, P.W. Grosser Consulting Inc. (PWGC) is following up on an inquiry made on December 6, 2018 (see attached) for the above-referenced project. As illustrated on the attached site plan, the proposed action includes the conversion of the existing residential structure (which was formerly a bed and breakfast and is currently used as a residence) to a 74-seat restaurant and the development of a two-story, 40-unit hotel with four detached cottages and associated amenities (e.g., swimming pool and lounge areas). As the proposed project would require police services from the Southold Police Department, we are requesting any comments that you may have on the proposed development, as illustrated on the site plan. It is noted that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared and accepted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on October 7, 2019 and a Final Environmental Impact Statement is currently being prepared. Regarding police protection, please note the following: Site access has been evaluated in a traffic impact study and the proposed access plan has been designed to adequately provide for the projected traffic entering and exiting the access driveway to assure the public safety and to minimize traffic congestion. The traffic impact study noted numerous Southold Town Police patrols travel past the subject property where there is excellent existing coverage for the property. The sit-down restaurant and 44-room boutique hotel are not expected to result in undue demand for police assistance. The project sponsor anticipates hosting special events eight to 12 times per year such as weddings, fundraising events or other small private gatherings; however, these events are subject to review and approval of the Town. We look forward to any comments offered by the Southold Police Department. Please feel free to contact me at (631) 589-6353or at rmorrow@pwgrosser.comwith any questions you may have concerning this request. Thank you. Sincerely, Rebecca Morrow, CFM Project Manager enc. P.W. GROSSER CONSULTING December 6, 2018 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECIEPT REQUESTED Martin Flatley, Chief of Police Town of Southold Police Department P.O. Box 911 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Environmental Review The Enclaves 56655 Route 25 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Chief Flatley: P.W. Grosser Consulting Inc. is in the process of performing an environmental review for the redevelopment of a 6.725± acre parcel (“subject property”) located at 56655 Route 25 in the Town of Southold, New York. Refer to the attached project plans for a site location map. The proposed action involved the redevelopment of the subject property, which is currently a single-family dwelling. The proposed action specifically consists of: Clearing and grubbing existing trees and vegetation on the subject property. Construction of a two-story hotel with 44 hotel units (each ranging in size from 500 square feet to 540 square feet) and four (4) separate cottages (each with an area of 592± square feet), Construction of an outdoor in-ground swimming pool, pool patio and pool cabanas. Conversion of the existing single-family dwelling to a 74-seat, sit-down restaurant. Associated surface parking, landscaping, and utility improvements. Copies of the preliminary project plans are enclosed for your reference. As part of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process, the applicant is examining potential relevant environmental issues, including the potential impacts of the proposed development to police protection, and we would appreciate your assistance in this regard. Please advise, in writing, or provide the following: 1. Number of personnel and patrols in the area. 2. Number and type(s) of equipment available. 3. The number and types of calls received in 2017 (or most recent year available). 4. Estimated response time to the subject property. 5. Current police department annual budget. 6. Any other relevant information you believe would assist in the environmental review. Peer Reviewed Member P.W. Grosser Consulting, Inc. • P.W. Grosser Consulting Engineer & Hydrogeologist, PC 630 Johnson Ave., Suite 7 • Bohemia, NY 11716 PH 631.589.6353 • FX 631.589.8705 • www.pwgrosser.com New York, NY • Syracuse, NY • Seattle, WA • Shelton, CT Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please feel free to contact me at (631) 589-6353 with any questions you may have concerning this request. Sincerely, Bryan Grogan, PE Senior Project Manager P.W. Grosser Consulting, Inc.• P.W. Grosser Consulting Engineer & Hydrogeologist, PC2 630 Johnson Avenue, Suite 7 • Bohemia, NY 11716 PH 631.589.6353 • FX 631.589.8705 • www.pwgrosser.com New York, NY • Syracuse, NY • Seattle, WA•Shelton, CT November , 2020 VIA OVERNIGHT CARRIER Brett Kehl, Chairman Board of Fire Commissioners Southold Fire Department 55135 Main Road P.O. Box 1469 Southold, New York 11971 Re: State Environmental Quality Review Application for The Enclaves - Proposed Hotel and Restaurant 56655 Route 25 Hamlet of Southold, Town of Southold Dear Chairman Kehl: At the request of the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals, P.W. Grosser Consulting Inc. (PWGC) is following up on an inquiry made on December 6, 2018 (see attached) for the above-referenced project. As illustrated on the enclosed site plan, the proposed action includes the conversion of the existing residential structure (which was formerly a bed and breakfast and is currently used as a residence) to a 74-seat restaurant and the development of a two-story, 40-unit hotel with four detached cottages and associated amenities (e.g., swimming pool and lounge areas). As the proposed project would require fire and ambulance services from the Southold Fire Department, we are requesting any comments that you may have on the proposed development, as illustrated on the site plan. It is noted that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared and accepted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on October 7, 2019 and a Final Environmental Impact Statement is currently being prepared. Regarding fire protection, please note the following: The project includes the installation of a new water supply system that would consist of two services -one, two-inch diameter domestic water service for the restaurant and hotel and one, six-inch diameter service for fire protection. The proposed buildings would be type IIB and type IV construction and would be provided with an automatic fire sprinkler system. The buildings range in size from 670 to 61,200 square feet, which equates to a fire flow demand of 2,000 gallons per minute (gpm). The design of the water mains would be capable of handling the water flows and pressure, as required. Fire hydrants would be located throughout the site in accordance with regulatory requirements. The proposed hotel would be constructed in accordance with all applicable building and fire codes and in consultation with Town officials and staff toensure there are no safety concerns. Site access has been evaluated in a traffic impact study and the proposed access plan has been designed to adequately provide for the projected traffic entering and exiting the access driveway to assure the public safety and to minimize traffic congestion. Further, the projected tax revenue generated by theproposed development for the Southold Fire Department have been estimated to be approximately $5,782.51. We look forward to any comments offered by the Southold Fire Department. Please feel free to contact the undersigned at (631) 589-6353or at rmorrow@pwgrosser.comwith any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Rebecca Morrow, CFM Senior Environmental Planner enc. P.W. GROSSER CONSULTING December 6, 2018 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECIEPT REQUESTED Craig Goldsmith, Chief Southold Fire Department P.O. Box 1469 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Environmental Review The Enclaves 56655 Route 25 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Chief Goldsmith: P.W. Grosser Consulting Inc. is in the process of performing an environmental review for the redevelopment of a 6.725± acre parcel (“subject property”) located at 56655 Route 25 in the Town of Southold, New York. Refer to the attached project plans for a site location map. The proposed action involved the redevelopment of the subject property, which is currently a single-family dwelling. The proposed action specifically consists of: Clearing and grubbing existing trees and vegetation on the subject property. Construction of a two-story hotel with 44 hotel units (each ranging in size from 500 square feet to 540 square feet) and four (4) separate cottages (each with an area of 592± square feet), Construction of an outdoor in-ground swimming pool, pool patio and pool cabanas. Conversion of the existing single-family dwelling to a 74-seat, sit-down restaurant. Associated surface parking, landscaping, and utility improvements. Copies of the preliminary project plans are enclosed for your reference. As part of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process, the applicant is examining potential relevant environmental issues, including the potential impacts of the proposed development to fire protection and emergency medical services (EMS), and we would appreciate your assistance in this regard. Please advise, in writing, or provide the following: 1. Number of households and non-residential sites within the service area of the Southold Fire Department (fire and EMS). 2. Total number of fire and rescue calls responded to in 2017 (or the most recent available year). 3. Total number of EMS calls response to in 2017 (or most recent available year). 4. The number of personnel in the Southold Fire Department, including the number of EMS personnel. 5. The specific EMS services provided by the Southold Fire Department. Peer Reviewed Member P.W. Grosser Consulting, Inc. • P.W. Grosser Consulting Engineer & Hydrogeologist, PC 630 Johnson Ave., Suite 7 • Bohemia, NY 11716 PH 631.589.6353 • FX 631.589.8705 • www.pwgrosser.com New York, NY • Syracuse, NY • Seattle, WA • Shelton, CT 6.Nearest fire and ambulance station and estimated response time to the subject property(provide response time from each station if different). 7.Current fire department and ambulanceannual budget. 8.Any other relevant information you believe would assist in the environmental review. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please feel free to contact me at (631) 589-6353 with any questions you may have concerning this request. Sincerely, Bryan Grogan, PE Senior Project Manager P.W. Grosser Consulting, Inc.• P.W. Grosser Consulting Engineer & Hydrogeologist, PC2 630 Johnson Avenue, Suite 7 • Bohemia, NY 11716 PH 631.589.6353 • FX 631.589.8705 • www.pwgrosser.com New York, NY • Syracuse, NY • Seattle, WA•Shelton, CT 11/20/2020 Track your package or shipment with FedEx Tracking 6:16 pm RONKONKOMA,NY Picked up https://www.fedex.com/apps/fedextrack/?action=track&tracknumbers=813015495933&locale=en_US&cntry_code=us 2/2 APPENDIX 4§¤ %­¢« µ¤² –0±®¯®²¤£ (®³¤«  ­£ 2¤²³ ´± ­³ ΔΕΕΔΔ - ¨­ 2® £Ǿ ( ¬«¤³ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£Ǿ .9 #®­²¨²³¤­¢¸ !­ «¸²¨² ¶¨³§ 3¯¤¢¨ « %·¢¤¯³¨®­ 5²¤ 0¤±¬¨³ –§280-ΐΓΑ  ­£ ȷΑΗΏ-143 2¤µȁ *´«¸ 2021 The proposed hotel requires a special exception use permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Sections 280-142 and 280-143 of the Town Code set forth general standards as well as matters to be considered when issuing a special exception use permit. A consistency analysis of the proposed action with the general standards and matters was included in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) dated October 2019. However, due to the changes to the proposed site plan and project scope during preparation of the FEIS, a revised analysis is hereby provided. Specifically, the following changes were made: 1.The ingress driveway has been shifted 11 feet to the west and additional landscaping has been incorporated into the land area between the driveway and the eastern property line to provide a 15-foot vegetated buffer. See Sheet C-100 in Appendix C of this FEIS. 2.The proposed pole-mounted light located in the parking island near the main entrance to the hotel has been modified such that there willbe no lighttrespass over the property line. See Sheet C-500 in Appendix C of this FEIS. 3.The dumpster pad for the proposed hotel has been relocated from the northeast portion of the site to the northwest corner. The proposed location includes a fenced enclosureand also provides for easier access for trash pick-up and also relocates the dumpster away from the residential properties to the east. See Sheet C-100 in Appendix C of this FEIS. 4.A wooden stockade fence,six-and-one-half (6.5) feet in height,has been added along the eastern and western property lines, and around the cottage exterior areas. The proposed fencing along the eastern side and cottage areaincludesan acoustic barrier with a minimum STC of 29 (such as NoiseOut 2 or LV-1R), which will make full contact with the ground toprovide acomplete the acoustic seal. See Sheet C-100 and Sheet C-200 in Appendix C of this FEIS. 5.A parapet has been added to the proposed hotel for the rooftop HVAC unit. 6.The proposed pond has been modified to eliminate fish and willfunction as a decorative pond. 7.Sheet C-400 (Landscape Plan and Details) has been modified to include additional plantings along the east side and northeast corner of the subject property. 8.A spa,solely for the use of overnight hotel guests wasadded to the basement of the proposed hotel and the floor plans have been updated to illustrate same (see Appendix D). The proposed spa increases the square footage(SF)of the lower level from 9,891 SF to 15,068.92 SF (Total Lower Level Sq. Ft. = 24,959.92 SF). As indicated in Section 1.2.2 of the DEIS (page 3), the proposed spa is for hotel guests only, and thus, the inclusion of the spa does not affect the projected water usage or STP design, as spa services are considered in the “per room” water usage and sanitary flow factor. 1 9.To address potential noise concerns from the proposed rooftop lounge area, while the roofline directly to the east and the parapet both act as an acoustic barrier, the proposed design has been modified to include a 30-inchglass barrieron top of the parapet. The barrier is expected to be quarter-inch monolithic glassor similar material. 10.A future enclosed event room,witha maximum attendance of 250 patrons,was added to the proposed site plan to address noise concerns associated with outdoorevents. The enclosed event room willbe a one-story addition on the south side of the hotel and consistsof a flat roof pavilion-like structure. As indicated in Section 1.1 of this FEIS, the subject application was modified to eliminate outdoorevents and this future enclosedeventspace was added to accommodate the applicant’s intentto host events at the proposed hotel. 11.To accommodate indoor events the former prep kitchen in the proposed hotel has been modified to a full kitchen capable of food preparation for events as well as to service an internal café/bistro for hotel guests only. 12.As a result of the additional enclosed space and the interior conversion of the prep kitchen to a full kitchen, the proposed development plans have been updated (see Appendix C)to include the following: The maximum footprint of the future potential event room (6,640SF)is depicted thereon. The bulk and dimensional components, including proposed lot coverage and percentage of landscaping, have been modified to include the future potential enclosed space and are summarized in Section 2.3.1 (Table 3) of this FEIS. As noted in Table 3, the future potential event space affects only the proposed lot coverage and the percentage of landscaping,however, each comply with the zoning regulations. The projected sanitary flow was increased to account for a 250-person indoor event and the capacity of the STP has been increased accordingly. As indicated in the “Sanitary Calculations” on the Site Plan General Notes (Sheet C-001): 74 SEATS RESTAURANT X 10 GPD/SEAT = 740 GPD 44 UNITS HOTEL X 150 GPD/UNIT = 6,600 GPD 250 SEATS EVENT SPACE X 5 GPD/SEAT = 1,250 GPD TOTAL SANITARY FLOW = 8,590 GPD TOTAL STP CAPACITY, INCLUDING KITCHEN FLOW = 10,695 GPD 13.The overall site plan with future enclosed event space will be reviewed by the Planning Board during site plan approval, which willoccur after completion of this SEQRA process and approval of the special exception use by the ZBA, as lead agency. It is noted that the potential noise generation from cumulative sources (including indoor events, traffic, pool, cottages, HVAC, rooftop terrace, and parking lot) willnot exceed 5 dBA over background (No Build) sound levels. This will be achieved with building materials and windows with high acoustic performance for noise attenuation, which aredesigned as part of site plan review with the Planning Board. 2 14.The applicant has also agreed toprovidetraffic mitigation for special events exceeding 100 patrons, whichwillinclude hiring traffic control for safe turning movementsto/from the site. 15.The occurrence of large events(defined as events with 100 toa maximum of250 persons)has been limited by the ZBA, as Lead Agency,to no more than 10 large events per yearand no more than one large event per week. Additionally, large events will require advanced notice to the Town. It is noted that the large events proposed at the subject site do not meet the definition of “Special Events” pursuant to Chapter 205 (PublicEntertainment and Special Events) of the Town Code and would not be regulated as such. A consistency analysis with the standards and criteria for issuance of a special exception use permit follows. '¤­¤± « 3³ ­£ ±£² –3¤¢³¨®­ ΕΛΓ-142: !ȁ 4§ ³ ³§¤ ´²¤ ¶¨«« ­®³ ¯±¤µ¤­³ ³§¤ ®±£¤±«¸  ­£ ±¤ ²®­ ¡«¤ ´²¤ ®¥  £© ¢¤­³ ¯±®¯¤±³¨¤² ®± ®¥ ¯±®¯¤±³¨¤² ¨­  £© ¢¤­³ ´²¤ £¨²³±¨¢³²ȁ The proposed hotel is of small-scale, limited to 44 rooms (40 within the hotel building and four within detached cottages) and situated at the rear of the property. The outdoorareas, includingswimming pool and lounging areas, are located to the west of the L-shaped building with the cottages to the north, effectivelybufferingon- siteactivities from neighboring residential properties to the east. Extensive landscaping is proposed for visual screening and adequate setbacks to the property lines ensure that the hotel use willnot affect adjacent properties. The proposed use is also not projected to result in any significant adverse traffic or noise impacts, as evaluated in Sections 3.2 and 3.4 of theDEISand in supplemental analyses performed as part of the FEIS. All special events, inclusive of weddings, fundraisers, etc.,willbe held indoors in a future enclosed event space located to the south of the hotel. Large events(defined as events with 100 to a maximum of 250 persons)will be limited to 10 per yearduring the following times: Friday evenings from 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM, Saturday day or evening events ranging from 2:00 PM to 11:00 PM, or Sunday day events from 2:00PM to 6:00 PM; with only one large event to occur per week and no events tobe held concurrently. Regarding potential noise impacts, the building space(s)will be designed such that the cumulative noise impact of all sources (including indoor events, traffic, pool, cottages, HVAC, rooftop terrace, and parking lot) willnot exceed 5 dBA over No Build background sound levels. Accordingly, no significant adversenoiseimpacts from operations and activities on-site willresult (see Acoustic Report, RevisedMarch 31, 2021 and included in Appendix Fof the FEIS). Further, mitigation in the form of traffic control willbe undertaken by the applicant for events exceeding100 patrons,which is the threshold established by theTown of Southold ZBAtraffic consultants during the FEIS process. Finally, the proposed event times are within the non-sensitive period set forth in §180-6 of the Town of Southold Noise Ordinance.Overall, based on the above, the proposed action is not expected to prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent use districts. "ȁ 4§ ³ ³§¤ ´²¤ ¶¨«« ­®³ ¯±¤µ¤­³ ³§¤ ®±£¤±«¸  ­£ ±¤ ²®­ ¡«¤ ´²¤ ®¥ ¯¤±¬¨³³¤£ ®± «¤¦ ««¸ ¤²³ ¡«¨²§¤£ ´²¤² ¨­ ³§¤ £¨²³±¨¢³ ¶§¤±¤¨­ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ´²¤ ¨² ³® ¡¤ «®¢ ³¤£ ®± ®¥ ¯¤±¬¨³³¤£ ®± «¤¦ ««¸ ¤²³ ¡«¨²§¤£ ´²¤² ¨­  £© ¢¤­³ ´²¤ £¨²³±¨¢³²ȁ 3 The subject property is located in the Hamlet Business (HB) zoning district, which includes much of the Main Road corridor in Southold. Of importance to note is the purpose of the HB zoning district, which is to “provide for business development in the hamlet central business areas, including retail, office and service uses, public and semipublic uses, as well as hotel and motel and multifamily residential development that will support and enhance the retail development and provide a focus for the hamlet area.” (Article X. Hamlet Business \[HB\] District, § 280-44). To the east of the subject site is a residential usedproperty on Main Road and located in the HB zoning district, with additional residences to the north of said residential property and bordering the subject property that are situated in the R-80 -Residential Low-Density (2-Acre) (R-80) zoning district. This R-80 zoning district extends to properties north of the LIRR railroad tracks, which run along the northern property boundary. As stated abovein the “Criteria A”analysis, the proposed hotel is situated at the rear of the property and the L-shaped building effectively acts as a buffer for its outdoorspaces, particularly toblock activities from neighboring properties to the east. All special events, inclusive ofweddings, fundraisers, etc. willbe held indoors in a future enclosedeventspace located to the south of the hotel, and designed such that the cumulative noise impact of all sources (including indoor events, traffic, pool, cottages, HVAC, rooftop terrace, and parking lot) willnot exceed 5 dBA over No Build background sound levels.The proposed landscaping providesvisual screening and adequate setbacks to the property lines ensure that the hotel use donot affect adjacent property owners. For special events, mitigation willbe undertaken to prevent any nuisances associated with noise or traffic, including hosting events indoors, limiting large events to 10 per year and no more than one large event per week,and hiring traffic control for events exceeding100 patrons. Accordingly, based on the above, the proposed action does not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of permitted or legally established uses in the district wherein the proposed use will be located or with respect topermitted or legally established uses in adjacent use districts. #ȁ 4§ ³ ³§¤ ² ¥¤³¸Ǿ ³§¤ §¤ «³§Ǿ ³§¤ ¶¤«¥ ±¤Ǿ ³§¤ ¢®¬¥®±³Ǿ ³§¤ ¢®­µ¤­¨¤­¢¤ ®± ³§¤ ®±£¤± ®¥ ³§¤ 4®¶­ ¶¨«« ­®³ ¡¤  £µ¤±²¤«¸  ¥¥¤¢³¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ´²¤  ­£ ¨³² «®¢ ³¨®­ȁ The proposed hotel willbe constructed in accordance with all applicable building and fire codes and in consultation with Town officials and staff to ensure there are no safety concerns. Site access has been evaluated in the Traffic Impact Study(TIS)and the proposed access plan has been designed to adequately provide for the projected traffic entering and exiting the access driveway to assure the public’ssafety and to minimize traffic congestion. Water for fire protection willbe supplied from the same water distribution system that provides potable water. The proposed hotel would also be provided with an automatic fire sprinkler system. Overall, the proposed hotel would not adversely affect the safety, the health, the welfare, the comfort, the convenience, or the order of the Town. $ȁ 4§ ³ ³§¤ ´²¤ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¨­ § ±¬®­¸ ¶¨³§  ­£ ¯±®¬®³¤ ³§¤ ¦¤­¤± « ¯´±¯®²¤²  ­£ ¨­³¤­³ ®¥ ³§¨² ¢§ ¯³¤±ȁ The proposed hotel will be situated within the Southold Hamlet Center and in compliance with the bulk and dimensional requirements of the HB zoning district, as well as theapplicableResort Residential (RR)District use restrictions. The proposed use is also consistent with many of the goals of the ΕΓΓΘ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£ ( ¬«¤³ 3³´£¸. Upon implementation of the proposed action, it is expected that most hotel guests willfrequent the Hamlet Center businesses, taking advantage of the hamlet’s walkability and business offerings. It is expected that the proposed hotel willserve as a catalyst for existing businesses to extend evening operating hours and potentially encourage the development of new businessin this part of Southold. These were noted goals for Southold Hamlet Center in the ΕΓΓΘ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£ ( ¬«¤³ 3³´£¸. 4 It is further noted that on September 8, 2020,the Town adopted anupdated Comprehensive Plan and the economic development goals are relevant to the comments on the suitability of this proposed use.The first economic development goal includes “%­¢®´± ¦¤ .¤¶  ­£ & ¢¨«¨³ ³¤ ³§¤ '±®¶³§ ®¥ %·¨²³¨­¦ "´²¨­¤²² 3¤¢³®±² ³§ ³ 0´±²´¤ 3³ ¡«¤  ­£ 3´²³ ¨­ ¡«¤ %¬¯«®¸¬¤­³ȁ 4§¨² ¨­¢«´£¤²  ¦±¨¢´«³´±¤Ǿ  °´ ¢´«³´±¤Ǿ §¤ «³§ ¢ ±¤Ǿ ±¤­¤¶ ¡«¤ ¤­¤±¦¸Ǿ ³®´±¨²¬Ǿ «¨¦§³ ¨­£´²³±¨ «Ǿ ±¤³ ¨«ȝ²¤±µ¨¢¤-¡ ²¤£Ǿ  ­£ ³§¤ ¬ ±¨³¨¬¤-±¤« ³¤£ ¨­£´²³±¸.” Of relevance within such goal is the following objective: Develo¯   ¥®±¬ « "´²¨­¤²² 2¤³¤­³¨®­  ­£ %·¯ ­²¨®­ 0±®¦± ¬ ³§±®´¦§ 4®¶­ government. Discussion of this objective indicates, as excerpted from page 2 of Chapter 7: “4§¤  ¡¨«¨³¸ ®¥ ³§¤ 4®¶­ ³® ±¤³ ¨­ ¡´²¨­¤²²¤² ¨² ®¥³¤­ ¤ ²¨¤± ³§ ­  ³³± ¢³¨­¦ ­¤¶ ¡´²¨­¤²²¤² ³® ³®¶­ȁ 4®¶­¶¨£¤ ¤¥¥®±³² ¨­ ¡´²¨­¤²²  ³³± ¢³¨®­  ­£ ±¤³¤­³¨®­ ²§®´«£ ¤¬¯«®¸   ²¨¬¨« ± ¥®¢´²Ǿ  ­£   "´²¨­¤²² 2¤³¤­³¨®­  ­£ %·¯ ­²¨®­ 0±®¦± ¬ ¶®´«£ ²¤³ ®´³ ³®  ¢¢®¬¯«¨²§ ³§¨². ! "´²¨­¤²² 2¤³¤­³¨®­  ­£ %·¯ ­²¨®­ 0±®¦± ¬ ¶®´«£ ²¤¤ª ³® ¨£¤­³¨¥¸  ­£ ´­£¤±²³ ­£ ³§¤ ¨²²´¤²  ­£ ®¡²³ ¢«¤² ¥ ¢¤£ ¡¸   µ ±¨¤³¸ ®¥ «®¢ « ¡´²¨­¤²²¤² ¨­ ³§¤ 4®¶­Ǿ ³§±®´¦§   ²¤±¨¤² ®¥ £¤³ ¨«¤£ ²´±µ¤¸²Ǿ ¨­³¤±µ¨¤¶²Ǿ ¬¤¤³¨­¦²Ǿ  ­£ ®±¦ ­¨¹ ³¨®­ ®¥ repres¤­³ ³¨µ¤² ¥±®¬ ª¤¸ ¡´²¨­¤²² ®¶­¤±² ³§±®´¦§®´³ ³§¤ 4®¶­ȁ 4§¤ ¯±®¦± ¬ ¶¨««  ²²¨²³ ¨­ ´­£¤±²³ ­£¨­¦ ³§¤ ¨¬¬¤£¨ ³¤ ¢®­¢¤±­² ®¥ «®¢ « ¡´²¨­¤²² ®¶­¤±² ²¤¤ª¨­¦ ³® ¨¬¯±®µ¤ 4®¶­-¶¨£¤ ¤¥¥®±³² ³® ±¤³ ¨­  ­£ ¤­¢®´± ¦¤ ¦±®¶³§ȁ” Another objective under this goal is to “3³±¤­¦³§¤­ ©®¡-³± ¨­¨­¦  ­£ ¶®±ª¥®±¢¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ȁ” Discussion of this objective indicates, as excerpted from page 3 of Chapter 7: ȏ3³±¤­¦³§¤­¨­¦ ©®¡-³± ¨­¨­¦  ­£ ³§¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ®¥ ³§¤ «®¢ « ¶®±ª¥®±¢¤ ¨² ­¤¢¤²² ±¸ ³® ¤­²´±¤ ³§ ³ ±¤²¨£¤­³²  ±¤ ³± ¨­¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ ¥¨¤«£² ³§ ³  «¨¦­ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ 4®¶­Ȍ² ¤²³ ¡«¨²§¤£  ­£ ¤¬¤±¦¨­¦ ¡´²¨­¤²² ²¤¢³®±²Ǿ ¨­¢«´£¨­¦  ¦±¨¢´«³´±¤Ǿ  °´ ¢´«³´±¤Ǿ §¤ «³§ ¢ ±¤Ǿ ±¤­¤¶ ¡«¤ ¤­¤±¦¸Ǿ ³®´±¨²¬Ǿ  ­£ «¨¦§³ ¨­£´²³±¨ «Ǿ retail/service-¡ ²¤£Ǿ  ­£ ³§¤ ¬ ±¨³¨¬¤-±¤« ³¤£ ¨­£´²³±¸ȁ 4§¤ £¨¥¥¨¢´«³¸ ¨­ ¥¨­£¨­¦ ²ª¨««¤£ ¶®±ª¤±² ¬ ª¤² 3®´³§®«£ 4®¶­   «¤²² £¤²¨± ¡«¤ ¯« ¢¤ ³® ²³ ±³ ®± ±¤«®¢ ³¤   ¡´²¨­¤²²ȁ -®±¤®µ¤±Ǿ ³§¤  ¦¨­¦ ¶®±ª¥®±¢¤ ¶¨³§¨­ 3®´³§®«£ 4®¶­ ± ¨²¤² ¢®­¢¤±­²  ² ³® ¶§ ³ ¶¨«« § ¯¯¤­ ¶§¤­ µ¤³¤± ­ ¶®±ª¤±² ±¤³¨±¤ȁ 4§¨² ¯®³¤­³¨ « ²¢¤­ ±¨®Ǿ ¢®¬¡¨­¤£ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ­¤¤£ ³® ±¤µ¤±²¤ ³§¤  ±¤ Ȍ² ȏ¡± ¨­ £± ¨­ǾȐ ¢®´«£ ¡¤  ££±¤²²¤£ ¶¨³§  ­ ¨¬¯±®µ¤£ job-³± ¨­¨­¦  ­£ ¶®±ª¥®±¢¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ¯±®¦± ¬ ³§ ³ ¶®´«£  ²²¨²³ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ¯±®µ¨²¨®­ ®¥ ²³ ¡«¤  ­£ ²´²³ ¨­ ¡«¤ ¤¬¯«®¸¬¤­³ ®¯¯®±³´­¨³¨¤² ¥®± ³§¤ £¨µ¤±²¤ ¡ ²¤ ®¥ ¢´±±¤­³  ­£ ¥´³´±¤ ±¤²¨£¤­³² ®¥ ³§¤ 4®¶­ȁȐ Accordingly, the proposed action is consistent with the aforementioned economic development goals and objectives to (1) increase commercial square footage in the hamlet of Southold, and (2) attract new businesses that can generate taxes. Also, the proposed action, as a tourism-related business, is also recognized in the aforementioned excerpts as an emerging business sector and one in which the Town recognizes the need for improved job-training and workforce development. As indicated in the DEIS, the proposed development is projected to generate approximately $123,482 in total tax revenue and total job creation is projected at 53 jobs. These projected jobs include food preparation and service, housekeeping, maintenance, and managerial positions, among others. It is further noted that a second goal for Economic Development is to “0±®¬®³¤ %¢®­®¬¨¢ $¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ³§ ³ %­²´±¤²  ­ !£¤°´ ³¤ 4 · " ²¤ 7¨³§®´³ #®¬¯±®¬¨²¨­¦ ³§¤ 5­¨°´¤ #§ ± ¢³¤± ®¥ ³§¤ 4®¶­ȁ” As indicated above, the proposed building height, building placement and landscaping plan results in a site design that effectively screens the proposed hotel from Main Road. Further, the proposed renovation and preservation of the existing historic residence maintains the character ofthe site from Main Road. 5 The Economic Development goals also include specific recommendations for the HALO zones in which the property is situated. Specifically, Goal 3 is “0±¤²¤±µ¤  ­£ )¬¯±®µ¤ ³§¤ 6¨³ «¨³¸ ®¥ % ¢§ ®¥ ³§¤ 4®¶­Ȍ² ( ¬«¤³ #¤­³¤±²  ­£ (!,/ :®­¤²  ² 7 «ª ¡«¤ ,®¢ « "´²¨­¤²² $¨²³±¨¢³².” One of the corresponding objectives is to “Concentrate new residential and commercial development in the Town’s hamlet centers and HALO zones and encourage infill development, historic preservation, renovation, and adaptive reuse, where possible” and includes the recommendation to “Provide incentives for new development and/or business relocation for the reuse and adaptive reuse of existing structures within the Town’s hamlet centers and HALO zones.” As noted above, the proposed action is consistent with this goal and recommendations to achieve the objective. Based on the above, the proposed project uses, projected tax revenues and job creation, combined with the small- scale design that willnot be visible from the road, is consistent with the economic development goals set forth in the updated Comprehensive Plan. Overall, the proposed use will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes and intent of the chapter. %ȁ 4§ ³ ³§¤ ´²¤ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¢®¬¯ ³¨¡«¤ ¶¨³§ ¨³² ²´±±®´­£¨­¦²  ­£ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ¢§ ± ¢³¤± ®¥ ³§¤ ­¤¨¦§¡®±§®®£  ­£ ®¥ ³§¤ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ¨­ ¦¤­¤± «Ǿ ¯ ±³¨¢´« ±«¸ ¶¨³§ ±¤¦ ±£ ³® µ¨²¨¡¨«¨³¸Ǿ ²¢ «¤  ­£ ®µ¤± ««  ¯¯¤ ± ­¢¤ȁ The proposed hotel building reflectsthe existing scale of existing buildings at the subject property and surrounding community (i.e., low density, one-and two-story structures). The hotel willbe located towards to rear of the property where public views of the hotel use (including those views from the National Register- eligibleGlover-Hutter House) are and obscured by proposed landscaping (see photo-simulations provided as Figures 18 and 19 in Appendix Aof the DEIS, and updated renderings in Appendix D of the FEIS). The proposed plan also includes the planting of substantial and mature trees along the eastern and western property lines such that the views into the site are also limited (see photo-simulations provided as Figures 20 through 23 in Appendix Aof the DEIS, and updated renderings in Appendix D of the FEIS). The proposed project willchange the land use character of the subject property from that of a singleresidence to a mixed-commercial use,however, the re-use and conversion of the existing residence to a restaurant maintains the appearance and character ofan important historic structure along Main Road. As evaluated herein, the proposed project is consistent with various local and state comprehensive planning documents relevant to the hamlet and Town of Southold and the larger region regarding preservation oftheexisting historic character of the area. Overall, the proposed hotel will be compatible with its surroundings and with the character of the neighborhood and of the community,in general, particularly with regard to visibility, scale and overall appearance. &ȁ 4§ ³  «« ¯±®¯®²¤£ ²³±´¢³´±¤²Ǿ ¤°´¨¯¬¤­³  ­£ ¬ ³¤±¨ « ²§ «« ¡¤ ±¤ £¨«¸  ¢¢¤²²¨¡«¤ ¥®± ¥¨±¤  ­£ ¯®«¨¢¤ protection. The proposed hotel will be constructed in accordance with all applicable building codes and in consultation with Town officials and staff to ensure there are no safety concerns. During preparation of the DEIS, consultations were undertaken with both the Southold Fire District and the Town of Southold Police Department. Further, Section 3.6 of theDEISevaluatedthe proposed developmentand determined that itis not expected that the proposed action willadversely impact the local police department or fire district. As part ofthis FEIS, follow up correspondence has been sent to the Southold Fire Department and Southold Police Department. Copies of this correspondence are included in Appendix H of this FEIS. It is noted that the Southold Police Department commented on the proposed project and the applicant responded to the comments 6 and this correspondence is also included in Appendix H of this FEIS. It is further noted that the comments of the Police Department that relate to extra traffic and noise complaints from neighbors due to outdoorevents were addressed through the project scope and site plan revision. Specifically, by eliminating outdoorevents and committing to a cumulative post-development noise level not to exceed 5 dBA over No Build sound levels, there are no adverse noise impacts during events. Furthermore, in coordination with the Town, traffic control willbe utilizedfor events greater than100 patrons. 'ȁ 4§ ³ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®² « ¢®¬¯«¨¤² ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ±¤°´¨±¤¬¤­³² ®¥ #§ ¯³¤± ΕΖΙǾ 3³®±¬¶ ³¤± - ­ ¦¤¬¤­³Ǿ ®± ¨­ ³§¤ a«³¤±­ ³¨µ¤Ǿ ³§¤ :®­¨­¦ "® ±£ ®¥ !¯¯¤ «² ²§ «« ¢®­£¨³¨®­ ²´¢§  ¯¯±®µ « ®­ ¢®¬¯«¨ ­¢¤ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ±¤°´¨±¤¬¤­³² ®¥ #§ ¯³¤± ΕΖΙǾ 3³®±¬¶ ³¤± - ­ ¦¤¬¤­³ȁ An analysis of Chapter 236 is provided in Section 2.2.2 of the DEIS. Based upon the analysis, the proposed development plans are consistent with the goals and standards set forth in Chapter 236 of the Town Code. - ³³¤±² ³® ¡¤ #®­²¨£¤±¤£ –3¤¢³¨®­ ΕΛΓ-143: !ȁ 4§¤ ¢§ ± ¢³¤± ®¥ ³§¤ ¤·¨²³¨­¦  ­£ ¯±®¡ ¡«¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ®¥ ´²¤² ¨­ ³§¤ £¨²³±¨¢³  ­£ ³§¤ ¯¤¢´«¨ ± suitab¨«¨³¸ ®¥ ²´¢§ £¨²³±¨¢³ ¥®± ³§¤ «®¢ ³¨®­ ®¥  ­¸ ®¥ ²´¢§ ¯¤±¬¨³³¤£ ´²¤²ȁ As noted above, the proposed hotel building reflectsthe existing scale of existing buildings at the subject property and surrounding community (i.e., low density, one-and two-story structures). Public views of the hotel use willbe limited and obscured by proposed landscaping (see Figures 18 through 23 in Appendix A, and updated renderings in Appendix D of the FEIS). The proposed project changesthe land use character of the subjectproperty from that of a singleresidence to a mixed-commercial use. However, as evaluated herein, the proposed project is consistent with various local and State comprehensive planning documents relevant to the Hamlet and Town of Southold regarding preservation of existing historic character of the area. "ȁ 4§¤ ¢®­²¤±µ ³¨®­ ®¥ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ µ «´¤²  ­£ ³§¤ ¤­¢®´± ¦¤¬¤­³ ®¥ ³§¤ ¬®²³  ¯¯±®¯±¨ ³¤ ´²¤² ®¥ « ­£ȁ Based on an assessment provided by the Board of Assessors, there willbe an increase in tax revenue to various taxing jurisdictions, including (but not limited to) Suffolk County, the Town of Southold, and the local fire protection and school districts. Pursuant to information provided by the Town of Southold Board of Assessors, under the proposed development (including the restaurant), the subject property is anticipated togenerate approximately $123,482 in tax revenue to the applicable taxing jurisdictions,as described above, based on 2018-19 Town of Southold tax rates (see Appendix Gof the DEIS). Regarding the appropriateness of the use, the existing residence was formerly used as a bed and breakfast. This structure willbe converted to a restaurant, maintaining its existing character while providing for a use that is consistent with similar uses in the Hamlet Center. The proposed hotel to be situated towardthe rear of the property includes 44 rooms, which are intended to meet existing demand. Upon implementation of the proposed action, it is expected that most visitors willfrequent the Hamlet Center businesses, taking advantage of the Hamlet’s walkability and business offerings. It isexpected that the proposed hotel will serve as a catalyst for existing businesses to extend evening operating hours and,potentially,encourage the development of new businesses. These were noted goals for Southold Hamlet Center in the ΕΓΓΘ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£ ( ¬«¤³ 3³´£¸. As indicated earlier, the proposed action is consistent with the economic development goals set forthin the updated Comprehensive Plan. 7 #ȁ 4§¤ ¤¥¥¤¢³ ³§ ³ ³§¤ «®¢ ³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ´²¤  ­£ ³§¤ «®¢ ³¨®­ ³§ ³ ¤­³± ­¢¤²  ­£ ¤·¨³² ¬ ¸ § µ¤ ´¯®­ ³§¤ ¢±¤ ³¨®­ ®± ´­£´¤ ¨­¢±¤ ²¤ ®¥ µ¤§¨¢´« ± ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¢®­¦¤²³¨®­ ®­ ¯´¡«¨¢ ²³±¤¤³²Ǿ §¨¦§¶ ¸² ®± ²¨£¤¶ «ª² ³®  ²²´±¤ ³§¤ ¯´¡«¨¢ ² ¥¤³¸ȁ The subject property currently includes full access to Main Road via one driveway. The proposed access plan improvesthis condition by splitting access for entering and exiting vehicles. An entrance only driveway will be placed on the easterly side of the frontage on Main Road and an exit only drivewaywillbe located on the western side of the frontageon Main Road,opposite the existing 7-11 driveway located on the south side of Main Road. The proposed access plan was designed to provide safe and efficient access for both patrons and employees of the proposed project. $ȁ 4§¤  µ ¨« ¡¨«¨³¸ ®¥  £¤°´ ³¤  ­£ ¯±®¯¤± ¯´¡«¨¢ ®± ¯±¨µ ³¤ ¶ ³¤± ²´¯¯«¸  ­£ ¥ ¢¨«¨³¨¤² ¥®± ³§¤ ³±¤ ³¬¤­³Ǿ ±¤¬®µ « ®± £¨²¢§ ±¦¤ ®¥ ²¤¶ ¦¤Ǿ ±¤¥´²¤ ®± ®³§¤± ¤¥¥«´¤­³ Ȩ¶§¤³§¤± «¨°´¨£Ǿ ²®«¨£Ǿ ¦ ²¤®´² ®± ®³§¤±¶¨²¤ȩ ³§ ³ ¬ ¸ ¡¤ ¢ ´²¤£ ®± ¢±¤ ³¤£ ¡¸ ®±  ²   ±¤²´«³ ®¥ ³§¤ ´²¤ȁ Consultations were undertaken with the SCWA and service availability has been confirmed. The proposed action includes construction of an on-sitesewage treatment plantto accommodate the demand from the restaurant and hotel uses. As evaluated in the Section 2.2 of the DEIS, there are no significant adverse impacts expected to occur from the STP. Of importance is that the nitrogenload from wastewater from the proposed development is less than that of an “as-of-right” development, due to the presence of the proposed STP, which isnot be required in the as-of-right development. As evaluated in the BURBS model, the as-of-right hasthe highest total N leached, 333.74 lbs./year, and then the proposed project (without future event space) at 311.80 lbs./year and the proposed project with future event space at 307.48 lbs./year. This reduction improvesthe overall groundwater and surfacewater quality over an as-of-right development. All solid waste from the proposed development willbe collected and disposed of by a licensed private carter. Recycling on the property willbe implemented with separate trash receptacles,however, recycling methods (single-stream or dual-stream) willbe determined by the carter contracted to collect and dispose of the on-site trash. As part of the proposed project, best management practices for reduction in solid waste generation and product selection would be incorporated into the business plans. All trash enclosures (i.e., central dumpster areas for the restaurant and hotel) will be screened with vegetation and pick-ups willbe scheduled to eliminate wastes being held for a long duration. The pickupschedule willbe developed with the collector and willbe undertaken to prevent the potential for odors to develop near the trash enclosures. %ȁ 7§¤³§¤± ³§¤ ´²¤ ®± ³§¤ ¬ ³¤±¨ «² ¨­¢¨£¤­³ « ³§¤±¤³® ®± ¯±®£´¢¤£ ³§¤±¤¡¸ ¬ ¸ ¦¨µ¤ ®¥¥ ®¡­®·¨®´² ¦ ²¤²Ǿ ®£®±²Ǿ ²¬®ª¤ ®± ²®®³ȁ The potential for odors to be generated from the on-site wastewater treatment and disposal are addressed in the design of the overall system. As indicated in Section 3.2.2 of the DEIS, the proposed STP willbe equipped with a dual canister carbon-based odor control system connected to the treatment tanks, pump station, splitter box and influent screen. As such, odors arecontrolled withno adverse impacts to the neighboring properties. The potential does exist for odors from trash receptacles. To prevent odors, trash pick-ups willbe scheduled to eliminate wastes being held for a long duration. This schedule willbe developed with the collector and will be undertaken to prevent the potential for odors to develop near the trash enclosures. Based on the above, the proposed action is not expected to generate any odors that mayadversely impact the surrounding area. 8 &ȁ 7§¤³§¤± ³§¤ ´²¤ ¶¨«« ¢ ´²¤ £¨²³´±¡¨­¦ ¤¬¨²²¨®­² ®¥ ¤«¤¢³±¨¢ « £¨²¢§ ±¦¤²Ǿ £´²³Ǿ «¨¦§³Ǿ µ¨¡± ³¨®­ ®± ­®¨²¤ȁ The proposed hotel will not cause disturbing emissions of electrical discharges. Dust would be expected during construction, which willbe a temporary impact and controlled through a dust control plan (see Sections 2.1.2 and 3.6.2 of theDEISfor more information). The proposed site lighting consistsof light poles and building fixtures. Each lamp pole willhaveanLED shielded fixture such that all light is directed downwards with no upward glare. A photometric analysis of each proposed pole was performed and is illustrated on the Site Lighting and Details Plan. As indicated in the photometric analysis, there willbe no off-site lighting impacts from any of the proposed light poles. The proposed pole-mounted light located in the parking island near the main entrance to the hotel has been modified such that there isno light trespass over the property line(See Sheet C-500 in Appendix C of this FEIS). Regarding building fixtures, fixed lighting willbe installed on the proposed hotel building and restaurant. To mitigate light trespass and glare, all lighting isshielded and directed downwards at an intensity compliant with Chapter 172 of the Town Code (OutdoorLighting). A noise analysis was performed and based on extensive acoustic readings and related analysis there is no impact expected for the nearby commercial and residential receivers during typical operation of the proposed hotel (and restaurant). Also, potential future noise generation from cumulative sources (including indoor events) willnot exceed 5 dBA over background (No Build) sound levels. This is achieved with building materials and windows with high acoustic performance for noise attenuation, which will be designed as part of siteplan review with the Planning Board. To address potential noise concerns from the proposed rooftop lounge area, while the roofline directly to the east and the parapet both act as an acoustic barrier, the proposed design has been modified to include a 30-inch glass barrier on top of the parapet. The barrier is expected to be quarter- inch monolithic glass or similar material. 'ȁ 7§¤³§¤± ³§¤ ®¯¤± ³¨®­ ¨­ ¯´±²´ ­¢¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ´²¤ ¶¨«« ¢ ´²¤ ´­£´¤ ¨­³¤±¥¤±¤­¢¤ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ®±£¤±«¸ ¤­©®¸¬¤­³ ¡¸ ³§¤ ¯´¡«¨¢ ®¥ ¯ ±ª¨­¦®± ®¥ ±¤¢±¤ ³¨®­ « ¥ ¢¨«¨³¨¤²Ǿ ¨¥ ¤·¨²³¨­¦ ®± ¨¥ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ 4®¶­ ®± ¡¸ ®³§¤± ¢®¬¯¤³¤­³ ¦®µ¤±­¬¤­³ «  ¦¤­¢¨¤²ȁ In order to maximize the sight distance available to vehicles exiting the subject site, it is recommended the parking be restricted on the north side of Main Road (Route 25) along the entire frontage of the site. In anticipation of special events, overflow parking wasincorporated into the site plan and such overflow areas accommodate theanticipateddemand. Further, there is no impact to recreational facilities. (ȁ 4§¤ ­¤¢¤²²¨³¸ ¥®± ¡¨³´¬¨­®´²-²´±¥ ¢¤£ ²¯ ¢¤ ¥®± ¯´±¯®²¤² ®¥ ®¥¥-²³±¤¤³ ¯ ±ª¨­¦ ®¥ µ¤§¨¢«¤² ¨­¢¨£¤­³ « ³® ³§¤ ´²¤  ­£ ¶§¤³§¤± ²´¢§ ²¯ ¢¤ ¨² ±¤ ²®­ ¡«¸  £¤°´ ³¤  ­£  ¯¯±®¯±¨ ³¤  ­£ ¢ ­ ¡¤ ¥´±­¨²§¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ ®¶­¤± ®¥ ³§¤ ¯«®³ ²®´¦§³ ³® ¡¤ ´²¤£ ¶¨³§¨­ ®±  £© ¢¤­³ ³® ³§¤ ¯«®³ ¶§¤±¤¨­ ³§¤ ´²¤ ²§ «« ¡¤ «®¢ ³¤£ȁ Pursuant to §280-78 of the Town Zoning Code the required parking is one space for each guest room and one spacefor each employee or one space per guest room, whichever is greater. Based upon the foregoing, the proposed 44-unit hotel with 12 employees requires56 spaces. The proposed design includes a dedicated 96- space parking area, including four(4)ADA spaces. An additional 26grass spacesare also provided as overflow parking. )ȁ 7§¤³§¤±   § ¹ ±£ ³® «¨¥¤Ǿ «¨¬¡ ®± ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ¡¤¢ ´²¤ ®¥ ¥¨±¤Ǿ ¥«®®£Ǿ ¤±®²¨®­ ®± ¯ ­¨¢ ¬ ¸ ¡¤ ¢±¤ ³¤£ ¡¸ ±¤ ²®­ ®¥ ®±  ²   ±¤²´«³ ®¥ ³§¤ ´²¤ ®± ¡¸ ³§¤ ²³±´¢³´±¤² ³® ¡¤ ´²¤£ ³§¤±¤¥®±®± ¡¸ ³§¤ ¨­ ¢¢¤²²¨¡¨«¨³¸ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ®± ²³±´¢³´±¤² ³§¤±¤®­ ¥®± ³§¤ ¢®­µ¤­¨¤­³ ¤­³±¸  ­£ ®¯¤± ³¨®­ ®¥ ¥¨±¤  ­£ ®³§¤± ¤¬¤±¦¤­¢¸  ¯¯ ± ³´² ®± ¡¸ ³§¤ ´­£´¤ ¢®­¢¤­³± ³¨®­ ®±  ²²¤¬¡« ¦¤ ®¥ ¯¤±²®­² ´¯®­ ²´¢§ ¯«®³ȁ 9 The proposed hotel is of small-scale (44 rooms) andcomplieswith all applicable and relevant New York State Building and Fire codes. The proposed site plan includes adequate on-site parking areas forthe hotel (and separate restaurant on Main Road), and the internal driveways comply with the Town Code. The proposed grading and landscape plans resultsin a site that will continue to remain relatively flat, with planted and naturally vegetated areas. The proposed stormwater management system also complieswith the Town Code which requires the site to accommodate a two-inch rainfall event. The proposed action will not, therefore, create a hazard to life, limb,or property because fire, flood, erosion,or panic. *ȁ 7§¤³§¤± ³§¤ ´²¤ ®± ³§¤ ²³±´¢³´±¤² ³® ¡¤ ´²¤£ ³§¤±¤¥®± ¶¨«« ¢ ´²¤  ­ ®µ¤±¢±®¶£¨­¦ ®¥ « ­£ ®± ´­£´¤ ¢®­¢¤­³± ³¨®­ ®¥ ¯®¯´« ³¨®­. The proposed hotel is not expected to introduce an overcrowding of land or undue concentration of people. The proposed hotel willoperate year-round, with hours of operation consistent with suchuses. The project sponsor anticipates hosting events, such as weddings, fundraising events or other small private gatherings, inside the proposed hotel or within a future potential event room. During preparation of theFEIS, the occurrence of large events has been limited by the lead agency to no more than 10 large events per year and no more than one large event per week. Additionally, large events will require advanced notice to the Town and arrangement for traffic control personnel. Overflow parking has been incorporated into the site plan to accommodate demand during such events. +ȁ 7§¤³§¤± ³§¤ ¯«®³  ±¤  ¨² ²´¥¥¨¢¨¤­³Ǿ  ¯¯±®¯±¨ ³¤  ­£  £¤°´ ³¤ ¥®± ³§¤ ´²¤  ­£ ³§¤ ±¤ ²®­ ¡«¸  ­³¨¢¨¯ ³¤£ ®¯¤± ³¨®­  ­£ ¤·¯ ­²¨®­ ³§¤±¤®¥ȁ As indicated previously, the proposed plan, inclusive of the restaurantand future potential event space, exceeds the minimum landscape area requirement (i.e., minimum: 25percent, proposed: 56.3percent) and is significantly under the maximum lot coverage permitted for the HB Zoning District (i.e., maximum: 40percent, proposed: 18.6percent). The proposed development also provides for significantly greater setbacks such that there isadequate buffering from the adjacent properties. The proposed setbacks for the hotel include: Front yard –Minimum: 15 feet; Provided:223’-1” Side yard –Minimum: 10 feet; Provided: 32 feet (east) / 48’-8” (west) Both side yards –Minimum: 25 feet; Provided: 80’-8” feet Rear yard –Minimum: 25 feet; Provided: 153’-10” feet (Cottage 4) / 218’-11” (Hotel Building) The subject property is located within the Southold Hamlet Center, a corridor that contains commercial and retail uses. The proposed hotel development is in-scale with existing development of the Hamlet and willbe visually obscured by existing development and vegetation (existing to remain and proposed supplemental landscaping), such that it willnot visually contrast with the existing built environment. The project sponsor envisions locally crafted sculptures on the lawn area, combined witha proposed reflection pond. Interior artwork on display is intended to highlight the history of Southold and the east end of Long Island. The project sponsor willalso consider making local historic information readily available to its guests. The proposed action also includes the installation of a sewage treatment plant to accommodate sewage flow demands. As compared to an as-of-right development utilizing conventional sanitary systems (see Sections 2.2.2 and 5.2 of the DEIS), the as-of-rightuseshave the highest total N leached, 333.74 lbs./year, and then the 10 proposed project (without future event space) at 311.80 lbs./year and the proposed project with future event space at 307.48 lbs./year. ,ȁ 7§¤³§¤± ³§¤ ´²¤ ³® ¡¤ ®¯¤± ³¤£ ¨² ´­±¤ ²®­ ¡«¸ ­¤ ± ³®   ¢§´±¢§Ǿ ²¢§®®«Ǿ ³§¤ ³¤±Ǿ ±¤¢±¤ ³¨®­ «  ±¤  ®± ®³§¤± ¯« ¢¤ ®¥ ¯´¡«¨¢  ²²¤¬¡«¸ȁ The proposed use willnot affect public assemblyuses, such as a church, school, theater,or recreational area. -ȁ 7§¤³§¤± ³§¤ ²¨³¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ´²¤ ¨² ¯ ±³¨¢´« ±«¸ ²´¨³ ¡«¤ ¥®± ²´¢§ ´²¤ȁ The existing residence on Main Road was formerly a bed and breakfast and is now used for residential purposes,pending the overall redevelopment of the site. The new hotel intends to meet an existing demand, as explainedinthe DEISand in the Market Study in Appendix Gof the DEIS. Upon implementation of the proposed action, it is expected that most visitors willfrequent the Hamlet Center businesses, taking advantage of the Hamlet’s walkability and diverse business offerings. It isexpected that the proposed hotel would serve as a catalyst for existing businesses to extend evening operating hours and potentially encourage the development of new businesses. These were noted goals for Southold Hamlet Center in the 20ΓΘ 4®¶­ ®¥ 3®´³§®«£ ( ¬«¤³ 3³´£¸. Also, as indicated earlier, the proposed action is consistent with the economic development goals set forth in Southold’supdated Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore,the proposed use is not projected to result in any significant adverse traffic or noise impacts, as evaluated in Sections 3.2 and 3.4 of theDEISand in supplemental analyses performed as part of the FEIS. All special events, inclusive of weddings, fundraisers, etc., willbe held indoors in a future enclosed space room located to the south of the hotel. Also, regarding potential noise impacts, the building space(s) aredesigned such that the cumulative noise impact of all sources (including indoor events, traffic, pool, cottages, HVAC, rooftop terrace, and parking lot) willnot exceed 5 dBA over “No Build”background sound levels. Accordingly, no significant adverse noise impacts from operations and activities on-site willresult (see Acoustic Report, RevisedMarch 31, 2021and included in Appendix F of the FEIS). Further, mitigation in the form of traffic control willbe undertaken by the applicant for events exceeding 100 patrons,which is the threshold established by the Town of Southold ZBA traffic consultants to the during the FEIS process. Finally, large events will be limited to 10 per year and no more than one per week. The proposed hotel development would also be in-scale with existing development within the Hamlet, however, based on renderings prepared by the project architect (see Appendix D ofthe FEIS), the hotel will largelybeshielded from view by the proposed restaurant and the proposed landscaping. Views from the east willalso be screened with mature vegetation planted during construction and the proposed setbacks included in the design. Assuch,the proposed project willnot significantly alter the viewshed. Finally, the appropriateness of the use is well documented in the recent Town of Southold Comprehensive Plan: Southold 2020, dated February 2020 and adopted in September 2020. The first economic development goal includes “%­¢®´± ¦¤ .¤¶  ­£ & ¢¨«¨³ ³¤ ³§¤ '±®¶³§ ®¥ %·¨²³¨­¦ "´²¨­¤²² 3¤¢³®±² ³§ ³ 0´±²´¤ 3³ ¡«¤  ­£ 3´²³ ¨­ ¡«¤ %¬¯«®¸¬¤­³ȁ 4§¨² ¨­¢«´£¤²  ¦±¨¢´«³´±¤Ǿ  °´ ¢´«³´±¤Ǿ §¤ «³§ ¢ ±¤Ǿ ±¤­¤¶ ¡«¤ ¤­¤±¦¸Ǿ ³®´±¨²¬Ǿ «¨¦§³ industri «Ǿ ±¤³ ¨«ȝ²¤±µ¨¢¤-¡ ²¤£Ǿ  ­£ ³§¤ ¬ ±¨³¨¬¤-±¤« ³¤£ ¨­£´²³±¸.” Of relevance within such goal is the following objective: $¤µ¤«®¯   ¥®±¬ « "´²¨­¤²² 2¤³¤­³¨®­  ­£ %·¯ ­²¨®­ 0±®¦± ¬ ³§±®´¦§ 4®¶­ ¦®µ¤±­¬¤­³ȁ Discussion of this objective indicates, as excerpted from page 2 of Chapter 7: 11 “4§¤  ¡¨«¨³¸ ®¥ ³§¤ 4®¶­ ³® ±¤³ ¨­ ¡´²¨­¤²²¤² ¨² ®¥³¤­ ¤ ²¨¤± ³§ ­  ³³± ¢³¨­¦ ­¤¶ ¡´²¨­¤²²¤² ³® ³®¶­ȁ 4®¶­¶¨£¤ ¤¥¥®±³² ¨­ ¡´²¨­¤²²  ³³± ¢³¨®­  ­£ ±¤³¤­³¨®­ ²§®´«£ ¤¬¯«®¸   ²¨¬¨« ± ¥®¢´²Ǿ  ­£   "´²¨­¤²² 2¤³¤­³¨®­  ­£ %·¯ ­²¨®­ 0±®¦± ¬ ¶®´«£ ²¤³ ®´³ ³®  ¢¢®¬¯«¨²§ ³§¨². ! "´²¨­¤²² 2¤³¤­³¨®­  ­£ %·¯ ­²¨®­ 0±®¦± ¬ ¶®´«£ ²¤¤ª ³® ¨£¤­³¨¥¸  ­£ ´­£¤±²³ ­£ ³§¤ ¨²²´¤²  ­£ ®¡²³ ¢«¤² ¥ ¢¤£ ¡¸   µ ±¨¤³¸ ®¥ «®¢ « ¡´²¨­¤²²¤² ¨­ ³§¤ 4®¶­Ǿ ³§±®´¦§   ²¤±¨¤² ®¥ £¤³ ¨«¤£ ²´±µ¤¸²Ǿ ¨­³¤±µ¨¤¶²Ǿ ¬¤¤³¨­¦²Ǿ  ­£ ®±¦ ­¨¹ ³¨®­ ®¥ ±¤¯±¤²¤­³ ³¨µ¤² ¥±®¬ ª¤¸ ¡´²¨­¤²² ®¶­¤±² ³§±®´¦§®´³ ³§¤ 4®¶­ȁ 4§¤ ¯±®¦± ¬ ¶¨««  ²²¨²³ ¨­ ´­£¤±²³ ­£¨­¦ ³§¤ ¨¬¬¤£¨ ³¤ ¢®­¢¤±­² ®¥ «®¢ « ¡´²¨­¤²² ®¶­¤±² ²¤¤ª¨­¦ ³® ¨¬¯±®µ¤ 4®¶­-¶¨£¤ ¤¥¥®±³² ³® ±¤³ ¨­  ­£ ¤­¢®´± ¦¤ ¦±®¶³§ȁ” Another objective under this goal is to “3³±¤­¦³§¤­ ©®¡-³± ¨­¨­¦  ­£ ¶®±ª¥®±¢¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ȁ” Discussion of this objective indicates, as excerpted from page 3 of Chapter 7: ȏ3³±¤­¦³§¤­¨­¦ ©®¡-³± ¨­¨­¦  ­£ ³§¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ®¥ ³§¤ «®¢ « ¶®±ª¥®±¢¤ ¨² ­¤¢¤²² ±¸ ³® ¤­²´±¤ ³§ ³ ±¤²¨£¤­³²  ±¤ ³± ¨­¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ ¥¨¤«£² ³§ ³  «¨¦­ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ 4®¶­Ȍ² ¤²³ ¡«¨²§¤£  ­£ ¤¬¤±¦¨­¦ ¡´²¨­¤²² ²¤¢³®±²Ǿ ¨­¢«´£¨­¦  ¦±¨¢´«³´±¤Ǿ  °´ ¢´«³´±¤Ǿ §¤ «³§ ¢ ±¤Ǿ ±¤­¤¶ ¡«¤ ¤­¤±¦¸Ǿ ³®´±¨²¬Ǿ  ­£ «¨¦§³ ¨­£´²³±¨ «Ǿ retail/service-¡ ²¤£Ǿ  ­£ ³§¤ ¬ ±¨³¨¬¤-relat¤£ ¨­£´²³±¸ȁ 4§¤ £¨¥¥¨¢´«³¸ ¨­ ¥¨­£¨­¦ ²ª¨««¤£ ¶®±ª¤±² ¬ ª¤² 3®´³§®«£ 4®¶­   «¤²² £¤²¨± ¡«¤ ¯« ¢¤ ³® ²³ ±³ ®± ±¤«®¢ ³¤   ¡´²¨­¤²²ȁ -®±¤®µ¤±Ǿ ³§¤  ¦¨­¦ ¶®±ª¥®±¢¤ ¶¨³§¨­ 3®´³§®«£ 4®¶­ ± ¨²¤² ¢®­¢¤±­²  ² ³® ¶§ ³ ¶¨«« § ¯¯¤­ ¶§¤­ µ¤³¤± ­ ¶®±ª¤±² ±¤³¨±¤ȁ 4§¨² ¯®³¤­³¨ « ²¢¤­ ±¨®Ǿ ¢®¬¡¨­¤£ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ­¤¤£ ³® ±¤µ¤±²¤ ³§¤  ±¤ Ȍ² ȏ¡± ¨­ £± ¨­ǾȐ ¢®´«£ ¡¤  ££±¤²²¤£ ¶¨³§  ­ ¨¬¯±®µ¤£ job-³± ¨­¨­¦  ­£ ¶®±ª¥®±¢¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ¯±®¦± ¬ ³§ ³ ¶®´«£  ²²¨²³ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ¯±®µ¨²¨®­ ®¥ ²³ ¡«¤  ­£ ²´²³ ¨­ ¡«¤ ¤¬¯«®¸¬¤­³ ®¯¯®±³´­¨³¨¤² ¥®± ³§¤ £¨µ¤±²¤ ¡ ²¤ ®¥ ¢´±±¤­³  ­£ ¥´³´±¤ ±¤²¨£¤­³² ®¥ ³§¤ 4®¶­ȁȐ Accordingly, the proposed action is consistent with the aforementioned economic development goals and objectives to (1) increase commercial square footage in the Hamlet of Southold, and (2) attract new businesses that can generate taxes. Also, the proposed action, as a tourism-related business, is also recognized in the aforementioned excerpts as an emerging business sector and one in which the Town recognizes the need for improved job-training and workforce development. As indicated in the DEIS, the proposed development is projected to generate approximately $123,482 in tax revenue and total job creation is projected at 53 jobs. These projected jobs include food preparation and service, housekeeping, maintenance, and managerial positions, among others. It is further noted that a second goal for Economic Development is to “0±®¬®³¤ %¢®­®¬¨¢ $¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ³§ ³ %­²´±¤²  ­ !£¤°´ ³¤ 4 · " ²¤ 7¨³§®´³ #®¬¯±®¬¨²¨­¦ ³§¤ 5­¨°´¤ #§ ± ¢³¤± ®¥ ³§¤ 4®¶­ȁ” The proposed building height, building placement and landscaping plan results in a site design that effectively screens the proposed hotel from Main Road. Further, the proposed renovation and preservation of the existing historic residence maintains the character of the site from Main Road. The Economic Development goals also include specific recommendations for the HALO zones in which the property is situated. Specifically, Goal 3 is “0±¤²¤±µ¤  ­£ )¬¯±®µ¤ ³§¤ 6¨³ «¨³¸ ®¥ % ¢§ ®¥ ³§¤ 4®¶­Ȍ² ( ¬«¤³ #¤­³¤±²  ­£ (!,/ :®­¤²  ² 7 «ª ¡«¤ ,®¢ « "´²¨­¤²² $¨²³±¨¢³².” One of the corresponding objectives is to “Concentrate new residential and commercial development in the Town’s hamlet centers and HALO zones, and encourage infill development, historic preservation, renovation, and adaptive reuse, where possible” and includes the recommendation to “\[p\]rovide incentives for new development and/or business relocation for the reuse and adaptive reuse of existing structures within the Town’s hamlet centers and HALO zones.” As noted above, the proposed action is consistent with this goal and recommendations to achieve the objective. Accordingly, based on the above, the subject property is suitable for the proposed use. 12 .ȁ 7§¤³§¤±  £¤°´ ³¤ ¡´¥¥¤± ¸ ±£²  ­£ ²¢±¤¤­¨­¦ ¢ ­  ­£ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¯±®µ¨£¤£ ³® ¯±®³¤¢³  £© ¢¤­³ ¯±®¯¤±³¨¤²  ­£ « ­£ ´²¤² ¥±®¬ ¯®²²¨¡«¤ £¤³±¨¬¤­³ « ¨¬¯ ¢³² ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ´²¤ȁ As indicated above, the proposed development provides for significantly greater setbacks than required in the HB Zoning District, including the following: Front yard –Minimum: 15 feet; Provided:17.16 feet Side yard –Minimum: 10 feet; Provided: 32 feet Both side yards –Minimum: 25 feet; Provided: 80.66 feet Rear yard –Minimum: 25 feet; Provided: 153.83 feet Accordingly, there is adequate buffering from the adjacent properties. Also, the proposed landscaping plan for the subject property createsa visually pleasing setting within the site interior, while views from the roadway and surrounding properties willbe largely obscured. The proposed plan includes retaining select trees, grass seeding and the planting of native species and ornamental species that are suitably adapted to the site conditions to limit or preclude the need for fertilizers and pesticides. /ȁ 7§¤³§¤±  £¤°´ ³¤¯±®µ¨²¨®­ ¢ ­  ­£ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¬ £¤ ¥®± ³§¤ ¢®««¤¢³¨®­  ­£ £¨²¯®² « ®¥ ²³®±¬¶ ³¤± ±´­®¥¥Ǿ ²¤¶ ¦¤Ǿ ±¤¥´²¤  ­£ ®³§¤± «¨°´¨£Ǿ ²®«¨£ ®± ¦ ²¤®´² ¶ ²³¤ ¶§¨¢§ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ´²¤ ¶¨«« ¦¤­¤± ³¤ȁ The proposed application has considered stormwater runoff, sewage, and refuse, as evaluated in the DEIS. All stormwater willbe contained on-siteand a stormwater management plan has been preparedby the applicant. Refuse generated on-site willbe handled by private carters contracted by the ownership of the hotel (and restaurant). All sewage willbe discharged to an on-site STP located in the rear of the property with no adverse impacts pursuant to the evaluations contained herein. 0ȁ 7§¤³§¤± ³§¤ ­ ³´± « ¢§ ± ¢³¤±¨²³¨¢² ®¥ ³§¤ ²¨³¤  ±¤ ²´¢§ ³§ ³ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ´²¤ ¬ ¸ ¡¤ ¨­³±®£´¢¤£ ³§¤±¤ ¶¨³§®´³ ´­£´¤ £¨²³´±¡ ­¢¤ ®± £¨²±´¯³¨®­ ®¥ ¨¬¯®±³ ­³ ­ ³´± « ¥¤ ³´±¤²Ǿ ²¸²³¤¬² ®± ¯±®¢¤²²¤²  ­£ ¶¨³§®´³ ±¨²ª ®¥ ¯®««´³¨®­ ³® ¦±®´­£¶ ³¤±  ­£ ²´±¥ ¢¤ ¶ ³¤±² ®­  ­£ ®¥¥ ³§¤ ²¨³¤ȁ Extensive analyses of the potential impacts to groundwater, surfacewater, as well as ecological resources were undertaken in the DEIS. No significant adverse impacts to any of said resources are expected upon implementation of the proposed action. !±³¨¢«¤ 88ȁ , ­£²¢ ¯¨­¦Ǿ 3¢±¤¤­¨­¦  ­£ "´¥¥¤± 2¤¦´« ³¨®­² Article XX of the Town Zoning Code sets forth standards for landscaping, screening,and buffers. Pursuant to §280-91, these standards are “…intended to enhance the appearance and natural beauty of the Town and to protect property values through preservation and planting of vegetation, screening and landscaping material. Specifically, these standards are intended to enhance the appearance of major travel corridors and business areas; to reduce excessive heat, glare and accumulation of dust; to provide privacy from noise and visual intrusion; and to prevent the erosion of the soil, excessive runoff of drainage water and the consequent depletion of the groundwater table and the pollution of water bodies.” Relevant to the proposed action, Article XX sets forth general requirements for plantings, as well as front landscaped areas, transition buffer areas and landscaped parking areas. 13 '¤­¤± « 2¤°´¨±¤¬¤­³²Ǿ ȷΕΛΓ-92: Section 280-92(A)-(F) sets forth provisions that apply to any use in all zoning districts. Such provisions are included below and a description of the proposed plan as it relates to said provision follows. A., ­£²¢ ¯¨­¦Ǿ ³±¤¤²  ­£ ¯« ­³² ±¤°´¨±¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤²¤ ±¤¦´« ³¨®­² ²§ «« ¡¤ ¯« ­³¤£ ¨­   ¦±®¶¨­¦ ¢®­£¨³¨®­  ¢¢®±£¨­¦ ³®  ¢¢¤¯³¤£ §®±³¨¢´«³´± « ¯± ¢³¨¢¤²Ǿ  ­£ ³§¤¸ ²§ «« ¡¤ ¬ ¨­³ ¨­¤£ ¨­   §¤ «³§¸ ¦±®¶¨­¦ ¢®­£¨³¨®­Ȃ B.! ²¢±¤¤­¨­¦ ¥¤­¢¤ ®± ¶ «« ±¤°´¨±¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤²¤ ±¤¦´« ³¨®­² ²§ «« ¡¤ ¬ ¨­³ ¨­¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ®¶­¤± ¨­ ¦®®£ ¢®­£¨³¨®­ ³§±®´¦§®´³ ³§¤ ¯¤±¨®£ ®¥ ³§¤ ´²¤ ®¥ ³§¤ «®³Ȃ C.!«« « ­£²¢ ¯¨­¦Ǿ ³±¤¤²  ­£ ¯« ­³¨­¦ ¬ ³¤±¨ «  £© ¢¤­³ ³® ¯ ±ª¨­¦  ±¤ ²Ǿ «® £¨­¦  ±¤ ² ®± £±¨µ¤¶ ¸² ²§ «« ¡¤ ¯±®¯¤±«¸ ¯±®³¤¢³¤£ ¥±®¬ µ¤§¨¢´« ± £ ¬ ¦¤ ¡¸ ¡ ±±¨¤±²Ǿ ¢´±¡² ®± ®³§¤± ¬¤ ­²ȁ D.4® ³§¤ ¤·³¤­³ ¯®²²¨¡«¤Ǿ ¤·¨²³¨­¦ ³±¤¤²Ǿ µ¤¦¤³ ³¨®­  ­£ ´­¨°´¤ ²¨³¤ ¥¤ ³´±¤²Ǿ ²´¢§  ² ²³®­¤ ¶ ««²Ǿ ²§ «« ¡¤ ±¤³ ¨­¤£  ­£ ¯±®³¤¢³¤£ȁ %·¨²³¨­¦ §¤ «³§¸Ǿ ¬ ³´±¤ ³±¤¤²Ǿ ¨¥ ¯±®¯¤±«¸ «®¢ ³¤£Ǿ ²§ «« ¡¤ ¥´««¸ ¢±¤£¨³¤£  ¦ ¨­²³ ³§¤ ±¤°´¨±¤¬¤­³² ®¥ ³§¤²¤ ±¤¦´« ³¨®­²ȁ E.7§¤±¤ «®³ ²¨¹¤  ­£ ²§ ¯¤ ®± ¤·¨²³¨­¦ ²³±´¢³´±¤² £® ­®³ ¬ ª¤ ¨³ ¥¤ ²¨¡«¤ ³® ¢®¬¯«¸ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ±¤°´¨±¤¬¤­³² ¥®±   ¥±®­³ « ­£²¢ ¯¤£  ±¤  ®± « ­£²¢ ¯¤£ ¯ ±ª¨­¦  ±¤ Ǿ ³§¤ 0« ­­¨­¦ "® ±£ ¬ ¸  ¯¯±®µ¤ ¯« ­³¤±²Ǿ ¯« ­³ ¡®·¤² ®± ¯®³² ¢®­³ ¨­¨­¦ ³±¤¤²Ǿ ²§±´¡²  ­£ȝ®± ¥«®¶¤±² ³® ¢®¬¯«¸ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ¨­³¤­³ ®¥ ³§¤²¤ ±¤¦´« ³¨®­²ȁ F.)­ ¢ ²¤² ¶§¤±¤ ³§¤ ¤£¦¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯ µ¤¬¤­³ ¶¨³§¨­   ¯´¡«¨¢ ±¨¦§³-of-¶ ¸ £®¤² ­®³ ¢®¨­¢¨£¤ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ¥±®­³ «®³ «¨­¤Ǿ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ®¶­¤± ²§ «« « ­£²¢ ¯¤ ³§¤  ±¤  ¡¤³¶¤¤­ ³§¤ ¥±®­³ «®³ «¨­¤  ­£ ³§¤ ¤£¦¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ²³±¤¤³ ¯ µ¤¬¤­³ȁ As included on the Proposed Landscape Plan, All plants meet or exceed the minimum requirements as noted in the latest edition of the American Standard for Nursery Stock by the American Association of Nurserymen, ANSI Z60.1. All plantings willbe staked-out forthe landscape architect's approvalprior to the beginning work. All trees willbe located to a minimumof five-feet from underground utilitiesand a minimum of 20- feettooverhead utilities. Trees willbe placed on undisturbed earth and backfill and contain at least 50 percent of the soil taken out of the planting hole, to promote growth in the surrounding soil. All beds willbe mulched with four inches of fine shredded bark mulch and kept away from the immediate base of trees and shrubs. All landscaping willbe maintained in healthy and vigorous growing condition. In the event plants fail, they willbepromptlyreplaced with plants of comparable size and type at the beginning of the next growing season to maintain plant densities and species mix. Planting of deciduous trees and shrubs willoccur between April 1 to June 1 and October 15 to December 15. Planting of evergreen trees and shrubs willoccur between April 1 to June 1 and September 1 to November 15. If planting and/or seeding is impractical due to time of year, temporary 14 mulch willbe applied until favorable weather conditions permit germination and growth, but no more than six months after project completion. All planting beds willbe cultivated to a depth of eight inches and raked to remove sod clumps, weeds, stones and other foreign material exceeding two inches in diameter. Immediately after planting, deciduous trees trunks willbe wrapped from base to first limb with four-inch wide bituminous impregnated, insect resistant tape or paper manufactured for that purpose. The trunk wrap willbe removed one year after planting. Upon completion of landscaping work, all excess soil, debris, etc.,will be removed from the siteand the site shall be irrigated. Sprinkler heads and plumbing fixtures shallnot encroach upon any right-of-way in the Town of Southold. &±®­³ , ­£²¢ ¯¤£ !±¤ Ǿ ȷΕΛΓ-93: Pursuant to §280-93(B), “\[a\] front landscaped area shall be required for all uses in all zoning districts. The required landscaped area shall be covered with grass or other ground cover and shall include appropriate trees and shrubs. As a minimum, in all nonresidential districts and in the Hamlet Density Residential and R-40 Low- Density Residential Districts, one shade tree having a caliper of two inches shall be planted within the front landscaped area for each 40 feet or fraction thereof of lot frontage. The purpose of the landscaping is to enhance the appearance of the use on the lot but not to screen the use from view.” Relevant to the proposed action, a landscaped area of five feet wide abutting the front of the building is required in the Hamlet Business District. As indicated on the Proposed Landscape Plan in Appendix C of the DEIS, the proposed action includes landscaping along the Main Road frontage. Such plantings include Parsons Juniper, Red Maple, Leyland cypress, and Red Flowering Dogwoods. Also, the proposed plan includes an eight-foot hedge row (Northern Privet) along the interior east-west roadway serving as a separation between the proposed restaurant and hotel area. An open grass area and pond are proposedto the north of the hedgerow. Existing trees, such as Norway maple (!¢¤± ¯« ³ ­®¨£¤²), sycamore maple (!¢¤± ¯²¤´£®¯« ³ ­´²), box elder (!¢¤± ­¤¦´­£®), black cherry (0±´­´² serotina), black walnut (*´¦« ­² ­¨¦± ), and white mulberry (-®±´²  «¡ ), located in the southwestern corner of the subject property willbe incorporated into the site landscaping within the proposed lawn/sculpture garden to the south of the proposed hotel, within the 10-foot side yard setback, and adjacent to the proposed driveway and parking. 4± ­²¨³¨®­ "´¥¥¤± !±¤ Ǿ ȷΕΛΓ-ΜΗȀ Pursuant to §280-94, “\[t\]he purpose of the transition buffer area is to provide privacy from noise, headlight glare and visual intrusion to residential dwellings. A buffer area shall be required along all boundaries of a nonresidential lot abutting any lot in a residential district.” Relevant to the proposed action, §280-94 (B)(1) sets forth a minimum buffer area of 15 feet for the Hamlet Business District. As indicated on the Landscape Plan in Appendix C of this DEIS, the proposed action includes landscaped buffers along the eastern property line which abuts residential properties. Specifically, Leyland Cypress would be planted to provide natural privacy screening. Existing trees, such as Norway maple (!¢¤± ¯« ³ ­®¨£¤²), sycamore maple (Ac¤± pseudoplatanus), box elder (!¢¤± ­¤¦´­£®), black cherry (0±´­´² ²¤±®³¨­ ), black walnut (*´¦« ­² ­¨¦± ), and white mulberry (-®±´²  «¡ ), located in the southwestern corner of the property willbe incorporated into the site landscaping,includingwithinthe 10-foot side yard setback and adjacent to the proposed driveway and parking. 15 Section 280-94 C. requires that the buffer area be “…of evergreen planting of such type, height, spacing and arrangement as, in the judgment of the Planning Board, will effectively screen the activity on the lot from the neighboring residential area. As a minimum, the planting shall consist of a double row of trees six feet in height planted at intervals of 10 feet on center. Nonevergreen planting may be included to supplement evergreen planting, but not to take its place.” The proposed Leyland Cypress evergreen screening along the eastern side of the property will primarily utilize a double row of 14-to-16-foot tall mature Leyland Cypress, spaced eight- feet on center to screen the proposed development from the neighboring residential area. The double row of screening willbe utilized for the majority of the eastern property line with the exception of the area along the driveway entrance, near the restaurant. In this area,the evergreen screening would be a single row of 14-to- 16-foot tall Leyland Cypress planted eight feet on center. The use of the mature Leyland Cypress on this side in both the single and double row configuration aims to provide immediate screening of the proposed action. It is noted that the Leyland Cypress which are directly east of the hotel rooms will be planted at 18-20ft tall , which,when standing at the floor level,will effectively screen the view to the neighbor (see drawing in Appendix D of this FEIS). The use of the mature Leyland Cypress and the reduced spacing providesa dense and immediate buffer, complying with the intent of the Code to provide privacy from noise, glare and visual intrusion. The impact of the proposed evergreen screeningis illustrated in the renderings of the proposal (see Figures 20 through 23 in Appendix Aof the DEIS). Wooden stockade fencing at 6.5-feet in heighthas been added to the eastern and western property lines.For fencing along the eastern property line an acoustic barrier with a minimum STC of 29 (such as NoiseOut 2 or LV-1R), which makesfull contact with the ground in order to complete the acoustic seal, was added. In addition, the proposed landscaping will becompleted on the development side of the fence in order to reduce additional acoustic reflections. Section 280-94 D. allows for the use of a “landscaped earthen berm, wall or fence of a location, height, design and materials approved by the Planning Board…for any portion of the required planting and/or buffer area.” The proposed action includes new plantings and retaining existing trees for vegetative screening. Where possible, the evergreen screening on the west side of the lot utilizesa double row of eight-to-10-foot tall Leyland Cypress. Where a double row is not feasible, such as areas near the parking lot, a single row of plantings will be utilized. Again, the spacing willbe reduced to eight-foot on center and the use of more mature trees to allow for more immediate screening of the proposed development, therebyproviding privacy and protection from noise, glare, and visual intrusion. The proposed evergreen screens, along with preserving some of the existing trees, allows the proposed action to comply with Section 280-94D.of the Town Code. , ­£²¢ ¯¤£ 0 ±ª¨­¦ !±¤ Ǿ ȷΕΛΓ-95: In addition to the above front landscaped area and transition buffer area requirements, Article XX of the Town Zoning Code sets forth standards for landscaping in parking areas. Pursuant to §280-95(A), “\[a\]ll uses required to provide 20 or more off-street parking spaces shall have at least 10 square feet of interior landscaping within the paved portion of the parking area for each parking space and at least one tree with a two-inch caliper for every 10 parking spaces or fraction thereof. Each separate landscaped area shall contain a minimum of 100 square feet, shall have a minimum dimension of at least eight feet, shall be planted with grass or shrubs and shall include at least one tree of not less than two-inch caliper.” The proposed Landscape Plan includes the planting of trees, shrubs and ground cover within the internal parking areas, in accordance with said requirement. Section 280-95(B) requires that “\[a\] landscaped area shall be provided along the perimeter of any parking area except that portion of the parking area which provides access to a street or parking facility on an adjacent lot. Accessways to adjacent lots shall not exceed 24 feet in width and shall not exceed two in number for each 16 purpose. The landscaped area shall have a minimum dimension of four feet, shall be planted with grass or shrubs and shall include at least one tree of not less than two-inch caliper for every 40 feet along the perimeter of the parking area. In cases where the parking area adjoins a public sidewalk, the required landscaped area shall be extended to the edge of the sidewalk.” As indicated on the proposed Landscape Plan theplanting areas comply with the aforementioned requirement. Finally, §280-95(C) requires that tree types used in parking lots “…shall include honey locust, pine, oak or other similar fast-growing, hardy varieties or existing trees where appropriately located.” The proposed Landscape Plan includes the planting of Red Flowering Dogwood and Red Maples, interspersed with existing trees to remain (including Norway maple, sycamore maple, and black cherry). Conclusion During preparation of theFEIS the applicant modified the project scope to eliminate outdooreventsand committed to a proposed design that limitspotential future noise generation from cumulative sources (including indoor events, traffic, pool, cottages, HVAC, rooftop terrace, and parking lot) to5 dBA or less over background (No Build) sound levels. Traffic control measures for large events, on prior notice to the Town, as heretofore mentioned, will also be provided by the project developer. Furthermore, the proposed Landscaping Plan includes the planting of mature Leyland Cypress in both the single and double row configuration, as well as 6.5-foot high, wooden stockade fencingthat providesimmediate screening of the proposed development. Based on the above analysis, the proposed hotel use is a carefully considered and appropriate use for the subject property without significant adverse impact expected to the adjacent or surrounding properties. 17 APPENDIX THE ENCLAVES 56655 ROUTE 25 (AKA MAIN ROAD) SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK TAX MAP: 1000-063.00-03.00-015.000 BURBS NITROGEN LOADING MODEL REVISED MARCH 2021 PREPARED FOR: Andrew V. Giambertone & Associates 62 Elm Street Huntington, New York 11743 PREPARED BY: P.W. Grosser Consulting, Inc. 630 Johnson Avenue, Suite 7 Bohemia, New York 11716 Phone: 631-589-6353 Fax: 631-589-8705 Bryan Grogan, PE – Vice President bgrogan@pwgrosser.com PWGC Project Number: AVG1803 MARCH 2021 Purpose The purpose of this report is to document the findings of a nitrogen mass balance prediction performed by P.W. Grosser Consulting (PWGC) for the evaluation of environmental impacts of the proposed restaurant and hotel development. The proposed development includes 6.75 acres of currently developed property in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. The project area is located north of Main Road, and is approximately 1,000 feet north of Town Creek/Southold Harbor. The proposed development consists of a 74 seat restaurant, 44 unit hotel and a 250 person event space. Nitrogen Mass Balance Prediction PWGC has evaluated the expected nitrogen loading to groundwater under several land use scenarios using the BURBS model. The BURBS model, developed at Cornell University by Hughes et al. (1985), is a computer simulation program that computes the potential impact of various land use on groundwater within a community due to nitrogen. Cornell University has developed this model for specific application on Long Island. For comparative purposes, PWGC has prepared a BURBS computation for four land use scenarios: historic conditions, existing conditions, alternate plan and proposed development plan. Based on PWGCs experience, this program will predict a conservative estimate of nitrogen recharged to groundwater. It calculates loadings from wastewater, turf/landscaped land, natural land, runoff from impervious surfaces and atmospheric deposition. Each of these parameters is discussed and model parameters are defined. There are 18 parameters used in the BURBS model: 1. Fraction of Land in Turf 10. Home water use per person 2. Fraction of Land which is impervious 11. Nitrogen concentration in precipitation 3. Average persons per dwelling 12. Nitrogen concentration in water used 4. Housing density 13. Turf fertilization rate 5. Precipitation rate 14. Fraction of nitrogen leached from turf 6. Water recharged from turf 15. Fraction of wastewater N lost as gas 7. Water recharged from natural land 16. Wastewater fraction removed by Sewer 8. Evaporation from impervious surface 17. Nitrogen per person in wastewater 9. Runoff from impervious recharged 18. Nitrogen removal rate of natural land. Determining Constant Parameter Values These parameters were constant across all scenarios: items 5-12, 14, and 16-19. Note that in some cases, certain parameters do not apply, but are still considered constant. For instance, the water recharged from turf is considered a constant parameter even in scenarios where there is no turf area. These parameters are summarized in Table 1, below: Table 1 – BURBS Constant Parameters Burbs BURBS Parameters Inputs Units 5. Precipitation rate 47 inches/year 6. Water recharged from turf 35.25 fraction 7. Water recharged from natural land 23.5fraction 8. Evaporation from impervious surface 0.1 gallons/day 9. Runoff from impervious recharged 1 fraction 10. Home water use per person 100 gallons/day 11. Nitrogen concentration in precip.0.71lbs/1000 sq ft 12. Nitrogen concentration in water used 5.18fraction 14. Fraction of nitrogen leached from turf0.3fraction 16. Wastewater fraction removed by Sewer 0 fraction 17. Nitrogen per person in wastewater10lbs/year 18. Nitrogen removal rate of natural land 0.9 fraction Precipitation Rate (5) The annual average precipitation in inches (BURBS). A value of 47 inches was used for this project. This is a typical rainfall amount for Long Island. Water recharged from Turf (6) The amount of water per unit area of turf which drains to groundwater (BURBS). Based upon PWGCs experience and Long Island geology, approximately 50% of rainfall is recharged. However, to account for the turf areas being irrigated and the possibility of soil saturation the recharge percentage was increased to 75%. Therefore, 35.25 inches per year was used for water recharged from turf. Water recharged from Natural Land (7) The amount of water per unit area of turf which drains to groundwater (BURBS). Based upon PWGCs experience and Long Island geology, approximately 50% of rainfall is recharged. Therefore, 23.50 inches per year was used for water recharged from natural land. Evaporation from Impervious Surfaces (8) The fraction of precipitation falling on impervious surface assumed to evaporate (BURBS). A value of .1 was used for each of the models run. This amount is recommended by the BURBS parameter description. Runoff from Impervious Recharged (9) The fraction of the runoff which is recharged through recharge basins, ponds, etc (BURBS). Evaporation is subtracted. All the runoff for this project area will be directed to the subsurface. Therefore, a value of 1 was used in each of the models run. Home Water Use per Person (10) Average in-home use of water (BURBS). The value used here was 100 gallons per person. This value was based on the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) estimate of 300 gallons of water use per day per single family home. Using the NP&V value of 2.5 persons per dwelling (rounding up to 3), and dividing by the number of persons per dwelling, yields approximately 100 gallons used per person. This is conservative estimate and includes all water uses such as bathing, sanitary, irrigation, etc. Nitrogen Concentration in Precipitation (11) Average concentration. The Burbs models recommends using data from the closest weather station where nitrogen tests were taken (BURBS). An average value of 0.71 mg/L was used in each of the BURBS models run. This was derived from the National Atmospheric Deposition Program NTN Site NY96 - Cedar Beach, Southold, New York. Concentration of nitrate (NO3) were given as an annual average for the years 2003 through 2017, ranging from 0.43 mg/L to 0.92 mg/l. Nitrogen Concentration in Water Used (12) Average concentration in water used in homes (BURBS). A value of 5.18 mg/L was used when running each of the models. This value was taken from the Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA) 2018 Drinking Water Quality Report – Distribution Area 30, p. 45. Fraction of Nitrogen Leached from Turf (14) The fraction of nitrogen applied from fertilizer, precipitation, etc. which leached to groundwater. The BURBS model recommends 0.35 for sandy soil if clippings are removed, or 0.5 if clippings are left on turf. We used 0.30, a comparable value, from the Long Island Nitrogen Loading Model. Fraction of Wastewater Removed by Sewer (16) The efficiency of sewer systems. If no sewers are present, use 0 (BURBS). There are no sewers present at this site, thus the fraction of wastewater removed by sewers is 0. Nitrogen per Person in Wastewater (17) The average in the United States is 10 pounds per person per day (BURBS). This value was used when running the BURBS model in all scenarios. Nitrogen Removal Rate of Natural Land (18) The fraction of nitrogen in precipitation which is removed by natural land before the water is recharged. Should be at least 90 percent (BURBS). Based upon the recommendations made by the BURBS parameter description, a value of 0.9 was used for all scenarios. Determining Variable Parameter Values These parameters vary by scenario: items 1-4, 13 and 15. These parameters are summarized in Table 2, see below: Table 2– BURBS Variable Parameters BURBS Inputs 15. 56655 Route 13. 1. 3. Average Number Fraction of 25 Area 2. Fraction 4. Housing Turf/Agriculture Fraction Persons Per of wastewater Southold, NY Impervious Density Fertilization Turf Dwelling Dwellings N lost as Rate gas Scenario acre fraction fraction persons dwellings dwellings/acre lbs./1000 sq ft fraction Historic 0.87 0 3 1 0.15 1.86 0.50 Conditions 6.75 Existing 0.14 0.02 3 1 0.15 2.04 0.50 Conditions 6.75 Alternate 0.340.66313.451.992.040.50 Plan 6.75 Proposed 3 35.65 5.28 2.04 0.85 Development 6.750.53 0.44 Proposed Development 3 35.65 5.28 2.04 0.85 W/Event Space 6.750.50 0.47 Fraction of Land in Turf, Impervious, and Natural (1, 2) The fraction of land in turf refers to areas maintained as lawn. The fraction of land which is impervious is the sum of roof areas, driveways, and roads. Both the fraction of land in turf and impervious must be between 0 and 1. The fraction of land in natural vegetation is computed as 1 minus the sum of the fraction in turf and impervious, thus the sum of these must be less than 1 (BURBS). The historic land area was estimated from historical aerials found on the Suffolk County government website. In the existing conditions scenario, all area was classified as natural area. For the proposed development and alternate plan, the land areas were derived from the proposed grading and drainage plans. Average Persons per Dwelling and House Density (3, 4) The average number of people living in each house or dwelling unit (BURBS) and the housing density, the number of dwelling units per acre (BURBS) are part of the wastewater calculations in the BURBS model. For the historic scenario, housing data was not available, so we assumed that there is are no dwellings and no wastewater. For the existing scenario, there is 1 dwelling with 3 people that produces 300 gallons per day. For the proposed and alternate scenarios, these values (items 3 and 4) were calculated based on the expected gallons of wastewater generated per day. The number of dwellings was then back calculated based on the assumption that there are 300 gallons/day/dwelling – (see Home Water Use per Person (10)). For the alternative scenario, we expect 4,035 gallons per day. Given that there are 300 gallons/day/dwelling we would then have 13.45 dwellings (2 dwellings/acre). For the proposed scenario, we expect 10,695 gallons per day, which means that there would be 35.65 dwellings at 300 gallons/day/dwelling (5.28 dwellings/acre). The average persons per dwelling, number of dwellings, and housing density values therefore do not represent the actual circumstance, but rather are used to ensure that it agrees with the expected gallons/day of wastewater produced. Turf Fertilization Rate (13) Average yearly nitrogen application rate expected from residential turf (BURBS). PWGC used 2.04 lbs/1000 sqft for the turf fertilization rate, which is the calculated rate according to the Long Island Nitrogen Action Plans (LINAP) Nitrogen Loading Model (NLM) for residential application. Fraction of Wastewater Nitrogen Lost as Gas (15) Fraction of nitrogen in wastewater which volatilizes or is converted to gaseous nitrogen through denitrification. Roughly 0.5 under Long Island, New York conditions (BURBS \[5\]). The proposed development will utilize advanced onsite wastewater treatment systems. Based upon the nitrogen removal efficiency of these systems of 85%, a value of 0.85 was used for the proposed development. For the alternative plan a value of 0.5 was used since there will not be an advanced onsite wastewater treatment system. Summary of BURBS Model Results As described above, PWGC utilized the BURBS model to estimate the nitrogen output from the four scenarios: historic conditions, existing conditions, alternate plan and proposed development plan. The BURBS model predicts nitrogen leached to groundwater independent of land area (i.e.: lbs N/acre/year). In order to calculate the estimated mass of nitrogen leached to groundwater, the acreage of each of the project components is multiplied by the model output, yielding pounds of nitrogen per year. The total N leached and the N concentration in each scenario is summarized in Table 3, see below: Table 3– BURBS Results Summary Sources of N Leached 56655 Route 25 N Total N Leached Natural Waste Impervious Southold, NY Concentration Turf Land WaterRunoff Scenario lbs/acre/yr lbs/acre/yr lbs/acre/yrlbs/acre/yr lbs/acre/yrlbs./yr mg/L Historic 22.98 0.10 2.57 0 25.66 173.28 3.30 Conditions Existing 4.00 0.64 2.57 0.14 7.35 49.67 1.24 Conditions Alternate Plan 9.84 034.58 4.99 49.41 333.74 4.55 Proposed 15.31 0.02 27.50 3.33 46.17 311.80 3.43 Development Proposed Development 14.45 0.02 27.50 3.56 45.53 307.48 3.37 W/Event Space The detailed model calculations are shown in Attachment A. We expect the alternate scenario to have the highest total N leached, 333.74 lbs./year, and then proposed scenarios with 311.80 and 307.48 lbs./year respectively (6.5% less). The existing scenario was calculated to leach 49.67 lbs./year and the historic scenario is was calculated to produce 173.28 lbs./year, mostly from farmland (turf). The ranking of N concentration matches the ranking of N concentration, from highest to lowest: alternate, proposed, proposed w/event space, historic, and existing. Although the proposed scenario has more dwellings than the alternate (greater calculated wastewater discharge) the fraction of wastewater N lost as gas is higher, so the N leached from wastewater is higher in the alternate plan scenario. With more turf land in the proposed scenario, the N leached from turf is higher than the alternate plan. The N leached from impervious runoff is comparable in the proposed and alternate scenarios. Resources “Historical Aerials.” Suffolk County Government, www.suffolkcounty.gov/Deparatments/Economic- Development-and-Planning/Planning-and-Environment/Cartography-and-GIS/Historical-Aerials Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA) 2018 Drinking Water Quality Report – Distribution Area 30, p. 45. Attachment A – Detailed BURBS Model Calculations #Fodmbwft# Ijtupsjd!Dpojeujpot !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Xfmdpnf!up!!CVSCT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!................. !!!!!B!Mpuvt!2.3.4!t qsfbetiffu!gps!dbmdvmbujoh!uif!jnqbdu!pg!sftjefoujb !!!!!efwfmpqnfou!po!uif!ojusbuf!dpodfousbujpo!jo!hspvoexbufs/ !!!!!====!Dfoufs!gps!Fowjsponfoubm!Sftfbsdi-!Dpsofmm!Vojwfstjuz!???? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Juibdb-!O/Z/!!!2:96 !Uifsf!bsf!:!qbhft; !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!B!!!!!!C!!!D!!!E!!F!!G!!H!!I!!J!!!!!!!K !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!2!,..............................................., !Qsftt!uif!#Bmu#!!!!!›!!!!Xfmdpnf!!!!›!Jotusvdujpot!!›!!Efgjojujpot!!› !lfz!xjui!pof!!!!!!!!›!)zpv!bsf!ifsf*›!!!!=Bmu?!J!!!!›!!!)4!qbhft*!!!› !mfuufs!!!!!!!!!!!31!,...............,...............,!!!!=Bmu?!E!!!!› !up!txjudi!!!!!!!!!!!›!!Qbsbnfufst!!!›!!!!Sftvmut!!!!›!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!› !tfdujpot/!!!!!!!!!!!›!!!=Bmu?!Q!!!!!›!!!!=Bmu?!S!!!!›!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!› !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!51!,...............,...............,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!› !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!›!!Dbmdvmbujpot!›!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!›!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!› !Tqfdjbm!!!!!!!!!!!!!›!!!!=Bmu?!D!!!!›!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!›!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!› !Dpnnboet;!!!!!!!!71!,...............,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,..............., !=Bmu?!X!>!sftvmut!,!qbsbnfufst!po!tqmju!tdsffo!!!!!!›!Cjcmjphsbqiz!!› !=Bmu?!V!>!voep!tqmju!tdsffo!!!!!!=Bmu?!H!>!hsbqit!!!,....=Bmu?!C...., EBUB!.!Foufs!b!wbmvft!gps!fbdi!qbsbnfufs; !! 2/!Gsbdujpo!pg!mboe!jo!uvsg1/98gsbdujpo 3/!Gsbdujpo!pg!mboe!xijdi!jt!jnqfswjpvt1/11gsbdujpo 4/!Bwfsbhf!qfstpot!qfs!exfmmjoh4/11qfpqmf 5/!Ipvtjoh!efotjuz1/26exfmmjoht0bdsf 6/!Qsfdjqjubujpo!sbuf58/11jodift0zfbs 7/!Xbufs!sfdibshfe!gspn!uvsg46/36jodift0zfbs 8/!Xbufs!sfdibshfe!gspn!obuvsbm!mboe34/61jodift0zfbs 9/!Fwbqpsbujpo!gspn!jnqfswjpvt!tvsgbdf1/21gsbdujpo :/!Svopgg!gspn!jnqfswjpvt!sfdibshfe2/11gsbdujpo 21/!Ipnf!xbufs!vtf!qfs!qfstpo211/11hbmmpot0ebz 22/!Ojusphfo!dpodfousbujpo!jo!qsfdjq/1/82nh0m 23/!Ojusphfo!dpodfousbujpo!jo!xbufs!vtfe6/29nh0m 24/!Uvsg!gfsujmj{bujpo!sbuf2/97mct02111!tr!gu 25/!Gsbdujpo!pg!ojusphfo!mfbdife!gspn!uvsg1/41gsbdujpo 26/!Gsbdujpo!pg!xbtufxbufs!O!mptu!bt!hbt1/61gsbdujpo 27/!Xbtufxbufs!gsbdujpo!sfnpwfe!cz!Tfxfs1/11gsbdujpo 28/!Ojusphfo!qfs!qfstpo!jo!xbtufxbufs21/11mct0zfbs 29/!Ojusphfo!sfnpwbm!sbuf!pg!obuvsbm!mboe1/:1gsbdujpo JOUFSNFEJBUF!DBMDVMBUJPOT Gsbdujpo!Obuvsbm!Mboe1/24 Qpqvmbujpo!Efotjuz1/55qfpqmf0bdsf Ojusphfo!beejujpo!gspn!qsfdjqjubujpo8/68mct0bdsf0zfbs O!dpoufou!pg!xbtufxbufs!jodm/!xbufs!vtfe22/69mct0qfstpo0zfbs MBCFMT!GPS!HSBQI Pwfsbmm UvsgOjusbuf ObuvsbmDpod/!> Tfxbhf4/4 Svopgg!nh!0!mjufs #Fodmbwft# Ijtupsjd!Dpojeujpot JOTUSVDUJPOT ............ !!!!!Ju!jt!bttvnfe!uibu!zpv!bmsfbez!lopx!ipx!up!vtf!Mpuvt!2.3.4/ Uijt!2.3.4!tqsfbetiffu!jt!tfu!vq!up!dbmdvmbuf!uif!bnpvou!pg!xbufs!boe ojusphfo!xijdi!xjmm!cf!sfdibshfe!gspn!b!sftjefoujbm!efwfmpqnfou/ Ju!dbmdvmbuft!mpbejoht!gspn!xbtufxbufs-!uvsg-!obuvsbm!mboe!boe!svopgg gspn!jnqfswjpvt!tvsgbdft/ !!!!!Zpv!nvtu!foufs!wbmvft!gps!bmm!uif!qbsbnfufst!po!uif!ebub!qbhf!xijdi tubsut!jo!dfmm!B32/!!Uiftf!qbsbnfufst!bsf!efgjofe!boe!ejtdvttfe!po!uif qbhf!up!sjhiu!pg!uijt!pof/!!!!!!.....? !!!!!Jg!zpv!bsf!vodfsubjo!pg!uif!bqqspqsjbuf!wbmvf!up!vtf!gps!b qbsbnfufs-!xf!tvhhftu!uibu!zpv!usz!tfwfsbm!wbmvft!jo!uif!sbohf!pg qpttjcmf!wbmvft/!Uif!ovnfsjdbm!pvuqvu!gspn!uijt!npefm!jt!pomz!bt bddvsbuf!bt!uif!qbsbnfufst!boe!bttvnqujpot!boe!ifodf!tipvme!cf! joufsqsfufe!dbsfgvmmz/ !!!!!Uifsf!bsf!tfwfsbm!qsfefgjofe!hsbqit!xijdi!zpv!dbo!vtf/ ! !!!!!Uijt!tpguxbsf!jt!gsff!up!bmm!pxofst!pg!Mpuvt!2.3.4!boe!dbssjft!op hvbsbouff/ SFTVMUT;!! !!!!XBUFS!SFDIBSHFE!!!!!!!!OJUSPHFO!MFBDIFE !!!!...............!!!!!!!!................ !!jodift0zss!!!qfsdfoou!!!!mct0bdsf0zzs!!qfsdfou !.........!!!.......!!!!...........!!....... !Uvsg41/69:&34/1:1& !Obuvsbm!Mboe4/3:&1/21& !Xbtufxbufs1/73&3/721& !Jnqfswjpvt!Svopgg1/11&1/11& !UPUBM45/4!36/8! ! !!!!Ojusphfo!dpodfousbujpo!jo!sfdibshf4/41nh0m !Hsbqit!pg!uif!ebub!dbo!cf!bddfttfe!cz!uzqjoh!=Bmu?!H/ !!!!!Tfmfdu!b!hsbqi-!uifo!uzqf!#R#!up!fyju!hsbqi!nfov/ #Fodmbwft# Fyjtujoh!Dpojeujpot !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Xfmdpnf!up!!CVSCT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!................. !!!!!B!Mpuvt!2.3.4!t qsfbetiffu!gps!dbmdvmbujoh!uif!jnqbdu!pg!sftjefoujb !!!!!efwfmpqnfou!po!uif!ojusbuf!dpodfousbujpo!jo!hspvoexbufs/ !!!!!====!Dfoufs!gps!Fowjsponfoubm!Sftfbsdi-!Dpsofmm!Vojwfstjuz!???? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Juibdb-!O/Z/!!!2:96 !Uifsf!bsf!:!qbhft; !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!B!!!!!!C!!!D!!!E!!F!!G!!H!!I!!J!!!!!!!K !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!2!,..............................................., !Qsftt!uif!#Bmu#!!!!!›!!!!Xfmdpnf!!!!›!Jotusvdujpot!!›!!Efgjojujpot!!› !lfz!xjui!pof!!!!!!!!›!)zpv!bsf!ifsf*›!!!!=Bmu?!J!!!!›!!!)4!qbhft*!!!› !mfuufs!!!!!!!!!!!31!,...............,...............,!!!!=Bmu?!E!!!!› !up!txjudi!!!!!!!!!!!›!!Qbsbnfufst!!!›!!!!Sftvmut!!!!›!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!› !tfdujpot/!!!!!!!!!!!›!!!=Bmu?!Q!!!!!›!!!!=Bmu?!S!!!!›!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!› !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!51!,...............,...............,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!› !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!›!!Dbmdvmbujpot!›!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!›!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!› !Tqfdjbm!!!!!!!!!!!!!›!!!!=Bmu?!D!!!!›!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!›!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!› !Dpnnboet;!!!!!!!!71!,...............,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,..............., !=Bmu?!X!>!sftvmut!,!qbsbnfufst!po!tqmju!tdsffo!!!!!!›!Cjcmjphsbqiz!!› !=Bmu?!V!>!voep!tqmju!tdsffo!!!!!!=Bmu?!H!>!hsbqit!!!,....=Bmu?!C...., EBUB!.!Foufs!b!wbmvft!gps!fbdi!qbsbnfufs; !! 2/!Gsbdujpo!pg!mboe!jo!uvsg1/25gsbdujpo 3/!Gsbdujpo!pg!mboe!xijdi!jt!jnqfswjpvt1/13gsbdujpo 4/!Bwfsbhf!qfstpot!qfs!exfmmjoh4/11qfpqmf 5/!Ipvtjoh!efotjuz1/26exfmmjoht0bdsf 6/!Qsfdjqjubujpo!sbuf58/11jodift0zfbs 7/!Xbufs!sfdibshfe!gspn!uvsg46/36jodift0zfbs 8/!Xbufs!sfdibshfe!gspn!obuvsbm!mboe34/61jodift0zfbs 9/!Fwbqpsbujpo!gspn!jnqfswjpvt!tvsgbdf1/21gsbdujpo :/!Svopgg!gspn!jnqfswjpvt!sfdibshfe2/11gsbdujpo 21/!Ipnf!xbufs!vtf!qfs!qfstpo211/11hbmmpot0ebz 22/!Ojusphfo!dpodfousbujpo!jo!qsfdjq/1/82nh0m 23/!Ojusphfo!dpodfousbujpo!jo!xbufs!vtfe6/29nh0m 24/!Uvsg!gfsujmj{bujpo!sbuf3/15mct02111!tr!gu 25/!Gsbdujpo!pg!ojusphfo!mfbdife!gspn!uvsg1/41gsbdujpo 26/!Gsbdujpo!pg!xbtufxbufs!O!mptu!bt!hbt1/61gsbdujpo 27/!Xbtufxbufs!gsbdujpo!sfnpwfe!cz!Tfxfs1/11gsbdujpo 28/!Ojusphfo!qfs!qfstpo!jo!xbtufxbufs21/11mct0zfbs 29/!Ojusphfo!sfnpwbm!sbuf!pg!obuvsbm!mboe1/:1gsbdujpo JOUFSNFEJBUF!DBMDVMBUJPOT Gsbdujpo!Obuvsbm!Mboe1/95 Qpqvmbujpo!Efotjuz1/55qfpqmf0bdsf Ojusphfo!beejujpo!gspn!qsfdjqjubujpo8/68mct0bdsf0zfbs O!dpoufou!pg!xbtufxbufs!jodm/!xbufs!vtfe22/69mct0qfstpo0zfbs MBCFMT!GPS!HSBQI Pwfsbmm UvsgOjusbuf ObuvsbmDpod/!> Tfxbhf2/3 Svopgg!nh!0!mjufs #Fodmbwft# Fyjtujoh!Dpojeujpot JOTUSVDUJPOT ............ !!!!!Ju!jt!bttvnfe!uibu!zpv!bmsfbez!lopx!ipx!up!vtf!Mpuvt!2.3.4/ Uijt!2.3.4!tqsfbetiffu!jt!tfu!vq!up!dbmdvmbuf!uif!bnpvou!pg!xbufs!boe ojusphfo!xijdi!xjmm!cf!sfdibshfe!gspn!b!sftjefoujbm!efwfmpqnfou/ Ju!dbmdvmbuft!mpbejoht!gspn!xbtufxbufs-!uvsg-!obuvsbm!mboe!boe!svopgg gspn!jnqfswjpvt!tvsgbdft/ !!!!!Zpv!nvtu!foufs!wbmvft!gps!bmm!uif!qbsbnfufst!po!uif!ebub!qbhf!xijdi tubsut!jo!dfmm!B32/!!Uiftf!qbsbnfufst!bsf!efgjofe!boe!ejtdvttfe!po!uif qbhf!up!sjhiu!pg!uijt!pof/!!!!!!.....? !!!!!Jg!zpv!bsf!vodfsubjo!pg!uif!bqqspqsjbuf!wbmvf!up!vtf!gps!b qbsbnfufs-!xf!tvhhftu!uibu!zpv!usz!tfwfsbm!wbmvft!jo!uif!sbohf!pg qpttjcmf!wbmvft/!Uif!ovnfsjdbm!pvuqvu!gspn!uijt!npefm!jt!pomz!bt bddvsbuf!bt!uif!qbsbnfufst!boe!bttvnqujpot!boe!ifodf!tipvme!cf! joufsqsfufe!dbsfgvmmz/ !!!!!Uifsf!bsf!tfwfsbm!qsfefgjofe!hsbqit!xijdi!zpv!dbo!vtf/ ! !!!!!Uijt!tpguxbsf!jt!gsff!up!bmm!pxofst!pg!Mpuvt!2.3.4!boe!dbssjft!op hvbsbouff/ SFTVMUT;!! !!!!XBUFS!SFDIBSHFE!!!!!!!!OJUSPHFO!MFBDIFE !!!!...............!!!!!!!!................ !!jodift0zss!!!qfsdfoou!!!!mct0bdsf0zzs!!qfsdfou !.........!!!.......!!!!...........!!....... !Uvsg5/:2:&5/165& !Obuvsbm!Mboe2:/987&1/7:& !Xbtufxbufs1/73&3/746& !Jnqfswjpvt!Svopgg1/94&1/23& !UPUBM37/2!8/5! ! !!!!Ojusphfo!dpodfousbujpo!jo!sfdibshf2/35nh0m !Hsbqit!pg!uif!ebub!dbo!cf!bddfttfe!cz!uzqjoh!=Bmu?!H/ !!!!!Tfmfdu!b!hsbqi-!uifo!uzqf!#R#!up!fyju!hsbqi!nfov/ #Fodmbwft# Bmufsobuf!Qmbo !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Xfmdpnf!up!!CVSCT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!................. !!!!!B!Mpuvt!2.3.4!t qsfbetiffu!gps!dbmdvmbujoh!uif!jnqbdu!pg!sftjefoujb !!!!!efwfmpqnfou!po!uif!ojusbuf!dpodfousbujpo!jo!hspvoexbufs/ !!!!!====!Dfoufs!gps!Fowjsponfoubm!Sftfbsdi-!Dpsofmm!Vojwfstjuz!???? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Juibdb-!O/Z/!!!2:96 !Uifsf!bsf!:!qbhft; !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!B!!!!!!C!!!D!!!E!!F!!G!!H!!I!!J!!!!!!!K !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!2!,..............................................., !Qsftt!uif!#Bmu#!!!!!›!!!!Xfmdpnf!!!!›!Jotusvdujpot!!›!!Efgjojujpot!!› !lfz!xjui!pof!!!!!!!!›!)zpv!bsf!ifsf*›!!!!=Bmu?!J!!!!›!!!)4!qbhft*!!!› !mfuufs!!!!!!!!!!!31!,...............,...............,!!!!=Bmu?!E!!!!› !up!txjudi!!!!!!!!!!!›!!Qbsbnfufst!!!›!!!!Sftvmut!!!!›!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!› !tfdujpot/!!!!!!!!!!!›!!!=Bmu?!Q!!!!!›!!!!=Bmu?!S!!!!›!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!› !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!51!,...............,...............,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!› !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!›!!Dbmdvmbujpot!›!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!›!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!› !Tqfdjbm!!!!!!!!!!!!!›!!!!=Bmu?!D!!!!›!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!›!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!› !Dpnnboet;!!!!!!!!71!,...............,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,..............., !=Bmu?!X!>!sftvmut!,!qbsbnfufst!po!tqmju!tdsffo!!!!!!›!Cjcmjphsbqiz!!› !=Bmu?!V!>!voep!tqmju!tdsffo!!!!!!=Bmu?!H!>!hsbqit!!!,....=Bmu?!C...., EBUB!.!Foufs!b!wbmvft!gps!fbdi!qbsbnfufs; !! 2/!Gsbdujpo!pg!mboe!jo!uvsg1/45gsbdujpo 3/!Gsbdujpo!pg!mboe!xijdi!jt!jnqfswjpvt1/77gsbdujpo 4/!Bwfsbhf!qfstpot!qfs!exfmmjoh4/11qfpqmf 5/!Ipvtjoh!efotjuz2/::exfmmjoht0bdsf 6/!Qsfdjqjubujpo!sbuf58/11jodift0zfbs 7/!Xbufs!sfdibshfe!gspn!uvsg46/36jodift0zfbs 8/!Xbufs!sfdibshfe!gspn!obuvsbm!mboe34/61jodift0zfbs 9/!Fwbqpsbujpo!gspn!jnqfswjpvt!tvsgbdf1/21gsbdujpo :/!Svopgg!gspn!jnqfswjpvt!sfdibshfe2/11gsbdujpo 21/!Ipnf!xbufs!vtf!qfs!qfstpo211/11hbmmpot0ebz 22/!Ojusphfo!dpodfousbujpo!jo!qsfdjq/1/82nh0m 23/!Ojusphfo!dpodfousbujpo!jo!xbufs!vtfe6/29nh0m 24/!Uvsg!gfsujmj{bujpo!sbuf3/15mct02111!tr!gu 25/!Gsbdujpo!pg!ojusphfo!mfbdife!gspn!uvsg1/41gsbdujpo 26/!Gsbdujpo!pg!xbtufxbufs!O!mptu!bt!hbt1/61gsbdujpo 27/!Xbtufxbufs!gsbdujpo!sfnpwfe!cz!Tfxfs1/11gsbdujpo 28/!Ojusphfo!qfs!qfstpo!jo!xbtufxbufs21/11mct0zfbs 29/!Ojusphfo!sfnpwbm!sbuf!pg!obuvsbm!mboe1/:1gsbdujpo JOUFSNFEJBUF!DBMDVMBUJPOT Gsbdujpo!Obuvsbm!Mboe1/11 Qpqvmbujpo!Efotjuz6/:8qfpqmf0bdsf Ojusphfo!beejujpo!gspn!qsfdjqjubujpo8/68mct0bdsf0zfbs O!dpoufou!pg!xbtufxbufs!jodm/!xbufs!vtfe22/69mct0qfstpo0zfbs MBCFMT!GPS!HSBQI Pwfsbmm UvsgOjusbuf ObuvsbmDpod/!> Tfxbhf5/6 Svopgg!nh!0!mjufs #Fodmbwft# Bmufsobuf!Qmbo JOTUSVDUJPOT ............ !!!!!Ju!jt!bttvnfe!uibu!zpv!bmsfbez!lopx!ipx!up!vtf!Mpuvt!2.3.4/ Uijt!2.3.4!tqsfbetiffu!jt!tfu!vq!up!dbmdvmbuf!uif!bnpvou!pg!xbufs!boe ojusphfo!xijdi!xjmm!cf!sfdibshfe!gspn!b!sftjefoujbm!efwfmpqnfou/ Ju!dbmdvmbuft!mpbejoht!gspn!xbtufxbufs-!uvsg-!obuvsbm!mboe!boe!svopgg gspn!jnqfswjpvt!tvsgbdft/ !!!!!Zpv!nvtu!foufs!wbmvft!gps!bmm!uif!qbsbnfufst!po!uif!ebub!qbhf!xijdi tubsut!jo!dfmm!B32/!!Uiftf!qbsbnfufst!bsf!efgjofe!boe!ejtdvttfe!po!uif qbhf!up!sjhiu!pg!uijt!pof/!!!!!!.....? !!!!!Jg!zpv!bsf!vodfsubjo!pg!uif!bqqspqsjbuf!wbmvf!up!vtf!gps!b qbsbnfufs-!xf!tvhhftu!uibu!zpv!usz!tfwfsbm!wbmvft!jo!uif!sbohf!pg qpttjcmf!wbmvft/!Uif!ovnfsjdbm!pvuqvu!gspn!uijt!npefm!jt!pomz!bt bddvsbuf!bt!uif!qbsbnfufst!boe!bttvnqujpot!boe!ifodf!tipvme!cf! joufsqsfufe!dbsfgvmmz/ !!!!!Uifsf!bsf!tfwfsbm!qsfefgjofe!hsbqit!xijdi!zpv!dbo!vtf/ ! !!!!!Uijt!tpguxbsf!jt!gsff!up!bmm!pxofst!pg!Mpuvt!2.3.4!boe!dbssjft!op hvbsbouff/ SFTVMUT;!! !!!!XBUFS!SFDIBSHFE!!!!!!!!OJUSPHFO!MFBDIFE !!!!...............!!!!!!!!................ !!jodift0zss!!!qfsdfoou!!!!mct0bdsf0zzs!!qfsdfou !.........!!!.......!!!!...........!!....... !Uvsg23/136&:/931& !Obuvsbm!Mboe1/11&1/11& !Xbtufxbufs9/128&45/781& !Jnqfswjpvt!Svopgg38/:69&6/121& !UPUBM58/:!5:/5! ! !!!!Ojusphfo!dpodfousbujpo!jo!sfdibshf5/6nh0m !Hsbqit!pg!uif!ebub!dbo!cf!bddfttfe!cz!uzqjoh!=Bmu?!H/ !!!!!Tfmfdu!b!hsbqi-!uifo!uzqf!#R#!up!fyju!hsbqi!nfov/ #Fodmbwft# Qspqptfe!Efwfmpqnfou !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Xfmdpnf!up!!CVSCT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!................. !!!!!B!Mpuvt!2.3.4!tqsfbetiffu!gps!dbmdvmbujoh!uif!jnqbdu!pg!sftjefoujb !!!!!efwfmpqnfou!po!uif!ojusbuf!dpodfousbujpo!jo!hspvoexbufs/ !!!!!====!Dfoufs!gps!Fowjsponfoubm!Sftfbsdi-!Dpsofmm!Vojwfstjuz!???? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Juibdb-!O/Z/!!!2:96 !Uifsf!bsf!:!qbhft; !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!B!!!!!!C!!!D!!!E!!F!!G!!H!!I!!J!!!!!!!K !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!2!,..............................................., !Qsftt!uif!#Bmu#!!!!!›!!!!Xfmdpnf!!!!›!Jotusvdujpot!!›!!Efgjojujpot!!› !lfz!xjui!pof!!!!!!!!›!)zpv!bsf!ifsf*›!!!!=Bmu?!J!!!!›!!!)4!qbhft*!!!› !mfuufs!!!!!!!!!!!31!,...............,...............,!!!!=Bmu?!E!!!!› !up!txjudi!!!!!!!!!!!›!!Qbsbnfufst!!!›!!!!Sftvmut!!!!›!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!› !tfdujpot/!!!!!!!!!!!›!!!=Bmu?!Q!!!!!›!!!!=Bmu?!S!!!!›!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!› !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!51!,...............,...............,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!› !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!›!!Dbmdvmbujpot!›!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!›!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!› !Tqfdjbm!!!!!!!!!!!!!›!!!!=Bmu?!D!!!!›!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!›!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!› !Dpnnboet;!!!!!!!!71!,...............,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,..............., !=Bmu?!X!>!sftvmut!,!qbsbnfufst!po!tqmju!tdsffo!!!!!!›!Cjcmjphsbqiz!!› !=Bmu?!V!>!voep!tqmju!tdsffo!!!!!!=Bmu?!H!>!hsbqit!!!,....=Bmu?!C...., EBUB!.!Foufs!b!wbmvft!gps!fbdi!qbsbnfufs; !! 2/!Gsbdujpo!pg!mboe!jo!uvsg1/64gsbdujpo 3/!Gsbdujpo!pg!mboe!xijdi!jt!jnqfswjpvt1/55gsbdujpo 4/!Bwfsbhf!qfstpot!qfs!exfmmjoh4/11qfpqmf 5/!Ipvtjoh!efotjuz6/39exfmmjoht0bdsf 6/!Qsfdjqjubujpo!sbuf58/11jodift0zfbs 7/!Xbufs!sfdibshfe!gspn!uvsg46/36jodift0zfbs 8/!Xbufs!sfdibshfe!gspn!obuvsbm!mboe34/61jodift0zfbs 9/!Fwbqpsbujpo!gspn!jnqfswjpvt!tvsgbdf1/21gsbdujpo :/!Svopgg!gspn!jnqfswjpvt!sfdibshfe2/11gsbdujpo 21/!Ipnf!xbufs!vtf!qfs!qfstpo211/11hbmmpot0ebz 22/!Ojusphfo!dpodfousbujpo!jo!qsfdjq/1/82nh0m 23/!Ojusphfo!dpodfousbujpo!jo!xbufs!vtfe6/29nh0m 24/!Uvsg!gfsujmj{bujpo!sbuf3/15mct02111!tr!gu 25/!Gsbdujpo!pg!ojusphfo!mfbdife!gspn!uvsg1/41gsbdujpo 26/!Gsbdujpo!pg!xbtufxbufs!O!mptu!bt!hbt1/96gsbdujpo 27/!Xbtufxbufs!gsbdujpo!sfnpwfe!cz!Tfxfs1/11gsbdujpo 28/!Ojusphfo!qfs!qfstpo!jo!xbtufxbufs21/11mct0zfbs 29/!Ojusphfo!sfnpwbm!sbuf!pg!obuvsbm!mboe1/:1gsbdujpo JOUFSNFEJBUF!DBMDVMBUJPOT Gsbdujpo!Obuvsbm!Mboe1/14 Qpqvmbujpo!Efotjuz26/95qfpqmf0bdsf Ojusphfo!beejujpo!gspn!qsfdjqjubujpo8/68mct0bdsf0zfbs O!dpoufou!pg!xbtufxbufs!jodm/!xbufs!vtfe22/69mct0qfstpo0zfbs MBCFMT!GPS!HSBQI Pwfsbmm UvsgOjusbuf ObuvsbmDpod/!> Tfxbhf4/5 Svopgg!nh!0!mjufs #Fodmbwft# Qspqptfe!Efwfmpqnfou JOTUSVDUJPOT ............ !!!!!Ju!jt!bttvnfe!uibu!zpv!bmsfbez!lopx!ipx!up!vtf!Mpuvt!2.3.4/ Uijt!2.3.4!tqsfbetiffu!jt!tfu!vq!up!dbmdvmbuf!uif!bnpvou!pg!xbufs!boe ojusphfo!xijdi!xjmm!cf!sfdibshfe!gspn!b!sftjefoujbm!efwfmpqnfou/ Ju!dbmdvmbuft!mpbejoht!gspn!xbtufxbufs-!uvsg-!obuvsbm!mboe!boe!svopgg gspn!jnqfswjpvt!tvsgbdft/ !!!!!Zpv!nvtu!foufs!wbmvft!gps!bmm!uif!qbsbnfufst!po!uif!ebub!qbhf!xijdi tubsut!jo!dfmm!B32/!!Uiftf!qbsbnfufst!bsf!efgjofe!boe!ejtdvttfe!po!uif qbhf!up!sjhiu!pg!uijt!pof/!!!!!!.....? !!!!!Jg!zpv!bsf!vodfsubjo!pg!uif!bqqspqsjbuf!wbmvf!up!vtf!gps!b qbsbnfufs-!xf!tvhhftu!uibu!zpv!usz!tfwfsbm!wbmvft!jo!uif!sbohf!pg qpttjcmf!wbmvft/!Uif!ovnfsjdbm!pvuqvu!gspn!uijt!npefm!jt!pomz!bt bddvsbuf!bt!uif!qbsbnfufst!boe!bttvnqujpot!boe!ifodf!tipvme!cf! joufsqsfufe!dbsfgvmmz/ !!!!!Uifsf!bsf!tfwfsbm!qsfefgjofe!hsbqit!xijdi!zpv!dbo!vtf/ ! !!!!!Uijt!tpguxbsf!jt!gsff!up!bmm!pxofst!pg!Mpuvt!2.3.4!boe!dbssjft!op hvbsbouff/ SFTVMUT;!! !!!!XBUFS!SFDIBSHFE!!!!!!!!OJUSPHFO!MFBDIFE !!!!...............!!!!!!!!................ !!jodift0zss!!!qfsdfoou!!!!mct0bdsf0zzs!!qfsdfou ..!!!........!!!!...........!!....... !........ !Uvsg29/843&26/444& !Obuvsbm!Mboe1/82&1/11& !Xbtufxbufs32/447&38/671& !Jnqfswjpvt!Svopgg29/742&4/48& !UPUBM6:/4!57/3! ! !!!!Ojusphfo!dpodfousbujpo!jo!sfdibshf4/5nh0m !Hsbqit!pg!uif!ebub!dbo!cf!bddfttfe!cz!uzqjoh!=Bmu?!H/ !!!!!Tfmfdu!b!hsbqi-!uifo!uzqf!#R#!up!fyju!hsbqi!nfov/ #Fodmbwft# Qspqptfe!Efwfmpqnfou!Xjui!Fwfou!Tqbdf !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Xfmdpnf!up!!CVSCT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!................. !!!!!B!Mpuvt!2.3.4!tqsfbetiffu!gps!dbmdvmbujoh!uif!jnqbdu!pg!sftjefoujb !!!!!efwfmpqnfou!po!uif!ojusbuf!dpodfousbujpo!jo!hspvoexbufs/ !!!!!====!Dfoufs!gps!Fowjsponfoubm!Sftfbsdi-!Dpsofmm!Vojwfstjuz!???? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Juibdb-!O/Z/!!!2:96 !Uifsf!bsf!:!qbhft; !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!B!!!!!!C!!!D!!!E!!F!!G!!H!!I!!J!!!!!!!K !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!2!,..............................................., !Qsftt!uif!#Bmu#!!!!!›!!!!Xfmdpnf!!!!›!Jotusvdujpot!!›!!Efgjojujpot!!› !lfz!xjui!pof!!!!!!!!›!)zpv!bsf!ifsf*›!!!!=Bmu?!J!!!!›!!!)4!qbhft*!!!› !mfuufs!!!!!!!!!!!31!,...............,...............,!!!!=Bmu?!E!!!!› !up!txjudi!!!!!!!!!!!›!!Qbsbnfufst!!!›!!!!Sftvmut!!!!›!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!› !tfdujpot/!!!!!!!!!!!›!!!=Bmu?!Q!!!!!›!!!!=Bmu?!S!!!!›!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!› !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!51!,...............,...............,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!› !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!›!!Dbmdvmbujpot!›!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!›!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!› !Tqfdjbm!!!!!!!!!!!!!›!!!!=Bmu?!D!!!!›!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!›!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!› !Dpnnboet;!!!!!!!!71!,...............,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,..............., !=Bmu?!X!>!sftvmut!,!qbsbnfufst!po!tqmju!tdsffo!!!!!!›!Cjcmjphsbqiz!!› !=Bmu?!V!>!voep!tqmju!tdsffo!!!!!!=Bmu?!H!>!hsbqit!!!,....=Bmu?!C...., EBUB!.!Foufs!b!wbmvft!gps!fbdi!qbsbnfufs; !! 2/!Gsbdujpo!pg!mboe!jo!uvsg1/61gsbdujpo 3/!Gsbdujpo!pg!mboe!xijdi!jt!jnqfswjpvt1/58gsbdujpo 4/!Bwfsbhf!qfstpot!qfs!exfmmjoh4/11qfpqmf 5/!Ipvtjoh!efotjuz6/39exfmmjoht0bdsf 6/!Qsfdjqjubujpo!sbuf58/11jodift0zfbs 7/!Xbufs!sfdibshfe!gspn!uvsg46/36jodift0zfbs 8/!Xbufs!sfdibshfe!gspn!obuvsbm!mboe34/61jodift0zfbs 9/!Fwbqpsbujpo!gspn!jnqfswjpvt!tvsgbdf1/21gsbdujpo :/!Svopgg!gspn!jnqfswjpvt!sfdibshfe2/11gsbdujpo 21/!Ipnf!xbufs!vtf!qfs!qfstpo211/11hbmmpot0ebz 22/!Ojusphfo!dpodfousbujpo!jo!qsfdjq/1/82nh0m 23/!Ojusphfo!dpodfousbujpo!jo!xbufs!vtfe6/29nh0m 24/!Uvsg!gfsujmj{bujpo!sbuf3/15mct02111!tr!gu 25/!Gsbdujpo!pg!ojusphfo!mfbdife!gspn!uvsg1/41gsbdujpo 26/!Gsbdujpo!pg!xbtufxbufs!O!mptu!bt!hbt1/96gsbdujpo 27/!Xbtufxbufs!gsbdujpo!sfnpwfe!cz!Tfxfs1/11gsbdujpo 28/!Ojusphfo!qfs!qfstpo!jo!xbtufxbufs21/11mct0zfbs 29/!Ojusphfo!sfnpwbm!sbuf!pg!obuvsbm!mboe1/:1gsbdujpo JOUFSNFEJBUF!DBMDVMBUJPOT Gsbdujpo!Obuvsbm!Mboe1/14 Qpqvmbujpo!Efotjuz26/95qfpqmf0bdsf Ojusphfo!beejujpo!gspn!qsfdjqjubujpo8/68mct0bdsf0zfbs O!dpoufou!pg!xbtufxbufs!jodm/!xbufs!vtfe22/69mct0qfstpo0zfbs MBCFMT!GPS!HSBQI Pwfsbmm UvsgOjusbuf ObuvsbmDpod/!> Tfxbhf4/5 Svopgg!nh!0!mjufs #Fodmbwft# Qspqptfe!Efwfmpqnfou!Xjui!Fwfou!Tqbdf JOTUSVDUJPOT ............ !!!!!Ju!jt!bttvnfe!uibu!zpv!bmsfbez!lopx!ipx!up!vtf!Mpuvt!2.3.4/ Uijt!2.3.4!tqsfbetiffu!jt!tfu!vq!up!dbmdvmbuf!uif!bnpvou!pg!xbufs!boe ojusphfo!xijdi!xjmm!cf!sfdibshfe!gspn!b!sftjefoujbm!efwfmpqnfou/ Ju!dbmdvmbuft!mpbejoht!gspn!xbtufxbufs-!uvsg-!obuvsbm!mboe!boe!svopgg gspn!jnqfswjpvt!tvsgbdft/ !!!!!Zpv!nvtu!foufs!wbmvft!gps!bmm!uif!qbsbnfufst!po!uif!ebub!qbhf!xijdi tubsut!jo!dfmm!B32/!!Uiftf!qbsbnfufst!bsf!efgjofe!boe!ejtdvttfe!po!uif qbhf!up!sjhiu!pg!uijt!pof/!!!!!!.....? !!!!!Jg!zpv!bsf!vodfsubjo!pg!uif!bqqspqsjbuf!wbmvf!up!vtf!gps!b qbsbnfufs-!xf!tvhhftu!uibu!zpv!usz!tfwfsbm!wbmvft!jo!uif!sbohf!pg qpttjcmf!wbmvft/!Uif!ovnfsjdbm!pvuqvu!gspn!uijt!npefm!jt!pomz!bt bddvsbuf!bt!uif!qbsbnfufst!boe!bttvnqujpot!boe!ifodf!tipvme!cf! joufsqsfufe!dbsfgvmmz/ !!!!!Uifsf!bsf!tfwfsbm!qsfefgjofe!hsbqit!xijdi!zpv!dbo!vtf/ ! !!!!!Uijt!tpguxbsf!jt!gsff!up!bmm!pxofst!pg!Mpuvt!2.3.4!boe!dbssjft!op hvbsbouff/ SFTVMUT;!! !!!!XBUFS!SFDIBSHFE!!!!!!!!OJUSPHFO!MFBDIFE !!!!...............!!!!!!!!................ !!jodift0zss!!!qfsdfoou!!!!mct0bdsf0zzs!!qfsdfou ..!!!........!!!!...........!!....... !........ !Uvsg28/741&25/543& !Obuvsbm!Mboe1/82&1/11& !Xbtufxbufs32/447&38/671& !Jnqfswjpvt!Svopgg2:/:44&4/79& !UPUBM6:/6!56/6! ! !!!!Ojusphfo!dpodfousbujpo!jo!sfdibshf4/5nh0m !Hsbqit!pg!uif!ebub!dbo!cf!bddfttfe!cz!uzqjoh!=Bmu?!H/ !!!!!Tfmfdu!b!hsbqi-!uifo!uzqf!#R#!up!fyju!hsbqi!nfov/ APPENDIX VVO A U T 0 Ne,w Construction: P, 0. Box 38, OakdMo NY 11769-0901 (63�1)218-1148 April 6,2021 Bryan Grogan, PE PW Grosser Consulting QO Johnson Ave A P R 2 20211 1� Bohomia,NY 11716 Re: Water Availability-56655 Route 25, Southold The Enclaves(Proposed Hotel and Restaurant) SCTM # 100�0-63-3-15 BP#2000396886 Dear Mr. Grogan, We have received your request for information regarding availability of public water service to the above referenced property. Per your request,we have determined that there is an existing water main adjacent to the above captioned property from Route 25 and based upon the water requirements provided in your application dated March 18,2021,the Suffolk County Water Authority�SCWA) has sufficient capacity to this property. There is also an existing:/14"tap that will have to be retired at your client's expense. Connection fees which may not be Our standard costs based on method of installation which Could be directional drill or open Cut are required. There may also be additional fees for restoration. YOUr Client is required to submit a backflow application and request inspections for both backflow device and service lines. SrWA recornmends the use of smart irrigation control systems and drought tolerant plantings to promote conservation and minimize the impact of peak pump age so as to ensure compliance with the SCWA Water Conservation Plan. 11"you have any further questions or would like to proceed with application for service, please contact our New Construction Department at(631)218-1148 or the undersigned at(63 1)563-5672. Please be advised that should Your rQqUirernents for service increase at any time following the issuance of this letter,you are urged to contact this office. This letter of availability expires 4/6/23 Sincerely sa C e C�) Manager LC:Iap Exi stingM ain-RPZ_Nofifi cation