Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFEIS, Revised FEIS 04/2020 E3 ROWN_ 538 BROADHOLLow ROAD SWTE 301 MELVILLE, NEW YORK 1 1 747 A-L_T_ _M-A-N & DILEO , LLP TEL 51 6-222-0222 FAx 51 6-222-0322 KE3DA@8RC3WNALTMAN,COM 1 WWW.BRowNALTMAN.00M December S. 2020 Via Electronic Mail t Pee Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold • Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 Southold,New York 11971 Attn: Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson Re: Special Exception Use Permit application and State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEQRA")review(collectively,the"Application")to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA") by 56655 Main St LLC ("56655 LLC") in connection with the hotel project (the "Development Project") to be located @ 56655 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971; SCTM No.: 1000-63-3-15 (the "Property") Our File No.: 100-513-001 Dear Chairperson Weisman and Fellow Board Members: We are counsel to 56655 LLC and offer this correspondence in response to the October 30, 2020 comment memorandum(the"Memo") from the ZBA's consultant,Nelson,Pope&Voorhis, LLC("NPV"),concerning the draft Final Environmental Impact Statement("FEIS")regarding the Development Project. The Memo,respectfully,is a rehash of two(2)themes that appear to remain a concern of the ZBA, namely, noise and traffic. As more fully set-forth hereinafter, 56655 LLC and its project team have thoroughly addressed comments from the ZBA and the public regarding noise and traffic through the submission of uncontroverted expert testimony and documentation. The Memo, absent fact-based comment or empiric data, seeks to have 56655 LLC unnecessarily revisit and reconsider questions/comments that have already been asked and answered. The ZBA is well aware of the extensive time, effort and serious consideration that 56655 LLC and its project team has made since 2017 regarding the Development Project,yet,there seems to remain a misconception regarding the same. As such, 56655 LLC requests a Work Session Meeting on December 17, 2020, with the ZBA to review and discuss the Memo and the Development Project. At the ZBA's November 7, 2019 meeting ("11/7 Meeting") 56655 LLC, together with the ZBA,reviewed and discussed Traffic Studies and Noise Studies performed, in advance of the 1.1/7 Meeting,by 56655 LLC. These very same topics were subsequently considered through additional Traffic and Sound studies (performed at the ZBA's request). Recently, on October 30, 2020, NP&V requested (as set forth in the Memo) that 56655 LLC perform and provide a Traffic Gap Q0�J IND, BROWN ALTMAN & QiLEO , LLP Study during "peak season" and, with little time left, 56655 LLC performed the Gap Study at significant expense. In summary, 56655 LLC has met and complied with the ZBA's reasonable requests for information,throughout, regarding the Development Project. TRAFFIC STUDIES 56655 LLC's Development Project Traffic and Parking Studies ("Traffic Studies") were prepared by Dunn Engineering Associates and Stonefield Engineering, respectively (collectively referred to as, "DEA"), utilizing, among other well recognized data sources and methodology, Institute of Transportation Engineers ("ITE") Trip Generation Manual and actual field studies/vehicle counts.' DEA's Traffic Studies concluded that the impact to the surrounding road system and traffic volume was negligible and on-site parking sufficient, even finding that"the 7- Eleven across the street generates twice the amount of traffic" than will be generated by the Development Project. Neither the Memo nor any other submission made to this Board offers any recognized empiric data or study disputing DEA's Traffic Studies. Community objection has been nothing more than generalized claims and, as a matter of law,generalized community objection is insufficient to rebut expert testimony and/or analysis based on empiric data. SOUND STUDIES Further, 56655 LLC submitted noise analysis and sound attenuation studies ("Noise Studies")prepared by Sound Sense LLC("SS"). The Noise Studies objectively measured,without limitation: (i) the impact of potential vehicular noise produced by the Development Project; (ii) sound levels produced on-site by groups of individuals; and (iii) amplified sound (i.e., music) occurring at outdoor accessory events. With the aid of the Traffic Studies,the Noise Studies found that there will be no significant impact to neighboring properties or the surrounding community from the Development Project. Further, analysis was done in connection with sound levels generated outdoors by groups of people, on-site, determined that there will be no significant adverse impact to neighboring parcels and the Development Project will comply with the Town's Noise Ordinance. Concerning utilization of amplified sound, SS offered the use of movable sound barriers and,in addition,electronic sound limiters that are integrated into the public address system effectively reducing the sound produced to 65 dba, consistent with §180 of the Town Code. Similar to the unsubstantiated concerns voiced regarding Development Project traffic, concern raised regarding noise is without inerit. No empiric data, study or expert report has been submitted contrary to the expert documentation submitted by 56655 LLC. For example,the Memo states, in relevant part, that to mitigate sound coming from the Development Project that the Applicant should use "passive mitigation" measures rather than "active mitigation" measures, however, the Memo's author does not provide rational support for this premise nor any objective study or data which demonstrates that "passive mitigation" is more effective than "active mitigation."'-- The goal of the noise mitigation should be just that,the mitigation of noise regardless The]TE manual is the indusia,standard source for traffic engineers when preparing traffic and parking studies, including trip generation estimates. '-The Memo's author conveniently fails to acknowledge the evident shortcomings of"passive mitigation"measures, which typically remain static, not subject to adjustment based on circumstances. Whereas, "active mitigation" 2 1 ® Is �� BROWN Ir ALTMAN & D1LEO , LLP of the methodology and 56655 LLC has indicated its intent to meet the Town's Noise Ordinance requirements. Whether this method used is"passive"or"active" is irrelevant.3 THE ZBA'S RELIANCE, ON §280-35(B)(4)(c),ALONE, IS CONTRARY TO LAW Contrary to the position taken by NP&V in the Memo,mere "audibility", alone,is not the legal standard by which on-site noise is measured under the Town Code. Town Code §280- 35(13)(4)(c) provides that in connection with a hotel use, "no music, entertainment or loudspeaker system shall be audible beyond the property line."`t (Emphasis supplied.) As such, the Memo's author erroneous claims that any sound that.is capable of being heard at the property line is, therefore, impermissible. Respectfully, such a standard of measure is, on its face, flawed because it is vague, subjective and incapable of quantitative measurement.' The aforementioned provision of the Ordinance does not provide any methodology,procedure or verifiable criteria for determining whether noise is audible"beyond the property line." Moreover,to determine whether noise produced from the Development Project is "audible"beyond the"property line"effectively requires 56655 LI.0 and/or its representatives/employees to trespass onto adjacent property(ies) to measure sound levels, something 56655 LLC cannot do. In addition, it is a well settled principal of legal construct that when an ordinance contains both subjective general standards and objective specific standards regulating a specific use, then, the entity with jurisdiction must look to the specific objective standards of the Ordinance. Chapter 180 (Prevention of Noise) of the Town regulates noise pollution in the Town and is controlling herein. Chapter180 contains, among other things, an: (i) objective stated purpose; (ii) defined terms;(iii)objective and quantifiable criteria for measuring sound; and(iv)and specified uses that are exempt from the provisions of Chapter 180.6 Chapter 180 provides objective and distinct guidelines regulating noise, while §280-35(B)(4)(c) offers, literally, no guidance at all. As such, Chapter 180 of the Code governs the control of noise generated on-site by the Development Project. WEDDINGS AND SIMILAR EVENTS ARE PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES The Memo's author, at several points throughout, suggests that noise impacts from "special events" can altogether be mitigated by eliminating such"special events"at the Property. measures can be adjusted and relocated to address changes in circumstance. Moreover,the Memo's author implies, without a good faith basis,that"active mitigation"measures will be less effective because the same can be manipulated by the operator. a In addition, it bears mention that the Development Project architect designed the hotel building with the residential neighbors to the east in mind,as the building itself provides an ample buffer from on-site generated noise by directing the same within the hotel courtyard. 4 Section 280-3 5(B)(4)(c)applies to"music,entertainment or loudspeaker systems",only,and does not,by the express terms of the statute,apply to any other sound genes ated on-site s See December 7,2020 Sound Sense Report. Art.V11 of the Ordinance does not contain any provision which expressly states that Chapter 180 of the Code does not apply to hotel uses, such as that contemplated by 56655 LLC. Similarly, there is nothing in Chapter 180 of the Code that expressly states its regulatory fi-amework does not apply to Chapter 280,Art. VIi ` l \ BROwN 1( ` ALTMAN & DALE© , LLP Respectfully, weddings and similar events (i.e., birthday parties, Bar and Bat Mitzvahs, Anniversaries, etc.) are not "special events" as that term is defined under § 205-2 of the Town Code(Public Entertainment and Special Events). Section 205-2 defines a"special event"as: As used in this chapter,the following terms shall have the meanings indicated: SPECIAL EVENT — Any temporary gathering, demonstration, performance, exhibition, amusement or activity that is not currently a permitted use of the property in the applicable zoning district or which requires a parking area to accommodate all vehicles transporting attendees to the event that is larger than the existing parking capacity of the site that is conducted or sponsored by a person, organization, entity or association, including, but not limited to, carnivals, circuses, fairs, bazaars, outdoor shows and concerts, parades, walks, runs, marathons, bicycle races or motorcycle rallies, which may involve one or more of the following: A. The closing of a public street. B. The use, blocking or restriction of Town property, roads or rights-of-way; C. The use of amplified sound exceeding the standards set forth in Chapter 180 of the Town Code. D. The sale of merchandise that is not ordinarily sold in the normal course of the applicant's business. E. The sale or service of food to the public with the exception of the following: (1) On land used in agricultural production, the sale or service of food products composed primarily of ingredients produced on site; or (2) On land used in agricultural production that maintains a winery or farm winery license issued by the New York State Liquor Authority, the sale or service of food items which customarily complement wine Castings and that are ordinarily consumed while standing or walking and without the need for utensils. F. The substantial increase or disruption of the normal flow of traffic on any street or highway. G. The placement of portable toilets. H. The placement of temporary no-parking or directional signs or banners. 4 BROWN !) ALTMAN & ©ILEO , LLP The use of any Town services that would not be necessary in the absence of such an event. Southold Town Code; Chptr. 205, Art. 1 (General Provisions; Definitions). It is evident that weddings and similar events, as generally described above, are not "special events" within the definition of the Code. Weddings and similar private gatherings, limited to the Property, are permitted accessory uses under the Ordinance. Chapter 280, Art. 1 (General Provisions), § 280-4 defines a "resort hotel" as: A building or ground of buildings,whether detached or in connected units, containing individual guest units consisting of a room arranged or designed to be.available for use as sleeping quarters for transient on a daily rental basis or for vacationers or other persons on a weekly basis,provided that one such unit may connect directly with not more than on other such unit. Each unit'shall have a door opening on the exterior of the building or on a common hallway leading to the exterior. A`resort motel' may include such accessory uses as a beach cabana, private dock, dining room, restaurant or swimming pool, conference and meeting facilities or an accessory „ convenience shop, office or personal service facility, provided that such facility or shop is located within the building without any external sign or display and off-street parking facilities. The term `resort motel' shall not be construed'to include a`transient motel' or 'mobile home park."' Southold Town Code; Chptr. 280, Art. 1 (General Provisions; Definitions). Given the definition of"resort hotel'', set forth above,weddings and similar events are contemplated as accessory uses or fiuletions at the Development Project, wherein "dining rooms", "restaurants", "swimming pools" and "conference and meeting facilities" are permitted as part of the principal hotel use to facilitate the same. See Brophy v. Town of Olive Zoning Board of Appeals, 2018 WL 5669734, 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 07388 (3d Dept). In Brophy, the Town of Olive Zoning Board of Appeals ("TOZBA") found, following a public hearing, that weddings were a permitted accessory use, customary and incidental to a bed and breakfast use ("B&B Use"). Both the TOZBA and, thereafter, the Court found that weddings were; in fact, accessory to the B&B Use. Weddings were.held on a seasonal basis between May and October, the number of weddings were limited to approximately 12 per season, and the B&B Use operated year-round.7 Here, 56655 LLC seeks to limit weddings and similar events to a 7 The Court went fiirther in stating that"determining whether a proposed accessory use is incidental and customarily found in connection with the principal use of the property is,to a great extent,fact-based. Resolution of the accessory use question depends upon an analysis of the nature and character of the principal use of the land in question in relation to the accessory use,taking into consideration the over-all character of the particular area in question." 5 ® � BRowN _ ALTMAN & DILEo , LLP seasonal basis,between April and October and the number of such events from 10—12 per season, while the hotel will be operated on a year-round basis. In addition,the author of the Memo fails to take into consideration other hotels and similar facilities operating in the Town of Southold or elsewhere on Long Island's North Fork that hold weddings and similar events that are customary and incidental functions to their principal uses. The Town Code's definition of an accessory use mirrors Brophy, stating that an accessory use is "a use customarily incidental and subordinate to the main use on a lot, whether such `accessory use'is conducted in aprincipal or accessory building." Historically,weddings and similar events are customary and incidental functions to a hotel use.' As such,claim made by the Memo's author that weddings and similar events should be eliminated from the Development Project appears to be an impermissible attempt to regulate otherwise permissible business operations. Further, NPV's,recommendation,arguably,reaches beyond the purview of the SEQRA process and,likely, the ZBA's jurisdiction. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Many of the recommendations contained in the Memo also cut against the Town's stated objectives in its recently updated Comprehensive Plan ("Comprehensive Plan"). In particular Chapter 7—Economic Development, expressly supports the development of commercial property in the Hamlet Business ("HB") District, stating that one of the many objectives of the _ Comprehensive Plan is to `promote a blend of commercial and residential use in the H13 zoning district; all residential use would create a school district deficit in educating the children that would re salt front an all-residential scenario, and would also result in a loss of business use in the hamlets within a zoning district specifically created for hamlet businesses. In addition, such an outcome would add schoolchildren and would not achieve a tax positive situation for school districts." Respectfully, 56655 LLC's Development Project addresses many of the stated objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, as the project: (i) brings new commercial use into the HB zoning district; (ii) brings business to the Property and promotes foot traffic to businesses in the HB District;(iii)will boost tax revenues to the Town through,among other things,hotel occupancy taxes, sales taxes and increased property taxes; and (iv) avoids air underutilization of the Town's HB District and a further degradation of the Town's limited economic base. In addition, benefits that will be realized by the Town's residents include the creation of full-time and part-time jobs in the service industry which, according to Chapter 2—Demographics of the Comprehensive Plan, is one of the most under-represented business sectors in the 'Town making up only nine-percent (9%) of the recognized occupations in the Town. In addition to creating jobs in the service industry, 56655 LLC's business operations will help bring down the unemployment rate in the Hamlet of Southold which, according the Comprehensive Plan, has the fifth(5'h)highest rate of unemployment (7.3%) in the entire Town. s Here,weddings and similar events are,unquestionably,an"accessory use"due to their seasonal nature and the hotel is the principal use based on, among other things, its year round operation. By their seasonal nature,weddings and similar events can onl,Lbe considered an accessory use. 6 99 BROWN ir ALTMAN- D IMLMEmO, LLP CONCLUSION We respectfully request that theZ.BA adopt the draft FEIS as final and complete and we ask to be- heard a Work Session Meeting at ZBA's December 17, 2020 meeting or, in the alternative, that a public hearing be immediately scheduled regarding 56655 LLC's pending Special Exception Application. We look forward to your prompt response. Thank you, in advance, for your courtesy and anticipated cooperation. Very truly yours, Brown Altman& DiLeo, LLP By: (Dzvi)lN. Altman cc.: Southold Town Attorney(attn.: William Duffy, Esq., Southold Town Attorney; via email) 56655 Main Road, LLC (via email, only) PWGC (attn.: Kim Gennaro-Oancea, AICD CEP and Bryan Grogan, PE; via email, only) 7 \ •' CLIENT DRIVEN.SOLUTIONS December 8, 2020 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 Southold, New York 11971 Attn: Leslie Kanes Weisman,Chairperson Re: State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEQRA") review Final Environmental Impact Statement, Revised December 2020 The Enclaves—Proposed Hotel and Restaurant Dear Chairperson Weisman and Honorable Board Members: This firm has reviewed and revised the Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS") in response to the October 30, 2020 comment memorandum ("FEIS Memorandum") from the Zoning Board of Appeal's consultant, Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC ("NPV"). In consideration of the remote work locations for staff members,we have provided via electronic mail a shared DropBox link with the following documents: 1. FEIS Revised December 2020 with all Appendices 2. FEIS Revised December 2020 Red-Lined Copy 3. Acoustic Report, Revised, Red-Lined Copy It should be noted that certain comments in the NP&V FEIS Memorandum were not addressed, either fully or in-part,for the reasons set forth below: Response to Comment C1-8: The NPV comments on the response provided are extensive and appear to extend beyond the scope of their initial comment,which was: "The DEIS has identified a number of mitigation measures to address noise (use of sound 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." The response included the proposed mitigation measures and we have added to this by indicating that "These mitigation measures are adequate and practical to meet the needs of the applicant while adhering to Noise Code." It is noted that the requested changes in the FEIS Memorandum are extensively addressed in several responses in the FEIS that more appropriately relate to noise and special events. Response to Comment C1-9:The adequacy of measures proposed by the applicant,and developed by the technical consultants, is supported by the analyses in the DEIS and FEIS. The active mitigation measures that have been proposed by the applicant are considered adequate and feasible, and as active mitigation proposed for implementation, can be included in the Findings Statement for the proposed action. Also, should any exceedances of noise occur on the property, "3 ,s S N »Lx N"G, C. St's-3 0 N :" r,3 j 8 ,6Z;' 63 0 J.7 §dNS31`4 AVE hiU"_"",5 T E 1 7 P.' L Gr4,,SSER;Oi' UL`ING ENGHNEER& YDPOGF LOG'S ,rCl. F3k f ?>"_ 1-`a �0 f,F,M11 A, WY I 1-7 LONG ISLAND - MANHATTAN • SARATOGA SPRINGS - SvRACUSE • SEATTLE • SHEL_TON @) WjGc CL IEPT DRIVEE SOLUTIG S such exceedances will be enforced by the Town of Southold similar to other land uses throughout the Town. Finally, special events, as defined in the Town Code, are subject to Town review and permitting requirements and will be considered if a special event is held at the Property. Response to Comment C1-22: The photo-simulations provided in Appendix D of the FEIS demonstrate that the proposed hotel and overall development will not impact the views from Main Road. Response to Comment C42-3: The NPV comment is unclear. The crux of the comment appears to be focused on noise and "audibility"and these are extensively addressed in the FEIS. Response to Comment C36-2: The FEIS was not updated to compare and contrast any possible resemblance to Downtown Riverhead and the possibility that a precedent is being established that will lead to that type of character. The proposed use is permitted by special exception in the Hamlet Business (HB) zoning district, is identified in the updated Comprehensive Plan (adopted September 2020) as a use that would meet the economic development goals for Southold hamlet, and has been under review since 2017 by the ZBA. Accordingly, we respectfully submit that this goes far beyond the scope of necessary work, particularly when Downtown Riverhead is outside of the Town of Southold and the proposed application before the ZBA was subject to public scoping, a Final Scope prepared by NPV in coordination with the ZBA, and several substantive revisions to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement were prepared by the applicant. Response to Comment C7-3: The requested revision was not addressed because it is inconsistent with the format of the FEIS. The FEIS does not include the author of every comment referenced and it is inappropriate to do so here only. If there is anything additional required, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at l(gennaro@pwgrosser.com. Thank you. Sincerely, Kim Gennaro-Oancea, M.S.,AICP CEP Vice President enc. �m �� �a ����«, "`_.51 «+ 6-0 JOHNS AVENUES TF.7 LONG ISLAND • MANH/\TTAN • SAR/1T-OG,\ SPRINGS -SYRACUSE USE SEPTTLE SHELT:7N RECEIVED NOV 2 2020 NELSON POPE VOORHIS environmental•land use•planning 'BONN 130ilrd fork � �) MEMORANDUM To: 56655 Main Road c/o Jonathan Tibett From: Carrie O'Farrell,AICP,Senior Partner on behalf of the Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Cc: Bryan Grogan,PWGC;Kim Gennaro,PWGC; Health Lanza,Town of Southold Pla:nin Date: 10/30/2020 RECEIVED NPV No: 09015 . Re: The Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant Special Exception Use Permit OVFinal Environmental Impact Statement("FEIS")Completeness Report Board of Appealsg Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC ("NP&V") has reviewed the April 2020 FEIS for "The Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant"Special Exception Use Permit("SE Permit")prepared by PW Grosser Consulting,Inc.on behalf of property owner and applicant, "56655 Main Road,c/o Jonathan Tibett." The purpose of this review as detailed in this memo is to assist the ZBA, as Lead Agency, in its review of the FEIS to determine whether the content of the FEIS is complete, accurate, and adequate for acceptance, filing, and public consideration. Specifically,this review assesses whether: • the FEIS meets applicable requirements and purpose and intent of the State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEQRA") and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617; • copies or a summary of substantive written and verbal comments received by the lead agency from the public and involved and interested agencies during the public review and participation period are contained within the FEIS and are properly identified; • responses to comments contained within the FEIS are adequately and accurately addressed and consistent with the assessment of the lead agency;'and • any substantive corrections, revisions, or supplements to the DEIS that are necessary based on the additional input and analyses contained in the FEIS are specifically indicated. Global Comments: Based on the ZBA's review of existing conditions, potential adverse environmental impacts, the effectiveness of mitigation techniques proposed,and the comments and responses contained in the FEIS, the ZBA still has significant concerns about noise and traffic-related impacts from the project. These concerns are due primarily to the proposed outdoor special events as well as other outdoor activities such as the rooftop lounge and use of hot tubs associated with the four cottages, given the proximity to the 'As stated in 6 NYCRR Part 617,Section 617.9(b)(8)of SEQRA's implementing regulations, • the HIS must contain the"lead agency's responses to all substantive comments";and • the lead agency"is responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of the final EIS, regardless of who prepares it." Long Island:70 Maxess Road, Melville, NY 11747 • 631.427.5665 nelsonpopevoorhis.com Hudson Valley: 156 Route 59, Suite C6,Suffern, NY 10901 845.368.1472 FEIS Review The Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant nearby homes, the difficulty in overseeing, managing and enforcing restrictions and active mitigation measures (e.g. volume control, limiting equipment usage by time period, duration, quantity, using portable barriers, etc.) related to special events, and existing traffic and road conditions that would be exacerbated by the proposed on-site events. The adequacy, practicality and necessary enforcement mechanisms for the proposed noise mitigation measures remain a significant concern to the Board. Passive noise mitigation measures have an inherent advantage over active mitigation measures(e.g.volume control,limiting equipment usage by time period, duration, quantity, using portable barriers, etc.). Passive mitigation measures require essentially no enforcement once it is properly set up. The applicant is proposing active measures that rely on human actions (largely by the operator), which have significant room for error (given trained professionals are not proposed to regularly set up mitigation measures) and require significant effort to enforce. It is also unclear if the measure proposed would address all sources of noise (see Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.3). Elimination of the outdoor special events and amplified outdoor music would address this significant concern. Similarly,inadequate information has been provided to demonstrate how traffic impacts will be addressed during special events (see Section 2.3.4). Field verification of the capacity analysis is critical to verifying the potential impacts of trips generated by special events during the peak summer/fall season. Clarity is also needed regarding the hotel amenities and potential use of such amenities for those other than hotel guests. The extent of potential indoor events should also be addressed, particularly in understanding potential traffic impacts and necessary parking supply. Additional measures are necessary to screen the proposed hotel from residential uses to the east. The plan currently provides a double row of 14'-16' Leyland Cypress along the eastern property boundary. However, until these trees mature,the second story of the hotel (which includes a wall of windows with unobstructed views to the east) will be largely visible from neighboring residential uses. Additional screening and buffering measures should be considered including an elevated berm for the evergreen plantings in proximity to the building and early installation of the berm and landscaping during the construction process to allow these trees to mature. The architect should also provide options for the second story east facing windows (configuration or transparency) to address this concern. Additionally, the elimination of special events would allow for removal of parking areas in the northeast corner of the site,which would help to minimize impacts for adjoining residential properties. Main Road is a scenic byway. A better understanding of views of the development from Main Road showing the entirety of the proposed restaurant and hotel, driveway entrances and landscaping are is needed. Additional photo-simulated views of the proposed structures are requested from the street driving/walking in both an easterly and westerly direction and standing in front of the property to clearly understand the context of the proposed development and how it fits in with the existing character. Responses that reference the Draft Comprehensive Plan should globally be revised as necessary to reflect that the Town has adopted the Comprehensive Plan. Iml � � Page 2of19 r i FEIS Review The Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant The sections, comments and responses below correspond directly with the sections, comments and responses contained in the FEIS. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of the FEIS The second to last sentence in Section 1.1 of the FEIS states that"[a]fter the filing of the FEIS,the ZBA as lead agency will afford a 10-day public consideration period where written comments on the FEIS will be incorporated into the Findings Statement."The way this is worded sounds as if the required consideration period is 10 days; however,Section 617.11(a)of the implementing regulations indicates that the required timeframe must be "not less than 10 calendar days" (emphasis provided). Section 617.11(b) goes on to state that "[i]n the case of an action involving an applicant, the lead agency's filing of a written findings statement and decision on whether or not to fund or approve an action must be made within 30 calendar days after the filing of the final EIS,"thereby placing an upper or"not to exceed"limit on the consideration period. Please revise the text so that there is no confusion that the required timeframe for the FEIS consideration period is of least 10 days but must be provided and completed prior to the lead agency's filing of a written findings statement and decision on whether or not to fund or approve an action which is within 30 calendar days after the filing of the final EIS. The language in Section 1.1. of the FEIS also states that "written comments on the FEIS will be incorporated into the Findings Statement."This is not entirely accurate. The lead agency's responsibility under SEQRA is to consider any comments it may receive during the designated consideration period. These comments may or may not ultimately influence the findings and final action and decisions depending on whether the comments are substantive and compelling. While any comments received will be considered, the comments themselves are not necessarily incorporated or written into the Findings Statement as direct responses to FEIS comments are not required at that stage. See below referenced sections of the SEAR Handbook, Fourth Edition 2020 (NYSDEC, 2020; p. 134, Nos. 13 and 14)Z for more information. Is there a comment period for final EISs? No.SEQR requires that the lead agency and all other involved agencies must wait for at least ten days after the filing of the final EIS before making their findings and final decisions on the action. This period is not a comment period, but instead allows time for the involved agencies and any interested parties to consider the final EIS. While concerned parties, or other agencies, may comment in writing to the lead agency on the final EIS, the lead agency has no obligation to respond to comments on a final EIS. Is there any value in commenting on a final EIS? z https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits ei operations pdf/segrhandbook.pdf M I V P V Page 3 of 19 i FEIS Review The Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant Interested parties or agencies may choose to submit comments on a final EIS to clarify points made earlier, or to identify comments that have not been satisfactorily responded to in the final EIS. These comments could influence the lead agency, or other involved agencies, in making findings and taking final actions. 1.2 Format of the FEIS Tables 1 and 2 carry over to more than one page. To facilitate review, please format the column headings so that they carry over to subsequent pages. 1.3 Changes to the Proposed Site Plan No. 8 in Section 1.3 states: "A spa solely for the use of guests has been added to the basement of the proposed hotel and the floor plans have been updated to illustrate same (see Appendix D).Although the space exists in the original plan,the proposed spa increases the useable square footage of the lower level from 9,891 SF to 15,068.9 SF (Total Lower Level Sq. Ft. =24,959.9 SF). It is noted that 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." Based on input from Nelson & Pope's water,and wastewater engineer, it was confirmed that the Suffolk County Department of Health Services' wastewater projection factors for hotels are deliberately conservative to account for such services. Nevertheless, the use of these facilities must be restricted to hotel guests and not open to the general public. Therefore, it is recommended that any approvals be conditioned on the filing of covenants and restrictions or other legal device determined satisfactory by the Town Attorney to restrict the use of these amenities to guests of the hotel, only. The following is a summary of comments on the content and adequacy of the FEIS by FEIS section: 2.0 DEIS COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 2.1 Comments in General Support of the Proposed Project No further comment. 2.2 Comments in General Opposition of the Proposed Project No further comment. 2.3 Responses to Substantive Comments 2.3.1 DEIS N 1P V Page 4 of 19 FEIS Review The Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant H5-8: Please also reference sections of the DEIS that discuss existing land use and zoning in the body of the DEIS, respective figures contained in the DEIS, and briefly note mitigations to reduce impacts on neighbors. Second line of the response: For clarity,consider deleting the word "a" before Land Use Map and changing the word "identifies"to "identify". C1-8: See Global Comments above. The adequacy, practicality and necessary enforcement mechanisms for the proposed noise mitigation measures remain a significant concern to the Board. Passive noise mitigation measures have an inherent advantage over active mitigation measures (e.g. volume control, limiting equipment usage by time period, duration, quantity, using portable barriers, etc.). Passive mitigation measures require essentially no enforcement once it is properly set up. The applicant is proposing active measures that rely on human actions(by the operator),which have significant room for error (given trained professionals are not proposed to regularly set up mitigation measures) and require significant effort to enforce. It is also unclear if the measure proposed would address all sources of noise. For example, the response states that "[tjhe proposed mitigation included acoustic material that is required on the tent and acoustic barrier..." However, it is unclear whether all"outdoor"events would be held within tents that are made of or covered with acoustical material or if only some outdoor events would be open-air events? If all outdoor events on the lawn were to be in in tents, then the word "all" should have been included in Responses C1-8 and C1-9. The tents were not described and there was no indication whether the tents would be fully enclosed except for entrances and exits or if the tent would be mainly a roof with open sides? It does not seem practical that the tent would be fully enclosed since there would be a tendency to keep them open to summer breezes to prevent the build-up of heat unless the space was artificially cooled. It is not clear that the sound generated by large events including music and voices from large crowds can be contained by the measures offered. Potential noise from the open air lounge,use of the parking areas during special events in close proximity to residential uses and outdoor hot tubs proposed for each of the cottages is not addressed.Also, it is not clear that identified mitigative measures are required or simply recommended by the hotel or whether noise abatement can be properly managed and enforced. C1-9: See C1-8 above and comments in Section 2.3.3 and 2.3.4 below regarding noise and traffic. The adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures has not been fully addressed. Enforcement of active mitigation measures remains a significant concern to the Board. C1-12: Next to last line: should say"to cross" rather than "crossing". C1-14: The response states that "the distance of this acoustic path is more than adequate to attenuate anticipated noise levels along this path" but an estimate of this distance in feet was not provided for verification. The response also states that there is a possible direct line of sight to the southeast from the rooftop. The ZBA is not in favor of a rooftop lounge due to close proximity to residences, potential noise from rooftop uses which may include as many as 50 persons, and line of sight issues that would adversely and unnecessarily encroach upon and potentially impact neighbors to the southeast's privacy and their use and enjoyment of their premises. 1 N P V Page 5 of 19 FEIS Review The Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant C1-18: It doesn't appear that Comment C1-18 has been fully addressed. The comment states in part, "it should be noted that signage must be consistent with Chapter 280 Article XIX,"Signs,"and be sensitive to and consistent with the historic character of the restaurant building and Hamlet"; however,the response only addresses the location of the proposed sign (i.e.,"[tjhe location of the proposed signage is illustrated in the drawing included in Appendix D of this FEIS"). Potential impacts on community character and historic resources are of great importance to this environmental review, particularly due to the adjacent residential uses. Although a detailed review of signage will occur during the site plan review process, potential impacts to community character and historic resources and potential inconsistencies with Town standards could be an issue and should be responded to as part of the environmental review process. The type of sign(s),the material they are made of,whether they will be lit,whether signs will conform to any size requirements, and whether there will be an attempt to protect the character of the area are important. We are not asking for specific details if they are not available but would like some general information and assurance that the signage will be appropriate and compliant so that the full project can be reviewed under SEQRA. C1-19: See Global Comment above. Additional measures are necessary to address noise (including amplified music and special event noise) and screening of the second story hotel windows facing east. In the discussion of"on-site screening," please add that screening will be augmented with a 6.5-foot high stockade fence along the eastern and western property boundaries. There is a lot of discussion about noise. A brief summary of noise in a bulleted list that is written in laymen's terms would be helpful. For example, a summary could include but not necessarily be limited to: • Elimination of outdoor special events; • Elimination of the outdoor second floor lounge; • Elimination of outdoor amplified music; • Specifically address how noise from outdoor the hot tubs associated with the four cottages would be mitigated or these features should be eliminated; • Strict compliance with noise generation restrictions provided in the Town's Noise Code during construction and operational phases; • Compliance with required buffers including installation of a solid stockade fence along the east and west property boundaries; • Installation of rooftop HVAC equipment behind rooftop parapets; • Installation of essential rooftop equipment in cabinets if needed; • Major equipment needed to operate the STP will be installed within sound attenuating enclosures that will be contained within area surrounded by a slatted chain-link fence, etc. C1-20: Please indicate the linear distance from the bus stop and the proposed restaurant. State whether it is within walking distance per generally accepted planning standards. Indicate whether the proposed uses are the types of uses that are conducive to access via bus and walking at this distance. C1-21: The applicant should follow up with service providers and submit proof of additional efforts to obtain responses from emergency service providers. V P V Page 6 of 19 � I FEIS Review The Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant C1-22: The comment states "[a]dditional 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." However, the views provided from Main Road are solely views of the existing house. Views from further west and for passersby in vehicles/on foot in both directions should be provided to better understand how the hotel may appear from Main Road. C2-22:The response to this comment states:"[w]hile 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, when a term is not specifically defined by a municipal code, its standard definition in common use must be used. As stated in § 280-4(B) ("Definitions") of the Southold Town Code, "[ajny word or term not noted below shall be used with a meaning as defined in Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged (or latest edition)." Although this dictionary was not available; the Merriam-Webster' dictionary online defines audible as that which is"heard or capable of being heard" and "Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary"Second Edition dictionary(hardcopy)defines"audible" as"that may be heard"; "loud enough to be heard."Similar definitions can be found online including"heard," "hearable," "able to be heard." Also, the special permit standard adopted in § 280-35(B)(4)(c) specifically targets transient and resort hotels or motels to the exclusion of other uses and as such may likely supersede the noise regulations in Chapter 180. The statement regarding the word "audible" not being defined in the code should be removed as it is not clear at this time that this is the opinion of the ZBA, and focus should be placed on whether or not sound will be heard by the human ear at the property line and at what levels the sound will be heard. See Global Comments above. The ZBA must ultimately interpret the standard to be applied for this Special Exception Use Permit and the expected level of impact based on the input provided. Based on the information provided, the Board suggests that outdoor special events and amplified outdoor music be eliminated from the proposal. C2-23: It is stated that "peak ambient noise generation was determined to coincide with the peak traffic times...." It is not clear from the Acoustic Report how this"determination"was made.Was it determined based on noise monitoring or simply assumed based on traffic volumes? The issue with simply assuming higher traffic volume equates to higher noise levels is that it is possible during periods of heavy traffic congestion such as stop-and-go traffic will result in lower noise levels than moderately heavy traffic moving at higher speeds. Based on the comments, traffic is typically stop-and- go and can come to a standstill during peak traffic periods. Vehicle mix can also influence noise levels.As general rule, delivery vehicles,such as high noise generating trucks,often avoid high congestion periods. It is this uncertainty that often warrants a longerterm noise monitoring to determine the highest or lowest noise period. C2-24: See Global Comments above and C1-8. There was no indication whether live bands would be permitted to perform at weddings or other special events or if music and activities would be restricted to recorded music,such as DJs or just live masters of ceremonies with microphones? Is a limiter as effective lhttps:HwNvw.merriam-Nvebster.com/dictionai-y/audible �M NP ®/ Page 7 of 19 I 1 FEIS Review The Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant with a live band? The Board remains concerned that there is no clear guarantee that active noise abatement measures offered would be properly implemented and appropriately enforced. C18-1: See Global Comments above. The response should be updated as the Town has adopted the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally,the response discusses zoning and special exception permit standards broadly but should also directly address the issue of scale by discussing the number of proposed hotel units relative to the size of the property,the maximum building height relative to the maximum permitted height, and indicate whether the density and height are excessive. Reference to the updated photo simulations should also be provided (once revised per comment C1-22).The response should also discuss conformance with lot coverage requirements established in the Town Code. C18-2: See Global Comments above. The response should be updated as the Town has adopted the Comprehensive Plan. C18-4: Please list the dates that traffic counts were collected. C18-5: The response should also include a discussion of the areas that will remain pervious/natural and landscaped, including grassed parking and any proposed swales,vegetated median areas and/or garden areas. Mention the use of crushed stone for the walkway between the hotel and restaurant rather than using a paved surface. Indicate whether the use of pervious surfaces is viable. Provide the number of acres, percent of project site, and/or ratio of pervious to impervious surface under the proposed action to put future site conditions into perspective. C22-1: Again, indicate the site's zoning and whether the project specifically complies with zoning or refer to a previous response that discusses this. Although responses regarding zoning compliance are general, indicate compliance to specific parameters such as maximum building coverage, maximum building height, maximum number of stories, minimum lot area, minimum required landscape area, etc. C27-3: Indicate whether the alternatives reviewed are those that were required by the Final Scope. C30-2: Please correct the typographical error in the 5 1 line of the first bullet. C33-2: Indicate whether the site is or isn't in any critical environmental area or special overlay district designed to protect natural resources, whether the site is or isn't listed on an open space or community preservation list, indicate which zoning district the property is in and its general purpose in terms of land use (see § 280-44, "Purpose"). C37-5: Note the proposed Swale,pervious crushed stone walkway between the hotel and restaurant,and the relative proportion of pervious surface versus impervious/vegetated coverage. Again, some information suggests there is more than one swale, but only one appears present on the plans. 2.3.2 Plans N P V Page 8 of 19 FEIS Review The Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant H7-1: Also note that a 6.5-foot high stockade fence will be installed along the length of the easterly and westerly sides of the property,that the topography is generally flat, and that erosion and sedimentation controls will be implemented during the construction process to mitigate impacts from dust and off-site soil transport from stormwater. Indicate whether there is a significant need for importing or exporting soil and note that areas that will be disturbed during construction will be stabilized by the new construction, reseeding and landscaping,and retention of some existing vegetation. Regarding noise abatement, we note that landscaping and a stockade fence would provide limited noise attenuation. As far as landscaping, it takes approximately 100 feet of dense foliage to provide just 3-dBA of attenuation.Vegetative screening is not effective at reducing noise. Please revise the typographical error in the first line of the response. C1-2: Please revise the plan as indicated in the response and shown in Appendix D to mitigate the concern mentioned in the comment. The response states that six birch trees will be removed, presumably from the previously proposed plan. Please confirm this, as it appears based on a review of the previous site plan that the formerly proposed or existing trees are black cherry not birch. Also, please specify the general location of the trees (along the westerly property line,easterly property line, etc.) C1-7: The response does not fully address the comment as it pertains to swales. The landscaping plan shows one long narrow linear swale that is labeled. The location,which was not included in the response, as requested, is north of the proposed restaurant and south of the proposed hotel building along the north side of the access driveway and pervious parking for the restaurant. Please add a similar response in the FEIS, and since there is only one labeled swale please refer to the feature as a "swale" and not "swales." C16-6: Indicate in the response the total number of parking spaces that will be grass/pervious, which based on the Site Plan is 36,and the percentage of the total number of spaces that are grass which appears to be 22.5 percent of the 160 spaces shown. Also,briefly discuss conformance with minimum landscaped area requirements and/or refer to a response that addresses this topic. 2.3.3 Noise 1-11-5: Correct typographical error in ninth line. 1-14-4: Activities from the site will be audible, potentially at great distances during very quiet periods.That is unavoidable. Exceeding the noise limits in the Town ordinance is a separate issue. The approach used by SoundSense to assess voices is acceptable, however, not enough information was presented (e.g., "raised voice" reference noise levels and distances)to allow for an independent check. H14-3: See Global Comments above and C1-8. It is unclear from the response if the Applicant committed to using a tent and keeping the sides closed for all outdoor special events or if it would be up to the discretion of the Applicant and desire of the Party,weather conditions,etc.?Details on its use are lacking. L LV N PV Page 9 of 19 fi FEIS Review The Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant As previously noted, the applicant is proposing active measures that rely on human actions (by the operator),which have significant room for error(given trained professionals are not proposed to regularly set up mitigation measures) and require significant effort to enforce. 1-114-5: See Global Comments above. It is agreed that Hotel management will be responsible for ensuring that guests are not utilizing personal speakers or generating noise that may be nuisance to neighbors but enforcement may not occur until such time that a complaint is registered. Also, we disagree that evergreen hedges would provide any significant noise attenuation in this case. It takes about 100 feet of dense foliage that is thick enough to completely block lines of sight to have a barely perceptible reduction (3-d BA) in noise attenuation. The response does not adequately address the comment as to how noise from the hot tub areas will be adequately controlled. H14-11: Based on the response to C2-23, "peak ambient noise generation was determined to coincide with the peak traffic times ....". How was the "determination" made or was it simply assumed based on traffic data?Similarly, how were the lowest ambient noise levels determined? C1-28: Does the STP acoustic analysis incorporate the noise absorptive wall treatment that was recommended? Is there a commitment to use this treatment? If not,attenuation due to noise absorptive wall treatment should not be used in the calculations. There is insufficient information present to allow for an independent check. The Town should consider a requirement that the completed STP be certified to ensure it will meet noise performance standards. C2-6 and C2-8: The point of the comment is not appropriateness of the use of the quietest period, but rather how was the quietest determined? Was the quietest period determined by noise measurements or assumed based on traffic data?This should have been stated as a matter of form in the report and must be addressed in the FEIS. C2-9: This methodology cannot be described as a modeling of an increase in traffic. Simply replacing the lowest values with the vehicle pass by values is not a noise characterization of an increase in traffic. However, this methodology would conservatively produce higher Lio and L90 values than standard traffic noise modeling methodologies. The results could not be independently checked due to lack of information (e.g. pass by noise levels, reference noise level distance, number of pass bys, duration of pass bys, distance to receptor,etc.) C2-10: The comment is stating that the traffic growth utilized in the noise study, either the actual values or the percent increase,should be explicitly stated in the report rather than forcing the reviewer to review the Dunn Engineering traffic report and possibly extracting or interpreting what may have been used in the noise study. There is no way to check if the proper growth factor was used in the Acoustic Report. V P V Page 10 of 19 N FEIS Review The Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant C2-11: The methodology and results of the Jeep Cherokee noise sampling (movement, idling, and car door closing), as well as the reference noise levels (e.g. pass bys, door slamming, etc.) utilized in the modeling, should be presented in the acoustic report. Similarly, the reference noise levels used for the "raised voice"should also be stated, rather than simply cited,to allow for an independent check. C2-13: The response refers to Comment C2-24 which simply explains how a Limiter works. It does not indicate how one determines what setting to use and also how crowds and other noise sources will be factored in to ensure that the property line noise levels comply with the Town noise ordinance. This could be as simple as a sound check at the property boundary to adjust the "limiter" with a margin for "raised voice" or crowd noise. This should be stated in the response and in the Report. See also Global Comments above and C1-8. As previously noted,the applicant is proposing active measures that rely on human actions (by the operator), which have significant room for error (given trained professionals are not proposed to regularly set up mitigation measures) and require significant effort to enforce. Based on the information provided, the Board suggests that outdoor special events and amplified outdoor music be eliminated from the proposal. C2-14: The wording in the responses and revised text in the noise report indicates that the Applicant is responsible, but does not go into detail on how the Applicant will calibrate the limiter before each event and checking the noise levels at the property boundaries while also taking into consideration other noise sources, such as crowd noise. See Global Comments above and C1-8. C2-15: The response failed to answer whether the Applicant,Town, event host, hotel manager or other entity is expected to contract the AV consultant (and therefore assume the costs) to verify the limiter is properly set prior to each special event. See Global Comments above and C1-8. The comment did not question the calculations made in the Acoustic Report. C2-17: The reply and the Acoustic Report cited the source, but the reference data used for modeling were not presented,which would have allowed for an independent check. This should be provided. C2-21: The updated Acoustic Report does not present the referenced noise levels for the Jeep Cherokee traffic pass by,Jeep Cherokee door closing,Jeep Cherokee engine idling, "raised voice", pool music, and terrace music. These data should be provided. C28-5 and C29-5: Because the word "proposed" is used inconsistently in regard to various mitigation measures in the Acoustic report and Response to Comments, it brings into question if the Applicant has committed to various mitigation measures. See Global Comments above and C1-8. C34-4: The term "landscaping" has been utilized in the Acoustic Report and in Comment H14-5 and suggesting that it will help attenuate noise levels. The proposed landscaping does not provide any measurable noise attenuation and should not be used or considered as noise mitigation. Whether vegetation as a noise mitigation measure is needed is a separate issue. l N PV Page 11 of 19 FEIS Review The Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant 2.3.4 Traffic H3-6:This comment was not adequately addressed. We disagree with the conclusion that the proposed project will not significantly impact traffic operations within the study areas, especially during weekend special events because the capacity analyses results show significant increases in delays. An analysis of the potential undue increases in traffic accidents needs to be provided as well as evaluation of measures to improve safety. H5-6: This response is inaccurate. During special events, traffic arriving and departing from the site will do so during a short period of time; hence traffic activity during special events will be noticeable. H14-14: This comment was not adequately addressed. The 95th percentile queue length on the site driveway is approximately 3 vehicles because of the assumption that the 91 vehicles exiting the site driveway during events are spread out evenly over a one-hour period (assuming a 0.92 peak hour factor). However, it should be noted that during special events, most of the vehicles may exit the site over a short period of time resulting in a lower peak hourfactor and ultimately a much higher delay and 95th percentile queue length.Therefore, it is likely that the 95th percentile queue will be longer than 3 vehicles and will exceed the 60 feet stacking throat and hence could create on-site circulation issues. Please provide an analysis with a more realistic peak hour factor. H14-15:In addition to the significant changes in LOS highlighted in the response to this comment,it should also be noted that there is a change in LOS delay from 63.4 seconds to 89.5 seconds (a 26.1 second increase in delay)at the southbound Boisseau Avenue approach during the Saturday event period.These increases in delay during special events are significant. Mitigation to suitably address these impacts was not provided. C1-24, C1-25,C1-26: Main Road is a one lane in each direction with long queues in both directions during the summer/fall peak seasons. Therefore,there is a tendency for left turning vehicles to block through vehicles. Based on the capacity analyses,the eastbound left turn into the site will operate at an "A" level of service with an average control delay of less than 10 seconds.These results are consistent with the LOS at the existing 7-11 driveway.The capacity analyses results are inconsistent with actual field observations. Actual field delays need to be conducted to validate the results of the HCS software during the summer/fall peak seasons. The calibration and validation process is intended to identify discrepancies between the software results and the conditions observed in the field to ensure that the analyses results reasonably reflect existing conditions, and can therefore be relied upon to represent future conditions, and to estimate impacts due to the additional traffic generated by development of the project. In addition to this calibration, the gap analysis is required to evaluate available gaps for left turning traffic into the site as well as traffic exiting the site. This comment applies to all responses indicating the results of the capacity analyses show that the proposed project will not significantly impact the operations of the roadways and intersections in the study area. 2.3.5 Special Events N Page 12 of 19 FEIS Review The Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant 1-11-6: The last line of the response should say what the "maximum" number of Special Events will be within the seasonal time-frame. The response states that only six(6)months out of the year are conducive to holding such events (e.g., mid-April to mid-October) and that 12 events would be held within this timeframe, while the responses to Comments C22-16 and C41-2 state that special events will be limited to a total of eight-to-12 events per year, over a five-month period (May to September). Based on the statement that 6 special events are permitted every three months, the five-month timeframe (May to September)would only allow a maximum of 10 special events per year. Ten or twelve events every season could result in one event every weekend of the summer, which may significantly impact the neighboring residential uses. H14-1: This response refers the reader to various other responses but none of the responses addressed the last sentence of the comment which states: "For example,who is responsible for adjusting the limiter and checking the noise level at the property line of sensitive receptors?"As noted previously,the ZBA has significant concerns about oversight and enforcement of noise on-site and whether noise can be properly controlled to prevent impacts to adjoining neighbors. Based on the information provided, the Board suggests that outdoor special events and amplified outdoor music be eliminated from the proposal. Also, please correct typographical errors in the first sentence. H14-2: This is part of the recommended mitigation.The issue is whether the mitigation measures will be implemented and how they would be enforced. Please correct the typographical error or add missing word(s) in the last line of the response. H14-12: There was no indication of whether the portable bathrooms used for events would be rented or if they would be owned by the hotel. If they were to be owned by the hotel,where would they be stored? H14-20: Correct typographical error in the second line of the response. C22-16: It was unclear whether the events tent would remain up during all or part of the event season or whether it would be put-up and taken-down before and after each event? Either way,the visual impact of the tent, particularly from the street was never considered and should be addressed, or the outdoor special events eliminated. C22-17: The response states that the stockade fence will be six-feet-high but other responses refer to the height of the fence as 6.5 feet. Please revise accordingly for consistency or explain. C41-2: See Comment H1-6 in this memo. C42-3: See Comment C2-22 and Section 2.3.3 in this memo. 2.3.6 Land Use and Zoning 1-11-3: The portion of the comment stating that "[t]he traffic is obviously a major concern..." was not addressed. Please refer the reader to Section 2.3.4 of the FEIS for input on traffic and parking. P V Page 13 of 19 FEIS Review The Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant 1-13-1: Address the typographical error in the second line. State that the project is consistent with existing zoning parameters which are based on the policies and vision of existing adopted plans that are in place. H3-2: Briefly discuss consistency with zoning, site screening, visibility of parking, and adaptive reuse of the existing building which is the primary visible element of the site. H6-1: Indicate whether the proposed uses are permitted in this zone. Discuss the density of the hotel use. The comment questions the need for a forty-four room hotel. Please state whether demand for a hotel of this scale exists and provide or suitably reference the sources and data for your conclusion. C10-2: Please correct the typographical error in the first line of the response. C17-5: This comment begins "[a]ny 'special considerations' should be made only to projects that can prove their contribution to enhancing the local economy, benefiting the environment, and adding value to the community." If project benefits are expected (e.g., business development,job creation, benefits to other local businesses, tax benefits, environmental benefits, benefits to community character, etc.) please briefly note them. Per the comment, please indicate how, if at all, the project will enhance the community. Also,although perhaps redundant,please state whether the project is consistent with zoning and the Town's special exception permit standards. C27-1: Indicate which zoning district the property is located in, note the general purpose of this district (e.g., § 280-44 of the Town Code) and whether the project is consistent with this purpose, and whether the property is within any special environmental protection districts or if there are any sensitive environmental features(e.g.,wetlands)on-site or nearby that will be significantly and adversely impacted by the development after implementation of identified mitigation strategies. C27-4: After revising response C27-1 above, refer to that response. C36-4: Please delete the extra space before the comma in the third line of the response. 2.3.7 Visual/Aesthetics, Community Character and Lighting H5-7: Please also describe either in this response or the other responses referenced (C1-6 and C1-19) if portable lighting from outdoor events would be used, if this lighting would impact neighbors, and how any such lighting would be prevented from spilling on to neighboring sites. Please also note the double row of evergreens and 6.5-foot stockade fence that will line the easterly and westerly property boundaries and assist in blocking artificial light. C7-2: Please provide a brief response to the comment other than "the comment is noted" or refer to other responses that address issues of community character,appropriateness of the proposed land uses, and project scale. Ki V P V Page 14 of 19 FEIS Review The Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant C24-10: Will the reflective nature of the building design adversely affect neighbors? If so, how will it be mitigated or eliminated. Again, discuss screening and fencing or refer to a response that more fully addresses the concern. C36-2: It is understood that it is not the Applicant's objective to necessarily develop the site with different uses, but it would be informative and provide perspective to briefly indicate the type and scale of development that could be permitted on the property as-of-right, such as the restaurant and office building evaluated in the Alternatives section of the DEIS or a commercial subdivision of the 6.75-acre parcel into 20,000 SF lots each with its own as-of-right HB use. Also, please briefly compare and contrast any possible resemblance to Downtown Riverhead and the possibility that a precedent is being established that will lead to that type of character. C42-5: State that efforts have been made to address OPRHP recommendations to protect the front building and briefly provide input on the final design of the hotel and cottages. Again, note proposed screening,outdoor lighting mitigation,consistency with zoning or reference responses that address these issues. 2.3.8 Groundwater,Stormwater and Water Supply/Usage H3-8: The response lists "contracting laundry service for both the restaurant and hotel" as a proposed water conservation measure but the "Lower Level Plan" (Sheet A2.1) in Appendix D of the FEIS shows space that is designated "laundry." Please revise the FEIS and/or plan or explain why there is a laundry room if laundry services will be contracted out. C3-1: Add the word "also" before the word "include" in the first line of the response. C7-3: The response references the response to Comment C3-1. Also reference the comment, itself, and indicate who its author is. C16-3: Reference the source of the flow standards used in the calculation and indicate whether they are the standard for these types of projections.The response states that the spa will be for hotel guests only. How will this be enforced? Is the Applicant offering to file covenants and restrictions? If not, it is recommended that the Town require them or another suitable legal instrument that is satisfactory to the Town attorney to address this issue. Indicate whether the bar and cafe will be open to the general public, and if not, how will this be controlled?Also, see comment 1-13-8 above regarding the laundry room and laundry service. C19-1: In the response,following the word "determined" add a comma and language such as "based on the project design and identified mitigation strategies,"... C22-9: After revising the response to C18-5 per this memo (which discusses grassed parking spaces or pervious parking,swales, and the crushed stone walkway), reference the response to Comment C18-5 as part of the response. V P V Page 15 of 19 FEIS Review The Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant C30-3: Fifth line of the response:The word "permit"should be"permits". C33-3: Has there been any consideration of refilling or topping off the decorative pond using the irrigation well rather than the public water supply? The irrigation well is the preferred source. C37-2: This response addresses the rate of fertilizer application but defers the reader to search out the answer in the DEIS. Please copy and paste the following excerpt from Section 2.2.2, page 37 of the DEIS: The estimated volume of irrigation water for the on-site lawn and select planted areas (of approximately 3.563 acres) is approximately 2,508,882± gallons for the irrigation season (mid- April to mid-October), or 96,496±gallons per week when averaged over the 26-week irrigation season. Missing from the above projection is the estimated average rate of irrigation to be applied per week in inches (or however this was estimated) which would be helpful in describing and understanding the volume of water that would be needed. Please add this additional information in the response. 2.3.9 STP H4-2: Refer the reader to the "Sanitary Layout' plans (Sheets C-600 and C-601)which show the location and layout of the proposed STP and required health department setbacks. H14-19: The response explains the rationale for the siting of the STP but should also identify how the neighbors located closest to the facility will be protected which is the crux of the comment. A possible approach that would be concise and to the point would be a list of applicable design requirements and mitigations. Listing these may seem redundant from the perspective of the author,but many commenters are likely to review responses to their questions rather than reading the entire FEIS. Consider language such as: • The proposed STP is one that the Suffolk County Department of Health Services has identified as an acceptable technology; • The STP must comply with health department siting and design requirements including setbacks, minimum groundwater separation, necessary soil conditions, minimum system capacity, etc.; • The STP will provide advanced wastewater treatment including the removal of nitrogen which can adversely affect groundwater and surface water 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; • Groundwater monitoring wells will be installed up-groundwater-gradient (upstream) and down- groundwater-gradient (downstream) of the STP and water quality in from the wells will be monitored as a safeguard; • Odor control equipment will be installed, including aerator blowers and a two-stage activated carbon control system; ITA Page 16 of 19 FEIS Review The Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant • The STP will be monitored and maintained by a full-time trained professional who will be available every day; • A(height and type)fence will be constructed around the perimeter of the STP; • A double row of evergreens and a 6.5-foot high stockade fence be installed along the east and west property boundaries. C4-1: Please indicate approximately when or at what stage an application will be submitted to the health department?(After SEQRA review?After a Special Permit has been issued? During site Plan review?) C24-5: Also reference Comment H14-19 after changes are made to Response H14-19 as noted above. C35-5: Also reference Comment H14-19 after changes are made to Response H14-19 as noted above. C41-4: Also reference Comment H14-19 after changes are made to Response H14-19 as noted above. C41-8: Briefly note efforts to retain the existing structure and protect and enhance its architectural and historic character or reference another response that addresses this issue. Indicate whether the plan is consistent with the recommendations of the OPRHP. 2.3.10 Soils and Construction-Related Impacts H5-3: Note the dust controls to be used and restrictions on the hours and days of the week that construction work is permitted and not permitted (i.e.,Sundays,federal and state holidays). 2.3.11 Ecology H7-3: Native species are welcome, and the changes noted are viewed as positive. For clarity, is there a replacement for the water hyacinths or are they being replaced by the fragrant water lily and/or"other native lily" mentioned in the response? 2.3.12 Economics H5-1: A response should be provided. Address development in accordance with the property's zoning, and mitigation of impacts per SEQRA. Also reference the response to C24-2. C11-4: A response should be provided to this comment. C24-2: Indicate whether the scale of the project is consistent or inconsistent with the property's zoning. C24-3: Correct typographical error in second line of response. 2.3.13 Alternatives km Page 17 of 19 FEIS Review The Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant C13-3: It is understood that not every comment requires a response but please address comments if there is any grey area so that the public's concerns are addressed. Indicate that the site is in the HB District,the purpose of the district as set forth by the Town Code, and whether the project is consistent with the Highway Business's land use and dimensional standards and the special permit requirements of the Town Code. Does the project comport with the area's character? Has everything been done to mitigate impacts?Consider referencing other responses. C15-2: Also refer to Comment C13-3 (above) after the original is revised. 2.3.14 Lack of Housing No Comments. 2.3.15 Restaurant Component C9-2: Also refer to Response C9-1. 2.3.16 Hotel Component H5-5: Discuss visual encroachment and screening or refer to a suitable response that addresses these topics. Mention architectural features such as the parapet and vegetative screening. 2.3.17 Historic Resource-Related Impacts No comments. 2.3.18 Solid Waste No Comments, 2.3.19 General Process C31-1: Reference the dates of the public hearings. Indicate that hard copies of the Scope and DEIS were also made available for review at Town Hall. State that the written comment period was extended by the ZBA to provide additional opportunity for the public to review and comment on the DEIS. Note additional pending approvals including site plan approval process. 2.3.20 General Comments C17-2: Discuss or reference responses addressing the retention of the existing structure at the south end of the property. Indicate that methods have been identified to screen and landscape the site. Discuss any additional requirements for review of building architecture by the Town's Architectural Review Board IM PV Page 18 of 19 FEIS Review The Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant during site plan review and note the architectural review standards set forth by§280-134 of the Town of Southold Code. C28-7: Cite language from (Article X"Hamlet Business District"),§280-44("Purpose")of the Town Code. C29-6: The response refers to Comment C28-7 but Comment C28-7 has nothing to do with this comment since the response to C28-7 simply states that "[t)he comment is noted." It appears that the wrong response was cited. Please check and revise accordingly. C29-7: See comment C28-7 above. C31-5: It is unclear what the overall point of the response is. It seems that there should be a final sentence that summarizes or indicates what more precisely is being inferred. If the point is that a rental unit in a private home is not the same as a hotel,then please indicate this or clarify accordingly. Miscellaneous Editorial Suggestions 1. Please review all spelling,grammar, and formatting prior to resubmission. 2. Section 1.1, second paragraph, last line: hyphenate "one story" consistent with other examples in the document(e.g., one-story,two-story). 3. Section 1.1, Fourth paragraph,second sentence: please review for clarity and revise as needed. 4. Third line: Add the word"on-site"at the end of"Dedicated parking for each use will be provided." V PV Page 19 of 19 Fuentes, Kim From: Carrie OFarrell <COFarrell@nelsonpope.com> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 2:24 PM To: Bryan Grogan; Kim Gennaro; Fuentes, Kim Subject: RE: Enclaves - FEIS Bryan, The Board provided their input and we are in the process of revising the comment letter to incorporate their input. We will have it ready by the end of the week. Thanks, Carrie OUR LONG ISLAND OFFICE HAS MOVED! Please note our new address and kindly update your records. Carrie O'Farrell, AICP Senior Partner NELSON POPE VOORHIS Long Island: 70 Maxess Road, Melville, NY 11747 Hudson Valley: 156 Route 59, Suite C6, Suffern, NY 10901 o: 631.427.5665 x214 cofarrell@nelsonpopevoorhis.com nelsonpopevoorhis.com This communication and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity named as the addressee. It may contain information which is privileged and/or confidential under applicable law.If you are not the intended recipient or such recipient's employee or agent,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited and to notify the sender immediately. From: Bryan Grogan<bgrogan@pwgrosser.com> Sent: Monday, October 19, 202012:16 PM To: Kim Gennaro <kgennaro@pwgrosser.com>; Fuentes, Kim<kimf@southoldtownny.gov> Cc: Carrie OFarrell <COFarrell@nelsonpope.com> Subject: Enclaves- FEIS Kim, I spoke to Bill Duffy and he recommended that I reach out to you regarding getting comments on the FEIS. I understand that the board met last week to discuss the preliminary comments internally.Any updates you can provide would be appreciated. Thanks Bryan 1 Bryan Grogan, PE Vice President X w.631.589.6353 m. 516.903 3904 f.631.589.8705 The infoimat€on contained to this e-mail,including any attachments is intended solely for the use of the individual to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and confidential Any review, use,distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited if you have received this communication in error,please notify the sender immediately and delete the email message along with any attachments Thank you Please consider the environment-think before you print! 2 s Fuentes, Kim From: Fuentes, Kim Sent: Friday, June 05, 2020 9:26 AM To: 'Andrew Giambertone' Subject: RE: The Enclaves - Amended Scope of Services - Environmental Review Hi Andrew, I will request that our environmental consultant proceed with the review of the FEIS, once the deposit is received. I believe that the Board would need to accept the FEIS before we continue hearing the special exception application of the Enclaves. As you are aware, the current health emergency prevents us from conducting in-person public hearings, however, the town is considering digital formats to conduct virtual hearings. Once the Town Board puts a procedure is in place,the ZBA can begin to schedule hearings. Kim E. Fuentes Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 631-765-1809, Ex. 5011 E-mail: kimf@southoldtownny.gov Mail to: P.O. Box 1179, Southold, NY 11971 -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Giambertone [mailto:AVG@GiambertoneArchitects.com] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2020 8:35 PM To: Fuentes, Kim; bgrogan@pwgrosser.com Cc: CharlesCuddv@Optonline.Net; Sakarellos, Elizabeth; Kim Gennaro Subject: RE: The Enclaves -Amended Scope of Services- Environmental Review Good Evening Kim, We are in receipt of your request for additional services. I have a question though, from this point, once this deposit is made what is the process going forward, and based upon the current working environment in the Post-COVID world, when might we expect to have our next hearing? Respectfully, Andrew Andrew V. Giambertone, A.I.A President AVG@Giambertonearchitects.com _ � l -----Original Message----- From: Fuentes, Kim <kimfCa@southoldtownny.gov> Sent:Thursday, June 4, 2020 11:28 AM To: bgrogan@pwgrosser.com Cc: CharlesCuddv@Optonline.Net; Andrew Giambertone <AVG@GiambertoneArchitects.com>; Sakarellos, Elizabeth <elizabeth.sakarellos@town.southold.nv.us> Subject: The Enclaves-Amended Scope of Services - Environmental Review Hi Bryan, As we discussed yesterday, please see the attached letter mailed to Mr. Giambertone along with the Amended Scope of Service prepared by Nelson Pope and Voorhis for their environmental review (SEQRA) of the Special Exception application of the Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant. Please contact me if you have any questions or.concerns. Since the Town has partially opened and has entered into Phase 1 during the current health emergency, I am not in the office today, but will be available tomorrow, Friday. Kim E. Fuentes ZBA Board Assistant Town of Southold kimf@southoldtownny.gov 631-765-1809 2 Heather, r I I hope all is well with you and your family. I wanted to see if you knew when the Town of Southold was going to reopen? I thought I heard it might be next week, but I am not sure and we obviously would like to get # the FEIS for the enclaves submitted. r r l Bryan i J S1 Bryan Grogan, PE Vice President s d i I I w.631 589 6353 9 m. 516.903.3904 f.631.589.8705 3 i The information contained in this e-mad, including any attachments,is intended solely for the use of the individual to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and confidential Any review, use,distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited If you have received this communication in error please notify the sender immediately and delete the email message along with any attachments Thank you Please consider the environment-think before you print) I ' t i 1 # # ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from l unknown senders or unexpected emails. Bryan Grogan, PE I Vice President w.631.589.6353 m. 516.903 3904 2 r 1 Fuentes, Kim From: Lanza, Heather Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2020 3:39 PM To: Bryan Grogan Cc: Fuentes, Kim Subject: RE: Town of Southold Reopening - Enclaves Yes, submit it via mail. Also, try calling the ZBA office. They are working now. Talk to Kun in their office. We are in every other day so I know Kim is in today and then I think again on Friday. Our phones were not working very well so if you get no answer,you can email Kion. I have copied Kim on this email. From: Bryan Grogan [mailto:bgrogan@pwgrosser.com] Sent: Wednesday,June 03, 2020 2:02 PM To: Lanza, Heather<heather.lanza@town.southold.ny.us> Subject: Re:Town of Southold Reopening- Enclaves Heather, Thanks for the update, do you know if we can submit the FEIS at this point? We tried a few weeks ago and the ZBA just told us they would not accept it. Bryan On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:57 PM Lanza, Heather<heather.lanza@town.southold.ny.us>wrote: Hi Bryan, j We have reopened the offices to 50% staff,but not open to the public coming in. We are working out how to have Board meetings now and I know in ZBA they are working on getting the FEIS review going. i Heather i i From: Bryan Grogan [mailto:bgrogan@pwgrosser.com] Sent:`Wednesday,June 03, 2020 1:44 PM To: Lanza, Heather<heather.lanza@town.southold.nv.us> Subject:Town of Southold Reopening- Enclaves f 1 BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hall Leslie Kanes Weisman,Chairpergon ���� S�Ujiy® 53095 Main Road-P.O.Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971-0959 Patricia Acampora � � Office Location: Eric Dantes CA Town Annex/First Floor, Robert Lehnert,Jr. • COQ 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue) Nicholas Planamento �IiYCOuffm Southold,NY 11971 bttp://soutboldtownny.gov - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 1, 2020 Tel.(631)765-1809 -Fax(631) 765-9064 Andrew V. Giambertone, AIA, President Andrew V. Giambertone & Associates, Architects 62 Elm Street Huntington,NY 11743 RE: Special Exception Application Final Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS) The Enclaves, 44 Unit Hotel & Restaurant SCTM No. 1000-63-3-15 Dear Mr. Giambertone; As you are aware, on April 29, 2020, we received an email from Kim Gennaro of P.W. Grosser Consulting, with an attachment for the purpose of electronically transmitting to us the Enclaves Final Environmental Impact Statement. During that time, The Southold Town offices were closed due to the current health emergency, so we were not able to review the environmental services (SEQRA) budget or proceed with review of the document. Since the Town is now in Phase 1 of reopening, we have had the opportunity to review the current budget for payment of environmental services conducted by Nelson Pope &Voorhis, LLC (NP&V). We have determined that additional funds would be needed in order for RTP Environmental Services to provide a Noise Review, and for NP&V to review the FEIS. I have enclosed our consultant's amended scope of services and budget, dated May 6, 2020, recommending the additional deposit of$25,000.00. Please submit a check in the amount of$25,000.00 at your earliest convenience. Once payment is received, we will direct our consultant to proceed with review of the FEIS. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact our office. T y, Kim E. Fuentes Board Assistant Enclosure: NP&V Letter/Amended Budget of May 6, 2020 NELSON, POPE & VOORHIS, LLC II' ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING CONSULTING vvvvw.nelsonpopevoorhls com May 6, 2020 Zoning Board of Appeals c/o Ms. Kim E. Fuentes, Board Assistant Town of Southold 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 RE: Proposal for Environmental Review Special Exception (Special Use Permit) The Enclaves Hotel (56655 Main Rd., Southold) SCTM#1000-63-3-15 Dear Ms. Fuentes: Pursuant to our on-call contract for assistance with State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") compliance for Special Exception Use Applications, Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC ("NP&V") is pleased to submit this amended scope of services and budget to the Zoning Board of Appeals for The Enclaves Hotel Special Exception Use environmental review. At the time the original scope of services was prepared, NP&V was unaware that the Applicant would be proposing as many as twelve(12) outdoor special events with outdoor/amplified music on the hotel property each year. This additional component of the project triggered several new concerns and the need for additional analyses to fulfill SEQRA's "hard look"- mandate and ensure that environmental impacts will be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. Increased noise, traffic, and parking demands,, as well as consistency with Special Exception (SE) use standards were identified as key issues surrounding these future events. As a result,additional rounds of review of the applicant's Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") were necessary to ensure the issue of special events was fully disclosed an evaluated. NP&V reached out to the ZBA in this matter and recommended that a noise consultant be retained due to the specialized nature of noise evaluations. In addition,it was noted that increased activity on-site and along local streets during events would require further traffic and parking assessments,including the need for Applicant submission and N&P review of a traffic "gap analysis," which was requested from the Applicant after DEIS review. The following scope of work identifies the adjusted budgets from our original July 2018 proposal to adequately address the above described concerns as part of the SEQRA review. This includes the retention of noise consultants, RTP Environmental Services, to evaluate noise-related impacts, and abate and identified concerns. Given the additional scope of the proposed project(provision for outdoor events), a description of the additional services associated with the noise consultant review, and additional budget necessary for the completion of Task 3 (Preliminary DEIS Completion Review) are provided below. Adjusted budget estimates are also provided below for Task 7A(FEIS Completeness Review) and Task 7B (Editing and/or Rewriting the FEIS for the Lead Agency, if requested)to replace those provided in the July 8, 2018 proposal. CORPORATE OFFICE HUDSON VALLEY OFFICE 572 WALT WHITMAN ROAD MELVILLE.NY 1 1747-21 BB 156 Route 59,Suite C6,SUFFERN,NY 10901 - PHONE (631)427-5665 • FAX (631)427-5620 PHONE (B45)368-1472 • FAX (045)366-1572 .i The Enclaves Hotel 56655 Main Rd.,Southold SEQRA Review-Special Exception Application Page 2 Task 3: Preliminary DEIS Completion Review As noted above, the introduction of large outdoor events as part of the proposed action was not anticipated when the July 2018 proposal for review was prepared. The inclusion of large outdoor events was a large component of the four rounds of review required for the Draft EIS (in order to clarify the extent of these events and their impacts). Therefore, the budget on the Draft EIS completion review was greater than originally anticipated (July 2018 budget was $15,000 maximum and the cost to date was $21,703.75). The July 2018 budget for Task 6 (DEIS Substantive Review/Compilation of Comments)was$10,000 maximum and to date$3,968.75 has been billed and $1,575 balance remains to be billed for traffic review. Therefore,the$25,000 total budget for review of the Draft EIS was exceeded by$2,247.25. Fee: Time Rates Additional Budget:$2,247.25 Task 3(a)Additional Service-Noise Review(RTP Environmental Services) Based on the proposed outdoor large events and use of amplified noise included in the applicant's proposal,the Board must consider the potential for noise impacts,including review of the applicant's noise studies. As this requires specific expertise, the retention of noise consultants, RTP Environmental Services ("RTP"), was discussed with the Board to evaluate noise-related impacts and potential mitigation measures. RTP reviewed the Applicant's acoustic report, and will review the applicant's responses to comments to ensure that the assessment and mitigation techniques proposed are accurate and responsive. RTP will also provide input as to the magnitude of potential impacts and methods for additional mitigation. RTP's proposal is enclosed. Fee: Time Rates Budget:$7,700.00 Task 7A: FEIS Completeness Review The Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS") is the Lead Agency's document. As stated in the regulations implementing SEQRA, the Lead Agency is responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of the FEIS, regardless of who prepares it. The FEIS will identify the substantive comments raised during the comment process, provide responses to these comments, and identify any project changes necessary to address specific issues. NP&V will review the preliminary FEIS submitted by the applicant. Based on the adequacy of the comment responses,the Applicant may be required to revise the preliminary FEIS document, and submit a revised FEIS for review. NP&V anticipates that we will attend one meeting with the Board to review and discuss the content of the preliminary FEIS. We are available to attend subsequent meetings as necessary. As described above, Additional work required based on NP&V's review of the DEIS and the proposal outdoor special events at the hotel will require an additional assessment of noise from the gathering of numerous people outdoors (e.g., weddings), possible amplified music and/or ceremonies, and celebrations. Previously unanticipated traffic and parking investigations and conformance considerations to the SE criteria will be necessary to assess future conditions, possible impacts, and additional means to minimize impacts from special events. Fee: Time Rates NELSON PCS 8 VOOT=!1iS LLC RWFV_t,T"GNThl..PL.hI`iNJIIa r C:UNS_LTNG The Enclaves Hotel 56655 Main Rd.,Southold SEQRA Review-Special Exception Application Page 3 Budget Adjustment:$15,000.00 Task 713: Editing and/or Rewriting the FEIS for the Lead Agency(if necessary) If the FEIS prepared by the Applicant is significantly deficient, the.Zoning Board has the option to prepare the FEIS. NP&V will edit and re-write the responses to comments as necessary to address necessary impacts and mitigation issues based on the input of the Board, the Board's attorney and, involved/interested agencies. Fee: Time Rates Budget Range:$8,000.00-$12,000.00 Based on the scope of services and budget identified herein, it is suggested that the Zoning Board of Appeals request for the applicant to submit a deposit of$25,000 to be held in escrow for the balance of the DEIS substantive review and completion of the FEIS review. We look forward to continuing work with the Board on the 'review of this application. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this proposal, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, NELSON,POPE&VOORHIS,LLC Carrie L.O'Farrell,AICP Senior Partner/Division Manager NLTl:"SON'}GRE S V A. LLC PW M- NTAL.PLANNING•COI'S 'TING, RTP ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, INC.® RIR • WATER• SOLID WASTE CONSULTANTS 400 Post Avenue Westbury, New York 11S90 (516) 333-4526 (www.rtpenv.com) fox (516) 333-4571 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL November 12, 2019 Ms. Carrie O'Farrell, AICP Nelson, Pope&Voorhis, LLC 572 Walt Whitman Road Melville,NY 11747 RE: Proposal to Provide Substantive and FEIS Reviews for Noise for The Enclaves Project in Southold,New York. Dear Ms. O'Farrell: RTP Environmental Associates, Inc. (RTP) is proposing to prepare a substantive review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and a review of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for noise for the above referenced project. This proposal is based on the DEIS and the likely need for additional work on the FEIS. RTP will team with Analysis & Computing (A&C)to provide the noise review. RTP has been provided The Enclaves DEIS and, based on a cursory review of the document, it appears that the analyses provided may be deficient. As a result, the comments and potential for the need for additional analyses beyond those contained in the DEIS are likely to be more significant than typical substantive reviews for this type of development. The noise analysis may need to be expanded to address specific concerns about the impacts on adjoining properties and the methods to be applied in meeting the Town Noise Code. Furthermore, the basis for several of the conclusions made in the document may not be acceptable to the Town. The work product will include a review of the DEIS to determine if potential noise issues with operating the proposed facility have been properly addressed. Specific to the review of the FEIS, the extent of the review cannot be defined and may require more effort than is typical for an FEIS. Based on the information currently available, the schedule and cost for the above activities will be as follows. At present, we estimate two to three weeks to complete the effort to provide a Substantive Review. The cost and schedule to complete a review of the FEIS is less certain because we do not know what will be provided by the Applicant. Only one (1) round of edits is assumed for the DEIS review. RTP invoices on a time and materials basis and a breakdown of labor and other direct charges will be provided monthly, along with a summary of the work Ms. Carrie O'Farrell, AICP RTP ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, INC. November 12, 2019 Page 2 of 2 performed. The estimated base cost, as proposed above, is $4,113 for the DEIS, and an estimated $3,587 for the FEIS. Any follow-up required by either DEIS or FEIS will be billed at applicable rates at that time. The hourly rates and estimated hours per individual are provided on the attached table. If you chose to engage RTP to perform the above tasks, please review and sign the attached Service Agreement and return an executed copy to this office. Work will commence upon receipt of the authorization to proceed. Thank you for your interest in RTP. We look forward to working with you and your staff on this effort. Sincerely, RTP ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES,INC. , - Q - Kenneth J. Skipka Principal KJS:rnz attachment cc: Calvin Lee, Yeuk Moy, Analysis &Computing, Inc. p.\proposa1s\2019\npv the enclaves southold ny\npv the enclaves rev prop_20191112.docx RTP ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES,INC Enclaves Project Rate Schedule November 2019 I , Senior Engineer Comp.Env.Spec. Accounting Principal Total Hours Cost Hours ' Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost DEIS* 32 $ 2,848 8 $ 712 05 $ 43 3 $ 510 435 $ 4,113 FEIS* 32 $ 2,848 4 $ 356 05 $ 43 2 $ 340 385 $ 3,587 64 $ 5,696 12 $ 1,068 1 $ 85 5 $ 850 82 $ 7,699 $!hr Principal 170 Senior Engineer 89 Computer Environmental Specialist 89 Accounting Manager 85 *Estimated hours are combined hours for RTP and A&C staff to complete individual tasks Follow-up discussions are not included and,ifoccur,will be billed at applicable rates at time of occurrence ;r RECEIVED ` CHARLES R.CUDDY NOV 14 2019 t— � ATTORNEY AT LAW 445 GRIFFING AVENUE Zoning Board Of Appeals RIVERHEAD,NEW YORK �ailin November 13, 2019 TEL: (631)369-8200 FAX: (631)369-9080 Riverhead,NY 11901 E-mail: charlescuddy@optonline.net Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold 53095 Main Road, PO Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971 RE: The Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant Dear Ms. Weisman: I am writing to express severe disappointment with the SEQRA/Special Exception hearing that took place the evening of November 7, 2019. The applicant's understanding was that the substance and conclusions in the extensive DEIS would be examined and questioned and the standards for the Special Exception would be reviewed. Instead there were a number of virtually irrelevant concerns voiced respecting affordable housing, finding sufficient help, competition to existing bed and breakfast establishments together with an extended j ourney into minutia, such as the fish in the proposed pond. The hearing devolves into a freewheeling forum, essentially a new scoping session. No one can question the right to be heard in a public forum,provided that the speaker has some connection to the subject matter. Many comments at this hearing were made by persons residing 5 or 10 miles from the Hamlet Business site in question. This is not an academic exercise and little weight should be given to the concerns of those not directly impacted by this project. The applicant has expended many thousands of dollars to produce the DEIS, as well as to have it thoroughly reviewed by the Town's Consultant. Planning/Engineers/Ecology, Traffic and Sound experts have been retained. Together with a recognized architect and Environmental Planner, hundreds of hours were spent preparing and revising the DEIS. We submit it is thorough and complete. While its conclusions may be questioned we are surprised at the continuing intense interest in both traffic and sound based ostensibly on Special Event Use. There are numerous wineries along the Main Road (State Route 25)throughout the Town, many of them in Agriculture/Residential districts. They all have Special Events with large assemblage of vehicles. Traffic moves in and out both east and west(left and right) onto the Main Road without incident. Why would this applicant be held to a different standard- contrary to the experience with similar venues? As to sound the standard set forth in the Town Code suffers from a number of problems. Taken literally, Section 280 is an absolute prohibition. It would restrict speed as well as noise from Ld fED November 13, 2019Page 2 eals entering vehicles. There is no time frame. Does a violation take place within a few seconds, a minute, an hour? Interpretation of this Section requires reasonableness, since it is more than likely that as written it cannot be sustained. The applicant's sound engineer has indicated that various mechanisms and barriers can deflect and trap sound and these will be readily used at this site. Both traffic and sound should not require further investigation. This 44 room hotel on 6.75 acres is a well thought out, aesthetically pleasing and sensitively designed proposal. It has undergone intensive review. Additional matters to be addressed by the applicant should be limited and not expanded by further comment. Very truly yours, OW44 Charles R. Cuddy CRC:dmc C: William Duffy, Town Attorney