HomeMy WebLinkAboutFEIS - The Orchards (2/2022)FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL OF THE ORCHARDS ORIENT, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK
PROJECT LOCATION: 13.3± Acres located at 2595 Orchard Street, on the northeast side of Orchard Street, 17’ northwest of Halyoake Avenue, Orient APPLICANT: East End Holding Company, LLC P.O. Box 336 Mt. Sinai, NY 11766 Contact: Steven Martocello (917)502-0101 LEAD AGENCY: Town of Southold Planning Board 54375 State Route 25, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Contact: Donald J. Wilcenski, Chairman (631)765-1938 PREPARER & CONTACT: Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 207 Hallock Road, Suite 212 Stony Brook, NY 11790 Contact: William J. Lahti, P.E. (631)751-6433 With technical input from: Steven Muller, P.G. J.C. Broderick & Associates 1775 Express Drive North Hauppauge, NY 11787 (631) 584-5492 Peter Dermody, C.P.G. Dermody Consulting 32 Chichester Avenue, 2nd Floor Center Moriches, NY 11934 (631) 878-3510 DATE OF PREPARATION: February 2022
AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENT: This document, together with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the Proposed Action, comprises the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Copies are available for public review and comment at the office of the Lead Agency . A copy of the DEIS is also available for review at the Floyd Memorial Library located at 539 1st
Street, Greenport, NY 11944, and the document is available online at http://www.southoldtownny.gov. DATE OF FEIS ACCEPTANCE: __________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Purpose of the Document ...............................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Organization of the Document .......................................................................................................1-2
1.3 Significant Developments ..............................................................................................................1-3
2.0 Project Related Comments and Responses ..............................................................................................2-1
2.1 Project Background, Description and Design ................................................................................2-1
2.2 Project Purpose, Need, and Benefits ............................................................................................2-11
2.3 Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................................2-13
2.4 Permits and Approvals .................................................................................................................2-13
3.0 Natural Resources Related Comments and Responses ..........................................................................3-1
3.1 Soils and Topography ....................................................................................................................3-1
3.2 Water ..............................................................................................................................................3-2
3.3 Air ................................................................................................................................................3-33
3.4 Vegetation ....................................................................................................................................3-34
3.5 Wildlife ........................................................................................................................................3-36
4.0 Human Resources Related Comments and Responses ...........................................................................4-1
4.1 Land Use and Zoning .....................................................................................................................4-1
4.2 Transportation and Traffic ...........................................................................................................4-17
4.3 Public Health and Safety/Community Services ...........................................................................4-17
4.4 Aesthetic and Open Space ............................................................................................................4-17
4.5 Archeological ...............................................................................................................................4-30
5.0 Required DEIS Elements Related Comments and Responses ...............................................................5-1
5.1 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ..............................................................5-1
5.2 Growth- Inducing Aspects .............................................................................................................5-2
5.3 Use and Conservation of Energy ....................................................................................................5-2
5.4 Solid Waste Management ..............................................................................................................5-2
5.5 Special Groundwater Protection Area ............................................................................................5-2
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. ii
6.0 Alternative Related Comments and Responses ......................................................................................6-1
6.1 No Action .......................................................................................................................................6-1
6.2 Preservation....................................................................................................................................6-1
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Town SEQRA DEIS Notice of Completion and Public Hearing dated 10/6/2020 ...................... A1
Appendix B – Transcript of 12/7/2020 DEIS Public Hearing ............................................................................... A4
Appendix C – Public Commenter Identification List .......................................................................................... A29
Appendix D – Town Summary of Public and Town Staff Comments dated 1/29/2021 .................................... A30
Appendix E – Written Public Comments ............................................................................................................ A65
Appendix F – Summary of Comments ............................................................................................................... A173
Appendix G – Town Engineering Letter dated 3/6/2015 .................................................................................. A175
Appendix H – Town Zoning Code 280-97 Farmland Bill of Rights ................................................................ A176
Appendix I – Town Yield Map 7/10/2013 .......................................................................................................... A177
Appendix J – Town Bulk Schedule Residential Districts ................................................................................. A178
Appendix K – SCDHS Article 6 amended 12/1/2020 ........................................................................................ A179
Appendix L – NYS Drinking Water Standard excerpt .................................................................................... A204
Appendix M – Settlers at Oysterponds Subdivision Map ................................................................................ A206
Appendix N – Ferraris Town Property Card .................................................................................................... A207
Appendix O – SLOSH Map for Orient .............................................................................................................. A209
Appendix P – SLOSH Map for Subject Property area ..................................................................................... A210
Appendix Q – FEMA Firmette ........................................................................................................................... A211
Appendix R – Aquifer Characterization ........................................................................................................... A212
Appendix S – Crop Irrigation Water Estimation ............................................................................................. A214
Appendix T – Nitrogen Budget Analysis for Proposed Action ........................................................................ A216
Appendix U – Land Use Ecological Services report dated March 5, 2021....................................................... A226
Appendix V – Guadagno Subdivision map approved March 7, 2012 ............................................................. A230
Appendix W – Orient HALO map ..................................................................................................................... A231
Appendix X – NYS OPRHP CRIS search results ............................................................................................. A232
Appendix Y – Town Register of Historic Landmarks ...................................................................................... A233
Appendix Z – Sea Level Rise map for 2050 ........................................................................................................ A241
Appendix AA – Property Data for Abutting/Adjacent Properties ................................................................... A242
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. iii
Appendix BB- SCDHS WWM comments dated December 2021 for individual sanitary system plans ....... A244
Appendix CC – Drought Weather Patterns ...................................................................................................... A249
Appendix DD – Irrigation Well Zone of Influence Analysis ............................................................................ A251
Appendix EE – Old Farm Road view shed ........................................................................................................ A254
Appendix FF – Groundwater Depletion Analysis ............................................................................................. A255
Appendix GG – Subdivision map dated November 3, 2021 ............................................................................. A256
Appendix HH – Town zoning code sections 240-47 & 240-48 .......................................................................... A257
Appendix II – SCDHS WWM NOI dated December 20, 2021 ........................................................................ A258
Appendix JJ – SCDHS individual lot sanitary system plans dated November 22, 2021 ............................... A259
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 1-1
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT
This document is a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Proposed Action known as The Orchards. The Orchards project is a proposed cluster subdivision of 13.3025±acres of land identified as District 1000 Section 27 Block 1 Lot 3 on the Suffolk County Tax Map. The property has street address 2595 Orchard Street, Orient located within the Township of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York. The Subject
Property has 837± feet (non-continuous) along the North side of Orchard Street beginning at a point 17±feet West of Halyoake Avenue. The Subject Property is located within an agricultural district and was used as farmland to grow crops. The property is undeveloped and has sat fallow since the early 2000’s.
The Subject Property subdivision shall yield five parcels with five single family residential homes. The majority of the Subject Property (i.e. 60%) shall be protected from future development by an open space conservation easement. That portion of the Subject Property is intended to be used for farming crops.
A Draft EIS assessing the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action was prepared for and accepted by the Town of Southold Planning Board (as Lead Agency under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act) on September 28, 2020. On December 7, 2020 the Town Planning Board conducted a public hearing on the Draft EIS. The lead agency accepted public comments through January 11, 2021. On January 29, 2021
the Town Planning Board issued a summary of all substantiative comments provided by the public, Town staff, and other agencies. As required by SEQRA, this document addresses all substantiative comments provided during the hearing and comment period. The Final EIS provides the Lead Agency with the information necessary to complete its
SEQRA review. The Final EIS incorporates the Draft EIS by reference. The combination of the DEIS and FEIS constitute the Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Action. This document fulfills the SEQRA requirement for a Final EIS. After acceptance of this
Final EIS by the Lead Agency, the Lead Agency must provide a minimum ten day period before making their findings and final decisions on the Proposed Action.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 1-2
1.2 ORGANIZATION OF THE DOCUMENT
This document addresses all comments deemed substantiative by the Lead Agency.
Appendix B provides a transcript of the December 7, 2020 public hearing. Appendix D of the FEIS contains a summary prepared by the Lead Agency of all
comments deemed substantiative. The summary includes all comments made verbally at
the public hearing, as well as all written comments received by the Lead Agency within the comment period. Each comment was assigned a unique identification number in the format “C - ##”, or “T - ##”. Comments beginning with a “T” are comments by the Town of Southold staff. Comments beginning with a “C” are comments by all others. Thirty eight
“T” numbers were assigned. Sixty four “C” numbers were assigned.
Appendix C is a list of all members of the public that submitted comments either during the public hearing or in writing. Public commenters were assigned a unique identification number with the format “P - ##”. Persons submitting multiple comments on different dates
were assigned a unique identification number for each date comments were submitted. To
aid the public in locating a response to their comments, the list of commenters includes the comment number (“C - ##”) assigned to their specific comment. A large portion of the comments were duplicative in nature. Duplicative comments were not assigned a unique “C” number but were instead combined into the “C” comment number most representative
of the duplicative comment. Appendix E provides all written comments received by the Lead Agency. Each written comment document has been marked with the “P” number for the person(s) making the comment, and each comment within the written document has been marked with the “C”
number assigned to their comment. Appendix F is a cross reference spreadsheet providing a brief summary of the subject matter for each comment, the “C” number assigned to the subject matter of the comment, the identification number (“P” number) for the person making the comment, the section of
the DEIS related to the comment being made, and the FEIS section where a response to the comment is provided. The FEIS responses are organized in the same manner as the DEIS. Each response is provided within the section, and subsection, related to the comment. This document fulfills
the obligation of the Lead Agency in completing a Final EIS in accordance with Title 6, New York Code of Rules and Regulations (6 NYCRR) Part 617.9.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 1-3
1.3 SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS
In the period of time between the close of the DEIS hearing comment period (January 11,
2021) and submittal of the FEIS, significant developments in the project approval process have occurred. These developments are discussed in detail throughout the FEIS responses. The following is a brief summary of the significant developments:
1. An updated subdivision map (see Appendix GG) was submitted to the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) Office of Wastewater Management (WWM) on November 3, 2021 for review under Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. Article 6 regulates, among other things, potable water supplies and disposal of sanitary wastewater.
The SCDHS is the agency with direct jurisdictional responsibility for protecting the groundwater resources of the County, including the Town of Southold and Orient. This jurisdictional responsibility is acknowledged by the Town of Southold town code which codifies the SCDHS jurisdictional control over wastewater disposal and water supply systems in sections 240-47 and 240-48 (see Appendix HH). The subdivision map was
revised to address plan review comments issued by the SCDHS WWM for a prior submission. The proposed sanitary system designs used for each proposed lot are conventional septic tank and leaching pool systems, as is permitted by Article 6. The proposed water supply system for each proposed lot are private wells. SCDHS WWM issued a Notice of Incomplete Application (NOI) dated December 20, 2021 (see Appendix
II). As indicated in the NOI, the proposed subdivision map will be approved by the SCDHS upon completion of three ministerial tasks: Task #1- The owner will file covenants issued by the SCDHS. The owner cannot do so until the subdivision map is approved by the Town as the lots effected by the covenants do not yet legally exist; Task #2- The Town must issue a SEQRA Findings Statement; Task #3- The owner must submit four paper maps with
PE/LS professional seals so the SCDHS can stamp the approved map. Approval of the map (pending only three ministerial tasks) demonstrates the agency with direct jurisdictional responsibility for water and wastewater in the County has determined no significant impact will occur to the aquifer. If a significant impact was anticipated, the SCDHS would not have issued the NOI stating approval will be granted upon completion of the three
ministerial tasks. 2. Sanitary system and water supply design plans for each individual proposed parcel (see Appendix JJ) were most recently submitted to the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) Office of Wastewater Management (WWM) on November 22, 2021 for
review under Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. Article 6 regulates, among other things, potable water supplies and disposal of sanitary wastewater. The SCDHS is the agency with direct jurisdictional responsibility for protecting the groundwater resources of the County, including the Town of Southold and Orient. This jurisdictional responsibility is acknowledged by the Town of Southold town code which codifies the
SCDHS jurisdictional control over wastewater disposal and water supply systems in sections 240-47 and 240-48 (see Appendix HH). The proposed sanitary system designs
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 1-4
used were conventional septic tank and leaching pool systems, as is permitted by Article
6. SCDHS WWM issued a Notice of Incomplete Application (NOI) dated December 2021 for each of the proposed lots (see Appendix BB). As indicated in the NOIs, each proposed lot sanitary system and potable water supply will be approved upon completion of one ministerial task for each lot. The only task required is approval of the subdivision map by
the SCDHS. Approval of the sanitary system and water supply plan for each individual lot
(pending only one ministerial task) demonstrates the agency with direct jurisdictional responsibility for water and wastewater in the County has determined no significant impact will occur to the aquifer.
3. As part of the FEIS, a nitrogen load analysis was prepared (see Appendix T of the FEIS).
As indicated by the analysis, the as-of-right zoning use of the Subject Property as 100% farmland for crop production would result in a greater release of nitrogen into the Upper Glacial aquifer lying beneath the site than the proposed project as designed with five residential homes and farmland. The proposed project is beneficial in reducing the amount
of nitrogen released to the aquifer when compared to the as-of-right use.
4. As part of the FEIS, an analysis of the potential for groundwater depletion due to the proposed Subject Property development was prepared (see Appendix FF of the FEIS). As indicated by the analysis, during a worst case farmland irrigation year, the amount of
precipitation falling upon the Subject Property results is a surplus of water entering the
aquifer directly below the Subject Property. The proposed action, including irrigation of the proposed farmland, does not result in groundwater depletion. 5. As part of the FEIS, an analysis of the potential impact of the irrigation well on the existing
wells in the vicinity was prepared (see Appendix DD). The nearest existing or proposed
domestic drinking water well in the area is horizontally separated from the irrigation well by more than four times the radius of influence of the irrigation well, thus providing a significant margin of safety regarding impacting any existing or proposed domestic water supply wells.
6. As part of the FEIS, an analysis of the potential impact of the irrigation well with regard to up-coning of saltwater was prepared (see response 3.2.9 et. al.). The geologic formation beneath the Subject Property, coupled with the vertical separation between the saltwater interface and irrigation well casing, makes up-coning of saltwater into the irrigation well
casing virtually impossible.
7. In February 2020 the Town of Southold adopted the “Southold Town Comprehensive Plan”. The adoption of the Comprehensive Plan occurred after the scope of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was prepared by the Lead Agency. The Lead Agency requested the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) assess the Proposed
Action in the context of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant complied with the request (see response 4.1.3 for a detailed analysis). Of particular note is Volume 1, Chapter 5 of the Comprehensive Plan titled “Community Character”. The proposed subdivision
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 1-5
map is a direct reflection of the community character as established by the Comprehensive
Plan, and by statute in the Town zoning code, to wit: o The Comprehensive Plan specifically identifies agriculture as being a significant character of the Town of Southold. The Town Code requires a minimum of 60% of
the subject subdivision property area to remain as open space. The Proposed Action
includes preservation of 60% of the Subject Property with the intent of returning the land to active agricultural use, which conforms to both the Comprehensive Plan and the Town zoning code. The Town zoning code assigned a residential zoning district to the Subject Property location, thereby establishing residential use is
legally permissible and appropriate for the community character in the area of the
Subject Property. The remaining 40% of the Subject Property is intended for single family residential homes. Based on application of the Comprehensive Plan and Town zoning code, 100% of the Proposed Action uses are consistent with the Town’s vision and code.
o With the proposed uses established as appropriate, the Applicant submitted a yield
map to the Town of Southold for a determination as to how many residential homes were legally permissible for the Subject Property. The Town determined that five single family homes could be built on the Subject Property. Thus, the construction of five single family residential homes is consistent with the community character
as established by the Town zoning code.
o With the Town’s determination as to how many homes could legally be built, the next issue was how to situate the five proposed homes. The layout of the proposed homes in a clustered subdivision is required by the Town zoning code and embodied in the Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant was required to lay out the
proposed homes as a clustered arrangement.
o With the number of proposed homes, and the configuration of the proposed homes, established by the Town zoning code and supported by the Comprehensive Plan, the only remaining question was where to place the cluster on the Subject Property. This final design question is answered by the Town Code and the Comprehensive
Plan. The Town requires/encourages the farmland be placed contiguous to adjacent
open space areas. The property abutting the Subject Property on the west has a large open space property protected by a conservation easement. Thus the farmland on the Subject Property must be placed on the western portion of the Subject Property so as to comply with the Town requirements. Therefore, the proposed residential
homes had to be placed on the eastern portion of the Subject Property.
The proposed subdivision map was developed, and is a direct reflection of, the design and community character as established by application of the Town Code and the Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant had little to no flexability to vary from the subdivision map layout as currently presented.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 2-1
2.0 PROJECT RELATED COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND, DESCRIPTION AND DESIGN
2.1.1- Comment C-3: “Based on Town Code- Article XI Cluster Development 240-42 –H.(4): Roads, streets and right-of-way may not be included in the calculation of the minimum required open space.
The area of the conservation easement is based on 16’ right of way for Lot #1 driveway.
The State requires a 25 foot clearing and in a letter dated March 6, 2015 the Town Highway Engineer said the Right of Way should be 25 feet. The additional 9 feet of right of way increases the size of Lot #1 to 1.4744 acres and reduces the conserved area by .1218 acres. This would bring the Conservation Area below the 60% required threshold.”
Response to Comment: The commenter is incorrectly applying the Town Code1. Section 240-42.H.(4) is related to “roads, streets and right-of-way”. Section 240-3 defines road, streets and right-of-way.
Proposed lot #1 does not propose a “road, street or right-of-way” as defined by the Town Code. Proposed lot #1 proposes a driveway. The driveway area is properly included in the calculation of property area for lot #1.
2.1.2- Comment T-37, C-4: “The flag lots do not meet the standards set in the code. The flags are excessive in length and the lots do not meet the minimum lot area of the zoning district. The flags appear to
be a means to circumvent a standard lot and street arrangement.”
Response to Comments: a. The Code does not define the criteria for determining whether or not the accessway
portion of a flag lot is “excessive length”. b. Proposed lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 share a common driveway, i.e. “accessway”. The four proposed lots shall have equal rights of ingress and egress. The width of the shared driveway is 25 feet. The length of the shared driveway is 197.89 feet. Legal title to the area
used as the common driveway is vested in proposed lots 2 and 3.
1 “Town Code” as used throughout this document refers to the “Code of the Town of Southold” with legislation
adopted through 9-8-2020 as web published by ecode360.com
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 2-2
c. As part of the subdivision permitting process, a lot yield determination was made wherein the R-80 zoning district criteria was applied to the 13.3 acre parcel. It was determined that five building lots could be created using the R-80 zoning district criteria (see Yield Map in Appendix I of the FEIS). As required by section 240-42.B of the Town Code, the proposed subdivision was designed as a “cluster development”. Section 240-
42.A of the Town Code states, in pertinent part, “Authority is hereby granted to the Planning Board pursuant to New York State Town Law § 278 to modify applicable provisions of Chapter 280, Zoning, of this code, as to layout, configuration and design of lots, buildings and structures, roads, utility lines and other infrastructure, parks and landscaping, to enable and encourage flexibility of design and development of land in such
a manner as to preserve the natural and scenic qualities of open space lands.” The R-40 zoning district was utilized for the proposed subdivision cluster design as the R-40 zoning criteria is the next highest, with regard to the Town zoning code density limits, residential district. Use of the R-40 zoning criteria provides the Applicant with five proposed building lots, as he was legally entitled to based on the R-80 yield determination, while providing
the cluster layout required by the Town Code. The net proposed lot area for lots 2 and 3 comply with the R-40 zoning district minimum lot size criteria. The common access driveway being provided for proposed lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 is in accordance with the goal stated in section 240-42.A of the Town Code, i.e. “preserve the natural and scenic qualities of open space lands”, by providing access without the use of a full size public roadway. It
was not a means to circumvent a standard street arrangement. Furthermore, if a public roadway was constructed, dedication of the roadway to the Town would most likely occur, thereby adding to the Town’s burden of maintaining public roadways. The proposed design maximizes the retention of open space and avoids burdening the Town with an additional roadway.
d. The property abutting the Subject Property to the west, identified on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000 Section 27 Block 1 Lot 2.002 is a flag lot. That flag lot was approved by the Town of Southold Planning Board by map signature dated 3/7/2012. The length of the accessway to the abutting lot is 642 feet. The length of the accessway on the
abutting lot is more than 2.5 times as long as the proposed accessway land area titled to proposed lot 2, and more than 3.2 times as long as the proposed accessway land area titled to proposed lot 3. Any assertion that the proposed accessways are “excessive in length” is contradicted by the recent subdivision approval for the abutting land. e. The property adjacent to the Subject Property, identified on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000 Section 27 Block 3 Lot 2.003 is a flag lot. The address of the flag lot is 2620 Orchard Street with ownership shown as “Brian Fuhrmann Trust” and the property size as 0.96 acres (approximately 41,818 SF). The length of the accessway serving that
Fuhrmann parcel is approximately 160 feet. When deducting the accessway land area
(approximately 2,400 SF) from the total property area, the Fuhrmann parcel has a net area of approximately 39,418 SF. The net property area for proposed lots 2 and 3 on the Subject
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 2-3
Property are both in excess of the net property size for a previous subdivision approval
located directly across the street from the Subject Property. f. The property identified on the Suffolk County tax map as District 1000 Section 27 Block 2 Lot 2.005 located at 4263 Orchard Street is a flag lot. The length of the accessway is
approximately 450 feet. The length of the accessway is nearly double the length of the
longest accessway on the proposed subdivision map. g. The property identified on the Suffolk County tax map as District 1000 Section 27 Block 3 Lot 7.007 located at 4340 Orchard Street is a flag lot. The length of the accessway is
approximately 238 feet which is approximately equal to the longest accessway on the
proposed subdivision map.
2.1.3- Comment T-36: “The subdivision design of the proposed action does not meet the Town Code subdivision design requirements of Chapter 240. The design proposes four separate driveways where
the code requires a single entrance via a new road. Chapter 240-45.b (15) states the
following: Except in a conservation subdivision or open development area, subdivisions
where more than 300 feet of land fronts on a public street shall provide access to proposed lots by way of a new street. Multiple building lots and fronting of more than two building lots on an existing street shall be prohibited”
Response to Comment: The proposed subdivision does not propose four separate driveways. Proposed lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 share a common driveway. The four proposed lots shall have equal rights of ingress
and egress. The width of the shared driveway is 25 feet. The subdivision map shall be
updated to clarify this issue prior to Final Plat submission.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 2-4
2.1.4- Comment C-17: “As mentioned above, the conserved area will not meet the 60% criteria for open space when the Lot #1 and Lot #2 are corrected for code compliance unless some building lots are eliminated.”
Response to Comment: The commenter is incorrect in their analysis. See responses 2.1.1 and 2.1.2. The proposed driveway on lot #1 is properly not deducted from the total lot area. The accessway on lot
#2, when deducted from the gross parcel area, results in a net parcel area greater than required for the R-40 zoning district, which is the zoning criteria applicable to this cluster subdivision design.
2.1.5- Comment C-19:
“At the Planning Board hearing on April 6, 2015 the owner stated that “we are not going
to do spec houses” and yet the DEIS suggests that is the intent. The owner should clarify
how many houses he intends to build for himself, and will they be built on spec or for his family? The proposed layout appears to maximize the profit from new homes, not maximize the continuity of the open space or its viability as farmland.”
Response to Comment: a. The DEIS does not suggest spec houses are being constructed. The DEIS necessarily defined baseline building sizes for purposes of analyzing potential impacts. Absent a
defined baseline, the impact analysis could not be completed.
b. Information as to how many houses the owner intends to build for himself is not relevant for the purpose of the DEIS and FEIS as it has no relevance to potential environmental impacts.
c. Information as to whether or not the houses will be spec built or for his family is not the scope and purpose of information required to be provided in a DEIS or FEIS. The purpose of the DEIS and FEIS is to determine potential environmental impacts, and mitigation measures.
d. The commenter’s postulation that the “proposed layout appears to maximize the profit from new homes, not maximize the continuity of open space” is erroneous. In general, the value of five proposed building lots each consisting of 2+ acres (which is not permitted due
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 2-5
to the Town’s cluster design requirement) would exceed the value of five proposed building
lots on parcels approximately 1 acre in size (as is proposed on the subdivision map). Town code section 240-42.B requires the proposed subdivision to be designed as a “cluster development” to maximize open space. As such, the four proposed building lots not associated with the farm use are clustered on the east side of the property to maximize the
farmland preserved on the west side of the Subject Property.
2.1.6- Comment C-34:
“In addition the street trees should not be in ROW- they are supposed to be on private property- see Town Code- Article III Roadway Construction 161-44 B.”
Response to Comment:
a. The street trees shown on the proposed subdivision map dated 7/8/2020 (appendix Y of the DEIS) are a carry-over from the subdivision map prepared by John Ehlers, L.S. dated 1/21/15 (Appendix B of the DEIS). The tree spacing was modified to address comment #2 in a letter dated 3/6/2015 issued by the Town Engineer to the Planning Board Chairman
(see Appendix G of the FEIS). b. Section 161-44B referenced by the commenter is contained within Chapter 161 of the Town Code titled “Highway Specifications”. The entirety of Chapter 161 relates to the
construction of roadways, particularly focused on roadways constructed as part of
subdivisions. The proposed subdivision has no proposed roadway. Orchard Street is an existing public roadway. No section of Chapter 161 requires the installation of street trees along an existing public roadway. As such, the proposed street trees will be removed from the proposed subdivision map prior to Final Plat submission.
c. Based on public comments obtained during the DEIS process, street trees along Orchard Street would be detrimental to the view shed from the public roadway, providing a secondary reason for omitting the proposed street trees from the proposed subdivision map.
d. Street trees along the portion of Orchard Street abutting the proposed farmland would
be detrimental to the farm operation. The trees will cast shadows onto the farmland, which will reduce the crop yield in the shaded areas, thus providing a tertiary reason for omitting the proposed street trees from the proposed subdivision map.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 2-6
2.1.7- Comment C-35: “The subdivision should not be allowed to proceed. We have owned our 200 year old farmhouse for 26 years and in that time development has very slowly changed the character of the Village of Orient. We are now at a tipping point where the pace of development has
increased while we approach a precipitous limit in resources. 7 acres of corn is a Trojan
Horse that does not justify the density of development outlined in this subdivision proposal.” Response to Comment:
a. The density of the proposed subdivision is based on the number of lots, i.e. the “yield”, that could be created on the Subject Property by applying the R-80 zoning district bulk regulations. The applicant is not seeking any increase in density beyond that which is permitted in the R-80 zoning district.
b. The commenter’s statement that “7 acres of corn is a Trojan Horse” is without merit. The planting of corn, or any other crop, on the subject parcel of land is a permissible, protected, and encouraged use of the Subject Property as stated in section 280-97 of the Town Code (see Appendix H of the FEIS).
2.1.8- Comment C-36:
“The analyses of the Horowitz property should offer a guideline for the development of “The Orchards” property, which is for all intents and purposes identical.”
Response to Comment:
Based on information presented by the commenter, the Horowitz property development was a subdivision of a 60 acre farm, 40 years ago. A decision on the instant application cannot be judged against a project from 40 years ago, on a much larger property, whose
location is not identical to the Subject Property, whose site specific conditions with regard
to potential impacts are not demonstrated to be identical, and was evaluated without the present day benefit of the technological and information resources available to assess potential impacts.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 2-7
2.1.9- Comment C-40: “Plan inconsistencies abound --- basic code compliance goes uncorrected, lot sizes change, setbacks are modified and incomplete, irrigation well appears in different locations or missing altogether.”
Response to Comment: a. The DEIS provides a complete history of the development of the project that began in 2013. Plan revisions are a necessary process of developing a subdivision map. There are a
multitude of agencies and regulations that must be addressed during development of the map. Modifications of the map throughout the 8 plus year development process are “revisions”, not “inconsistencies”. The DEIS clearly identified Appendix Y as the current proposed subdivision map, as is acknowledged on page 2 of the commenter’s letter. b. Not all plans will contain the same information. For example, the subdivision map for Town review will be focused on lot areas, building envelopes, and matters related to the Town Code, whereas a subdivision map for the Suffolk County Department of Health Services Office of Wastewater Management will contain information related to water
supply and wastewater systems. A lack of information on one map does not mean the
information does not exist, or is not presented on a more appropriate document.
2.1.10- Comment C-42: “The Applicants impatience and reluctance to respond to key issues should not replace nor lessen the Planning Departments authority to make plan modifications according to Article
IX Cluster Development, Section 240-4 A. Plan inconsistencies abound --- basic code
compliance goes uncorrected, lot sizes change, setbacks are modified and incomplete,
irrigation well appears in different locations or missing altogether.” Response to Comment:
a. The comment with regard to the applicant’s “impatience and reluctance to respond to key issues” is without merit or a basis. The applicant has spent 8 plus years developing the subdivision map, thus demonstrating patience in working through the process.
b. Development of the cluster subdivision layout as currently proposed was developed in
concert with the Town Planning Department staff and Planning Board through work sessions and map revisions. Each “key issue” raised by the Town was addressed during the map development process.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 2-8
c. “Key issues” raised in the Town’s SEQRA determination dated July 7, 2015 (Appendix A of the DEIS) were addressed by revision of the proposed subdivision map as it existed at that time (Appendix B of DEIS- map revision date 1/21/2015) to the current proposed map (appendix Y of the DEIS- map revision date 7/8/2020). Furthermore, it was clear to the applicant that the issue of groundwater would be the most important issue for the
subdivision. With this realization, the applicant spent over 4 years undertaking studies, sampling groundwater, preparing design plans, and obtaining several non-Town related key regulatory approvals for use of the groundwater for drinking water and irrigation for the proposed lots and use (see DEIS Appendices H and O).
2.1.11- Comment C-45:
“The determination by the Applicant to achieve 5 residential lots utilizing the R-40 lot size and setback criteria is at the expense of the natural and scenic values of the open space goals of the Cluster development provision and the Town’s vision. As discussed below, it is even questionable as to whether the Cluster development approach, yielding only 8 acres
of open space (including a 4,000 sf barn building), is the best thinking for the development
of the site and its impact to the community.” Response to Comment:
a. The Applicant did make the determination that 5 residential lots can be developed. The Town made the determination through review of a yield map prepared for the overall property using the R-80 zoning criteria. Refer to Appendix I of the FEIS.
b. As required by section 240-42.B of the Town Code, the proposed subdivision was
designed as a “cluster development”. The cluster development approach was a requirement, not a choice. c. The yield of 8 acres of open space complies with the minimum 60% requirement of
Town Code section 240-42.H.(1).
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 2-9
2.1.12- Comment C-50: “The split-cluster lot configuration created by allowing a larger residential building lot, agricultural building and access road, all as part of the privately-held Lot 1, is excessive and unacceptable, as all the benefits go to the Applicant/Developer with none to the
Town.”
Response to Comment:
a. The commenter provided no Town Code, or other measureable standard to support
his/her determination that Lot 1 is “excessive and unacceptable”. b. Proposed lot 1 is only 37% larger than the average size of the remaining four proposed building lots.
c. Lot 1 has unique geometry with regard to the building area lot lines. The north and south corners of the buildable area are acute angles. When laying out potential home locations and footprints, a significant portion of the buildable lot area is lost in the north and south corners of the buildable area as the potential home cannot fit into the space between the
two intersecting property lines without using non-traditional house footprint
configurations. d. Per section 240-43.F.(1)(b) Lot 1 requires a 50 foot wide buffer along the north and west property lines. The required buffers significantly diminish the net buildable area on Lot 1.
e. No access road is proposed on Lot 1. Access to the proposed home will be via a driveway constructed to Town specifications.
2.1.13- Comment C-56: “The Subdivision proposed for this site is simply TOO DENSE. It is too dense contextually
at the corner of Halyoake and Orchards, and it is too dense for the resources available.”
Response to Comment: a. In accordance with Town Code, a lot yield determination was made by the Town of
Southold (see yield map in Appendix I of the FEIS). The Applicant is legally entitled to
five building lots. The proposed subdivision map proposes five building lots.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 2-10
b. In accordance with Town Code, and Town objectives, the proposed building lots are
arranged in a cluster configuration to maximize open space conservation. c. The commenter has not identified any specific resources that are insufficient to serve the proposed development, nor has he provided any scientific basis to support the statement.
2.1.14- Comment C-60:
“The plan could be modified in ways that would be beneficial to the community AND to the owner. Given the size of the lot to be subdivided, under a modified plan the developer could easily still put the four or less “clustered” homes on eight acres instead of four acres
(one house per two acres instead of one house per one acre) and still have some
undeveloped open space under a modified plan.”
Response to Comment:
a. Section 240-42.B of the Town Code specifically requires cluster development of parcels
seven acres or greater in size. The commenter’s suggestion is in direct contradiction to what the Town Code requires. b. Section 240-42.H of the Town Code specifically requires a minimum open space area
of 60%. The commenter’s suggestion is in direct contradiction to what the Town Code
requires.
2.1.15- Comment C-61: “Most importantly, were the town to forbear on the clustering requirement, the result
would benefit the community by reducing stress on the local water supply from the undue
concentration of four potentially large homes on just four acres.”
Response to Comment:
The water supply wells for the four homes will all draw from the same groundwater supply.
The overall availability of groundwater for those four homes is the same regardless of whether or not the four homes are placed on one acre each, or two acres each, as the total groundwater usage for the entire parcel remains unchanged.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 2-11
2.1.16- Comment C-62:
“The DEIS should provide an analysis of area home sizes and scales. As a form of mitigation, to ensure that that the proposed homes do not create negative impact on community character, the DEIS should discuss a required covenant that specifies maximum
allowable home sizes of a certain scale.”
Response to Comment: a. The Town Code already provides a mechanism to limit the size and scale of homes.
Specifically, sections 280-14 and 280-18 of the Town Code set forth a bulk schedule of
restrictions of the size of homes. The bulk schedule applicable to both the R-40 and R-80 zoning districts is included in Appendix J of the FEIS. b. Upon inspection of the bulk schedule, and a comparison of the “maximum permitted
dimensions”, the R-40 and R-80 zones have the identical limitations with regard to lot
coverage, building height, and number of stories. Therefore, regardless of whether the Subject Property is viewed as an R-80 or R-40 development, the building size and scale restrictions are the same.
c. The bulk schedule established by the Town Code effectively accounts for limiting the
size and scale of homes on smaller building lots (such as the R-40 zone), as compared to larger lots (such as the R-80 zone) because the limitations on building size are based on a percentage of lot size, not a specific square footage.
d. Proposed lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 are all designed using the R-40 zoning restrictions with regard
to lot size and setbacks from property lines. As demonstrated above, the existing Town Code limits the size of the proposed houses on the proposed lots to half of what would otherwise be permitted if the parcels were developed under the R-80 zone restrictions.
e. The Applicant, as well as the future owners of the proposed lots, are entitled to equal
treatment under the Town Code. An imposition of further restrictions on house size, where limitations are already codified by the Town, would be a diminution of their rights.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 2-12
2.2 PROJECT PURPOSE, NEED, AND BENEFITS
2.2.1- Comment C-18: “The configuration of the conserved area is not conducive to agricultural use with several notches that will be difficult to plant and maintain.”
Response to Comment: a. The commenter provided no substantiative information to support the claim the “area is not conducive to agricultural use”, nor has she imparted any specific personal experience
of farming to support her statement. b. The proposed open space area designated for farming purposes complies with the Town Code regarding the open space requirement. The physical soil and land within the designated open space area is deemed agricultural land and is conducive to agricultural
use. c. The geometry of the farmland area, while not perfectly square or rectangular in shape, is contiguous and regularly shaped and allows for farm practices to be conducted thereon. The methodology as to how to maximize crop yield from the farmland parcel area is left to
farm professionals and is not within the required scope, or intent, of a DEIS.
2.2.2- Comment C-29:
“If these lots are sold at current prices for real estate in Orient, they will not be modestly priced. The estimate of cost to build these homes in the DEIS is very conservatively posited at $150/sf. Homes recently built in Orient are about twice that. So with the cost of land
being around $600 per acre, and the cost of a 3,500 sf home at $1,050,000, this is not the
type of housing that Orient “needs”.”
Response to Comment:
a. The comment “this is not the type of housing that Orient needs” is subjective. The Applicant would not have invested 8 plus years in the process of developing a subdivision map if he did not believe the Orient real estate market was the appropriate location for this development.
b. The commenter provided no substantiative information or examples to support the claim
regarding the cost of home construction. The estimated house construction cost utilized in
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 2-13
the DEIS was derived from national price indexes referenced in the DEIS, with a 30%
increase to more accurately reflect the local market. c. A conservative cost for home construction was used in the DEIS so that the estimated tax benefits, and the number of jobs created, would not be over-estimated. If a higher
construction cost was used, the tax benefits and job creation estimates would be higher than
as presented in the DEIS. d. The commenter erred on the estimated price per acre of land in Orient. The price of land in Orient is not $600 per acre.
2.2.4- Comment C-51:
“Without further discussion of the serious negative impact on water supply and quality as well as the important role the Open Space Conservation Easement document to define restrictions, the Proposed Preliminary Plat (1-21-2015) itself clearly demonstrates that the benefits to the Applicant/Developer far exceeds the Town’s nominal increase in the
property tax base.”
Response to Comment:
a. Any benefit to the Applicant is not demonstrative of a significant environmental impact.
The Applicant is entitled to utilize his property, just as everyone else in the Township is entitled to. b. The Town benefits in more ways than simply tax revenue. For example, in accordance
with Town Code, the Applicant is preserving 60% of the Subject Property, which is
approximately 8 acres. Permanent preservation of farmland is a core focus of the Town Code and vision.
2.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
No comments were received.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 2-14
2.4 PERMITS AND APPROVALS
2.4.1- Comment T-7: “And discuss new SCDHS regulations requiring I/A OWTS in the near future.”
Response to Comment: The Suffolk County Board of Health amended Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code (see Appendix K of the FEIS). The amended code was effective December 1, 2020. The intent and purpose of Article 6 is to promote public health and safeguard the water
resources of Suffolk County. Section 760-614A.1. of Article 6 requires construction project applications for new single family homes submitted to the Office of Wastewater Management on or after July 1, 2021 to utilize an I/A OWTS in lieu of a conventional sanitary system consisting of a septic tank and leaching structure. An I/A OWTS is an on-site sanitary system that consumes electric power and consists of a I/A OWTS tank(s) with
any associated interconnecting piping, a leaching structure(s) and any associated interconnecting piping that is designed to reduce total nitrogen in the treated effluent to a maximum concentration of 19 mg/l. Sanitary system and water supply design plans for each individual proposed parcel (see
Appendix JJ) were most recently submitted to the Suffolk County Department of Health
Services (SCDHS) Office of Wastewater Management (WWM) on November 22, 2021 for review under Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. The proposed sanitary system designs used were conventional septic tank and leaching pool systems, as is permitted by Article 6. SCDHS WWM issued a Notice of Incomplete Application (NOI) dated
December 2021 for each of the proposed lots (see Appendix BB). As indicated in the NOIs,
each proposed lot sanitary system and potable water supply will be approved upon completion of one ministerial task for each lot. The only task required is approval of the subdivision map by the SCDHS. Use of conventional sanitary systems is permitted. I/A OWTS are not required by the regulatory agency that has direct jurisdictional responsibility
for this matter. 2.4.2- Comment T-24:
“What is the plan if chloride is found in the well? Will the Town of Southold be notified?”
Response to Comment:
The comment relates to the proposed irrigation well. As per the approved New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) approved irrigation well permit
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 2-15
(see Appendix O of the DEIS), the owner/operator of the irrigation well is required to have
irrigation well water samples collected by a New York State ELAP certified laboratory in June and October (the beginning and end of irrigation season) of each calendar year, and submit a detailed chloride analysis by November of that same calendar year. The sampling data must be submitted to the NYSDEC in tabular and graphical form, and include all data
collected since first use of the well. The reports submitted to the NYSDEC are a matter of
public record and are accessible to the Town and public. The NYSDEC has the authority, as stated in the permit conditions, to take certain actions if the chloride concentration is rising or exceeds 65 mg/l including, but not limited to reducing or restricting pumpage from the well. To put things into perspective, the New
York State Drinking Water Standards (see excerpt in Appendix L of the FEIS) sets a maximum concentration limit of 250 mg/l for chloride and no limit for sodium for potable water in the State of New York. As such, the NYSDEC threshold of 65 mg/l is 3.8 times lower than the concentration permitted in drinking water. The NYSDEC chloride monitoring program is clearly intended to detect any significant rise in chloride
concentration well before the chloride concentration approaches or exceeds the allowable drinking water concentration limits. No specific notice to the Town of chlorides present in the irrigation well water is intended as there is always chloride present in the groundwater drawn from the well, the Town has
no established concentration limit as to when notification would have to be given, the NYSDEC is the governmental authority with jurisdiction over this issue, and the NYSDEC yearly chloride reporting system provides the Town with access to monitor chlorides independently, if they so choose to do so.
2.4.3- Comment C-46:
“In considering any proposed plan, it is essential to envision the full build-out and the
desire of developer and prospective homeowners to build to the maximum and then to ensure privacy.”
Response to Comment:
a. The comment is speculative with no specific supporting examples or documentation provided. As established by Coalition Against Lincoln West v. City of New York, 94 AD2d 483 (1st Dept 1983) and Matter of Environmental Defense Fund v. Flacke, 96 AD2d 862
(2d Dept 1983), consideration of impacts is limited to reasonably related potential impacts,
and speculative impacts may be ignored.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 2-16
b. The comment is contradicted by the commenter’s own action. The commenter resides
at 3585 Orchard Street, Orient. That parcel is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000 Section 27 Block 2 Lot 2.010. That parcel was created as part of a subdivision known as Settlers at Oysterponds filed in the Suffolk County Clerk’s office on or about May 4, 1984 (see Appendix M of the FEIS). That parcel is in the R-80 zoning district, is
5.0000 acres in size and has no special restrictions for building envelopes shown on the
filed map (as opposed to other lots on the filed map that do have special restrictions on building envelopes). Based on the R-80 maximum permitted lot coverage of 20% (refer to Appendix J of the FEIS), the commenter was permitted to have a maximum lot coverage of 43,560 SF. A review of the Town of Southold property record card for that parcel (see
Appendix N of the FEIS) supplemented by aerial photography area calculations, shows the
actual lot coverage of the parcel to be approximately 14,185 SF, inclusive of the swimming pool area and tennis court (as is required by Town Code). The actual lot coverage is only 33% of the maximum permitted, which is in direct contradiction to the commenters speculation that the proposed building lots will be built to the maximum permissible limit.
2.4.4- Comment C-47:
“With small lot sizes as presented in the Proposed Preliminary Plat, the building lots may
be predisposed to seek ZBA waivers to reduce setbacks and other requirements to accommodate a large house, pool, cabana/other accessory structures, and possible tennis court on site.”
Response to Comment: a. The comment is speculative with no specific supporting examples or documentation provided. As established by Coalition Against Lincoln West v. City of New York, 94 AD2d
483 (1st Dept 1983) and Matter of Environmental Defense Fund v. Flacke, 96 AD2d 862
(2d Dept 1983), consideration of impacts is limited to reasonably related potential impacts, and speculative impacts may be ignored. b. The right to petition the Town ZBA is a right of all property owners, just as the Town
ZBA has to authority to deny applications that do not warrant approval.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 2-17
2.4.5- Comment C-54:
“The Planning Board should require a second DEIS that provides a more in-depth analysis regarding Orient water issues and the impact of the Proposed Development as well as an Alternative Plan representing lower density and better lot configuration that mitigates
many of the non-water issues of equal importance to the community.”
Response to Comment: a. 6 NYCRR Part 617 is the controlling regulation for the State Environmental Quality
Review (SEQRA) process. Preparation of the DEIS was a part of the SEQRA process. Thus
far the Town Planning Board, as lead agency, has complied with the State regulation. b. The Town Planning Board, as lead agency, issued a resolution indicating the Applicant’s DEIS was deemed adequate and ready for public comment (see Appendix A of FEIS).
c. The Town Planning Board, as lead agency, conducted a public hearing for the purposes of soliciting comments on the DEIS. The DEIS hearing was held December 7, 2020 (see Appendix B of the FEIS).
d. The Planning Board, as lead agency, allowed additional written public comments to be
submitted to the Town until January 11, 2021 (see Appendix B of the FEIS). e. The Planning Board, as lead agency, determined an FEIS addressing public and Town staff comments was required (see Appendix D of the FEIS).
f. The FEIS shall provide additional information to clarify the issues raised by public and staff comments. Given the exhaustive process undertaken by the Planning Board to ensure all public and staff comments were collected, and then addressed via the FEIS, requiring a second DEIS would be prejudicial to the Applicant and is not appropriate when properly
applying the regulations set forth by the New York State SEQRA regulation.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-1
3.0 NATURAL RESOURCE RELATED COMMENTS
AND RESPONSES
3.1 Soils and Topography 3.1.1- Comments T-35; C-32:
“Note that the Suffolk County GIS Viewer map SLOSH layer identifies the parcel as being
affected by a Category 3 and 4 Hurricane. The only area excluded from the model is the southwest corner of the parcel. How will future potential flooding be addressed?”
Response to Comments:
a. “SLOSH” refers to the Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes computerized numerical model developed by the National Weather Service to estimate storm surge heights taking into account atmospheric pressure, size, forward speed, and track data. As
stated, this is a numerical model, not an absolute determination that an overland surge from
a hurricane will affect the Subject Property. b. As indicated on the SLOSH map for Orient hamlet (see Appendix O of FEIS), the majority of the entire Orient hamlet is potentially subject to water inundation due category
1 and 2 hurricanes, which are less severe than category 3 or 4 hurricanes.
c. As indicated on the SLOSH map for the Subject Property, the Subject Property is potentially subject to inundation due to category 3 and 4 hurricanes, as opposed to the majority of Orient hamlet where lesser hurricane strengths could potentially cause
inundation by water. As indicated on the SLOSH map, proposed lot 1 and a portion of the
farmland could be inundated by a category 3 hurricane. Proposed lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 could be inundated by a category 4 hurricane. As is true for the majority of Orient hamlet, the Subject Property could not physically prevent a storm surge from potentially effecting the property. Any stormwater inundation would recharge to the subsurface through the
naturally well drained Haven soils comprising the site (refer to DEIS Appendix I). d. Based on FEMA flood hazard maps, the Subject Property is located within Zone X which is an area of minimal flood hazard (see Appendix Q of the FEIS). While there is no specific
flood elevation governing the design of the floor elevations in the proposed homes, general
good design practice will be followed wherein the homes are slightly elevated as compared to the surrounding yard area so as to promote good drainage away from the structure and to allow ponded water to recharge to the subsurface within the yard areas.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-2
3.2 Water
3.2.1- Comment T-1: As written in the DEIS “The Suffolk County Department of Health Services has already
granted approval for the siting and preliminary design of the five proposed sanitary
systems.”
The Town comment is “This statement is false. Appendix G contains a letter from the SCDH Board of review that grants a variance with provisions. The letter and decision language
states “this waiver does not imply that your application will be automatically approved”.
The approval is specific to allow the use and treatment of known contaminated
groundwater in the area and to protect public health. Please retract all statements making reference to Suffolk County Department of Health Services “approval”.”
Response to Comment: The statement made in the DEIS is not false as demonstrated below: a. The SCDHS Notice of Non-Conformance dated 12/13/2018 (Appendix F of the DEIS)
on Appendix page A-66 states in pertinent part “Prior to scheduling a BOR hearing, provide the following: ….Conceptual lot layouts with design for sanitary systems 3’ min above highest groundwater, all proposed wells and neighboring wells with 150’ radius”. Appendix page A-67 further states in written comment #3 “Include a conceptual layout on map for each lot showing a dwelling, proposed well, and sewage disposal systems”, and in
written comment #9 “Add minimum separation distances to septic system in typical lot layout”. The Board of Review hearing was predicated on submission of a design plan providing the siting and preliminary design for all the sanitary systems in the proposed subdivision.
b. A design plan addressing the SCDHS comments (see Appendix G of the DEIS) was prepared and filed with the SCDHS 6/18/2019. That was the plan utilized at the SCDHS BOR hearing held 8/15/2019. The Board’s review of the waiver request included reviewing the proposed sanitary and water supply plan to establish the physical characteristics of the site with regard to sanitary system and water supply siting and preliminary design for the
purpose of confirming they complied with Departmental standards. c. The SCDHS BOR, in their decision (see Appendix G of DEIS), specifically reference the design of the sanitary systems as indicated on the submitted plan, to wit “All residential parcels will be served by on-site sewage disposal systems, to be designed in accordance
with Department design standards with sanitary leaching structures placed a minimum of 3 feet (ft.) above the highest expected groundwater elevation.”
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-3
d. Sanitary system and water supply design plans for each individual proposed parcel (see Appendix JJ) were most recently submitted to the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) Office of Wastewater Management (WWM) on November 22, 2021 for review under Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. The proposed sanitary system
designs used were conventional septic tank and leaching pool systems, as is permitted by
Article 6. SCDHS WWM issued a Notice of Incomplete Application (NOI) dated December 2021 for each of the proposed lots (see Appendix BB). As indicated in the NOIs, each proposed lot sanitary system and potable water supply will be approved upon completion of one ministerial task for each lot. The only task required is approval of the
subdivision map by the SCDHS.
3.2.2- Comment T-2: As written in the DEIS “The groundwater underlying the Subject Property contains concentrations of certain contaminants in excess of New York State Drinking Water
Standards (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 2020), i.e.
Nitrates, Aldicarb-Sulfoxide and Aldicarb-Sulfone. Groundwater will be used to supply domestic water to each of the proposed five dwellings. The potable water supplied from each of the wells will be treated to reduce the concentration of the three contaminants to below drinking water standards. When the used domestic water is discharged from the
homes, the total concentration of each contaminant shall be reduced from what the influent
would have been if no treatment were in place. Each of the five dwelling water treatment systems effectively act as a “pump and treat” remediation system, thereby aiding in improving the groundwater quality.”
The Town comment is “The DEIS claims a reduction of groundwater contamination.”
Response to Comment:
Yes, there will be a reduction in contaminants as described in the DEIS. The statement is
scientifically supported by the Law of Conservation of Mass. If, for example, 1 gram of Aldicarb dissolved in groundwater flows into a filtration device, and the filtration device removes 0.8 grams of Aldicarb, the treated water effluent from the filtration device will have 0.2 grams of Aldicarb, which is a reduction in the amount of the contaminant.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-4
3.2.3- Comment T-3: As written in the DEIS “The groundwater underlying the Subject Property contains concentrations of certain contaminants in excess of New York State Drinking Water Standards (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 2020), i.e.
Nitrates, Aldicarb-Sulfoxide and Aldicarb-Sulfone. Groundwater will be used to supply
domestic water to each of the proposed five dwellings. The potable water supplied from each of the wells will be treated to reduce the concentration of the three contaminants to below drinking water standards. When the used domestic water is discharged from the homes, the total concentration of each contaminant shall be reduced from what the influent
would have been if no treatment were in place. Each of the five dwelling water treatment
systems effectively act as a “pump and treat” remediation system, thereby aiding in improving the groundwater quality.” The Town comment is “The claim is not voluntary as presented, rather is a requirement of
the SCDH approval”
Response to Comment:
The language used in the DEIS did not state or imply the reduction of contaminants in the
groundwater supply was voluntary. The language was a discussion of the benefit provided to the community at large by treating the groundwater that is to be used as potable water for the proposed homes.
3.2.4- Comment T-4; C-13:
“Recognizing the levels of contaminants in groundwater, why wasn’t a nitrogen reducing
I/A OWTS proposed to treat total nitrogen load in the sanitary effluent thereby reducing
impacts to groundwater and surface waters?” Response to Comment:
a. The question is based on supposition. You must first establish the Proposed Action creates an impact of any significance to groundwater and surface waters before evaluating what potential benefit there would be by use of an I/A OWTS. The issue of nitrogen loading is discussed elsewhere in this document.
8. b. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services is the governmental agency with direct jurisdictional responsibility for protecting the water resources of the entire County (see section 760-602 in Appendix K of the FEIS), including the hamlet of Orient. Article
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-5
6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code permits use of non-I/A OWTS for new home
construction submitted to the Department prior to July 1, 2021. It also allows use of non-I/A systems in certain circumstances after July 1, 2021. Sanitary system plans for each proposed home were filed with the SCDHS prior to July 1, 2021. Sanitary system and water supply design plans for each individual proposed parcel (see Appendix JJ) were most
recently submitted to the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) Office
of Wastewater Management (WWM) on November 22, 2021 for review under Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. The proposed sanitary system designs used were conventional septic tank and leaching pool systems, as is permitted by Article 6. SCDHS WWM issued a Notice of Incomplete Application (NOI) dated December 2021 for each of
the proposed lots (see Appendix BB). As indicated in the NOIs, each proposed lot sanitary
system and potable water supply will be approved upon completion of one ministerial task for each lot. The only task required is approval of the subdivision map by the SCDHS. Approval of the sanitary system and water supply plan for each individual lot (pending only one ministerial task) demonstrates the agency with direct jurisdictional responsibility for water and wastewater in the County has determined I/A OWTS are not required for the
proposed homes. c. Test wells were drilled and groundwater beneath the Subject Property was sampled and analyzed by the SCDHS. The laboratory results provided by SCDHS dated 2/29/2016 (see
Appendix K in DEIS) indicate the nitrate concentration in both wells was below the MCL
(Maximum Contaminant Level) set forth in the New York State Drinking Water Standards. d. A second set of test wells were drilled to a deeper depth (as required by SCDHS standards) and groundwater beneath the Subject Property was sampled and analyzed by the
SCDHS. The laboratory results provided by SCDHS dated 1/19/2018 (see Appendix N in
DEIS) indicate the nitrate concentration in test well #1 was below the MCL and the nitrate level in test well #2 was slightly above (11.2 mg/l actual versus 10.0 mg/l permitted) the MCL set forth in the New York State Drinking Water Standards. Groundwater flow at the Subject Property is generally in the southeast direction. Test well #2 is located along the
northeasterly property line of the Subject Property, approximately 515 feet from Halyoake
Road. As such, the elevated nitrate concentration found in test well #2 is from off-site sources including, but not limited to, homes up-gradient of the Subject Property that utilize cesspools in lieu of conventional septic tank based sanitary systems.
e. I/A OWTS systems have some drawbacks when compared to conventional sanitary
systems including, but not limited to, mechanical failure; loss of equilibrium (which causes the effluent wastewater to exceed the nitrogen limit established for I/A systems) due to homeowner errors such as introducing cleaning agents or paint, or turning the power off to the unit during seasonal absence; use of resources such as energy to power the units and trips to the site by maintenance personnel for operation and maintenance; and additional
costs for initial construction, operation, and maintenance.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-6
3.2.5- Comment T-6: “Please provide a detailed analysis of the effectiveness of the conventional on-site sanitary system versus an I/A OWTS in treating total nitrogen.”
Response to Comment: a. The requested information is beyond the scope of the DEIS or FEIS. The purpose of the
DEIS and FEIS is to evaluate potential impacts to the Subject Property and surrounding
area, not evaluate a particular technology. b. The issue as to what significant impact, if any, there is on the concentration of nitrates present in the groundwater due to the use of conventional sanitary systems for the five
proposed homes in lieu of I/A OWTS is addressed elsewhere in this document.
3.2.6- Comment T-8: “Please provide a detailed technical analysis, study, and discussion regarding the sole source aquifer and its characteristics including the depth of freshwater, freshwater lens,
saltwater/freshwater interface, water supply wells, flow rates, spacing of water supply
wells, other existing private water wells in the vicinity of the site.”
Response to Comment:
a. The detailed technical analysis, study, and discussion regarding the sole source aquifer
and its characteristics including depth of freshwater, freshwater lens, and saltwater/freshwater interface is included in Appendix R. b. Water supply wells (Generally) - The DEIS section 3.2, pages 3-5 through 3-7 inclusive
discussed the proposed potable and irrigation water wells.
c. Water supply wells (Potable) - In accordance with SCDHS “Private Water Systems Standards”, the potable water wells for the proposed five homes will be approximately 55 feet deep with the well screen starting at approximately 15 feet below grade. Each well will
have a yield rate of approximately 5 gallons per minute, which is the minimum SCDHS
acceptable yield rate.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-7
d. Water supply well (Irrigation) - In accordance with the NYSDEC irrigation well permit
(Appendix O of the DEIS), the irrigation well be six inches in diameter with a maximum depth of 45 feet. The well yield is limited to 175 gallons per minute with a maximum annual pumpage of 4,000,000 gallons.
e. Spacing of water supply wells – The proposed locations for the potable and irrigation
water supply wells is illustrated on the subdivision map submitted to the SCDHS in June 2019 (see Appendix G of the DEIS). The wells have been placed to conform to the minimum distance requirement between potable wells and sanitary system components as required by SCDHS design standards promulgated under Article 6 of the Suffolk County
Sanitary Code. The minimum distance between potable water supply wells (existing and
proposed), and sanitary system components, is 150 feet. The referenced plan also indicates the location of existing private water supply wells within 150 feet of the Subject Property.
3.2.7- Comments T-9; C-7; C-15:
“What is the aquifer’s capacity to support the proposed new homes and agricultural use?”
Response to Comment: a. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services is the governmental agency with
direct jurisdictional responsibility for protecting the water resources of the entire County
(see section 760-602 in Appendix K of the FEIS), including the hamlet of Orient, and regulating potable water supply wells within the Orient hamlet. The proposed subdivision map was filed with the SCDHS, was reviewed by the technical staff, and by the Board of Review. The Board of Review granted a waiver for use of the groundwater underlying the
subject site for the proposed homes. The waiver was unrelated to the capacity of the aquifer
to provide the required volume of water for each proposed home. Based on SCDHS design criteria, each home is anticipated to use 300 gallons per day. b. Plans for the sanitary system and private water supply wells for each proposed lot were
filed with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. The plans were reviewed by
the SCDHS and comments were issued (see Appendix BB of the FEIS). The comments indicate SCDHS has approved the plans for all five lots pending one ministerial action, i.e. approval of the overall subdivision map, thus indicating no issue exists with regard to the aquifer’s capacity to provide the required water supply. c. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, under 6 NYCRR Part 602, known as the Long Island Well Program, is the governmental agency with direct jurisdictional responsibility for water withdrawals greater than 45 gallons per minute on a
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-8
single property, except for public water supplies. The Long Island Well Program
contributes to the protection and conservation of available water supplies. Issuance of the irrigation well permit by the governmental agency with direct responsibility for aquifer protection and conservation is constructive notice that the aquifer has the capacity to support the intended uses. Furthermore, the irrigation well permit contains conditions for
protection of the aquifer including water testing twice per year and chloride intrusion
monitoring.
3.2.8- Comment T-10: “What is the water budget for the proposed action including agricultural uses?” Response to Comment:
Based on SCDHS design criteria, each single family home is considered to discharge 300 gallons per day of wastewater which includes consumption and excretion of water by the building occupants, personal hygiene, laundering, and general maintenance. The total water usage attributable to the five homes is therefore estimated to be 547,500 gallons per
year. During limited periods of the year, the landscaping associated with the proposed residential homes may require irrigation. The proposed residences draw irrigation water from the same well as the potable water. The future residents will, in all likelihood, minimize the use of
water for irrigation purposes as the irrigation water cost money to produce due to the well pump running, and increases the cost and frequency of maintenance/replacement of the water treatment device used to treat the well water (unless the irrigation water is drawn of the well pump outlet pipe prior to passing through the whole house treatment device). It is anticipated that each lot will utilize native, drought tolerant plants within their landscaped
areas. For the purposes of estimating the water budget for this project it is assumed that a maximum of 0.33 acres per building lot will require irrigation for turf grass. Cormell Cooperative Extension published a guideline for irrigation of turf. The recommendation for irrigation to supplement natural precipitation, as it applies to the soil present on the Subject Property, is the application of 0.7 inches of water per week during May; 0.7 inches
twice per week during June, July, and August; and consists of applying 0.7 inches; 0.7 inches per week during September; and 0.5 inches per week during October. Applying the suggested irrigation application rate, the total water usage attributable to domestic irrigation for the five homes is estimated to be 1,093,155 per year.
During limited times of the yearly growing season, the proposed crop may require supplemental irrigation. At present, the proposed primary crop is anticipated to be corn. Crop rotation is a fundamental part of good farming practice. For every five year cycle, it
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-9
is anticipated that corn will be grown for 3 years and an alternate crop (such as vegetables)
will be grown in the remaining 2 years. For purposes of irrigation water demand estimation, corn is being used as it is anticipated to be the crop with the higher water demand. An estimation as to the amount of water used for crop irrigation is subject to substantial
variation. The irrigation requirements for corn differs from alternate crops that will be
grown on the Subject Property. The following discussion is related to corn, which is anticipated to be the crop with the greater irrigation water demand. The irrigation demand of corn varies during specific stages of the plants development. If natural precipitation meeting those varying demands for water occurs during those specific stages of plant
development, supplemental irrigation by use of the NYSDEC approved irrigation well
system will not be required. An analysis of the potential need for irrigation water during the entire growing season is presented in Appendix S of the FEIS. The analysis was based on using the yearly average precipitation that occurred on Long Island at the monitoring station located closest to the Subject Property between 2010 and 2020 inclusive. That
monitoring station is located in Laurel. The analysis demonstrates the following:
• During the eleven year precipitation period studied, the greatest amount of natural precipitation that fell during the growing season occurred in 2011 and exceeded the amount of water required for the growing season. This establishes the lower threshold for irrigation water at zero gallons per year.
• During the eleven year precipitation period studied, the average annual precipitation during the growing season was 15.89 inches. This establishes the average irrigation water demand requirement to be 2,038,466 gallons.
• During the eleven year precipitation period studied, the least amount of natural
precipitation that fell during the growing season occurred in 2020. This establishes the highest threshold for irrigation water at 3,486,368 gallons.
It is noted that the choice as to whether or not to irrigate must be made by the farmer and is based upon his anticipated crop yield and return for the expense of providing irrigation
water and best farming practices. If the overall benefit of irrigating the crop to obtain a
higher bushel yield per acre does not outweigh the cost of providing the irrigation water, irrigation will likely not occur regardless of the average seasonal water requirement for the specific crop. In addition, it has been demonstrated that corn crops that are over-irrigated, or are in wet soils, have reduced bushel yields. There is a considerable amount of incentive
for the farmer not to over-irrigate the crops.
Based on the foregoing, the total water budget for the proposed project can be calculated as follows:
During a best case no crop irrigation water demand year: 1,640,655 gallons
During an average natural precipitation year: 3,679,121 gallons
During a worst case crop irrigation water demand year: 5,127,023 gallons
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-10
3.2.9- Comments T-11; C-9:
“What mitigation will be provided to prevent up-coning and salt water intrusion into the
aquifer?” Response to Comment:
a. The proposed domestic water supply wells have a maximum depth of approximately 65 feet (approximate NAVD 88 elevation of -53 feet) and produce a flow rate of approximately 5 gallons per minute. In accordance with SCDHS criteria, a minimum of 40 feet of groundwater shall be above the bottom of the well, thus the depth of the minimum depth of the well is effectively set by statute. Freshwater is limited to the upper glacial
aquifer above the top of the lower confining unit2 lying beneath the Subject Property. The lower confining unit is a layer of Glacial Lake Clay3 that serves as a physical separation between the freshwater above the clay layer and the saltwater beneath it. The vertical hydraulic conductivity of the Glacial Lake Clay layer is only 0.1 feet per day (compared to
20 feet per day above the clay layer), indicating there is very limited vertical movement of
water through the clay layer. The elevation of the upper surface of the Glacial Lake Clay confining unit of the aquifer is at an approximate NAVD 88 elevation of -71 feet4. The bottom of the domestic well casing will be at an approximate NAVD 88 elevation of -53 feet. There is a vertical separation of approximately 18 feet between the upper surface of
the aquifer confining unit and the well pump. The 18 foot vertical separation of the bottom
of the domestic well casing from the Glacial Lake Clay layer, coupled with the extremely limited vertical movement of water (fresh or salt) through the Glacial Lake Clay layer and very low well draw rate makes up-coning of saltwater into the domestic well a statistically improbable occurrence. The existing geologic formation and vertical separation between
the bottom of the domestic well casing and the top of the Glacial Lake Clay layer
effectively prevents up-coning of saltwater into the domestic wells. Furthermore, the relatively high hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer above the Glacial Lake Clay layer allows the domestic wells to effectively operate without creating an up-coning effect. No mitigation is required.
2 “Hydrologic Framework of the North Fork and Surrounding Areas, Long Island, New York”, U.S.G.S. 2004; Page
18 3 “Hydrologic Framework of the North Fork and Surrounding Areas, Long Island, New York”, U.S.G.S. 2004; Plate 1E 4 “Hydrologic Framework of the North Fork and Surrounding Areas, Long Island, New York”, U.S.G.S. 2004; Plate
3B
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-11
b. Freshwater is limited to the upper glacial aquifer above the top of the lower confining
unit5 lying beneath the Subject Property. The lower confining unit is a layer of Glacial Lake Clay6 that serves as a physical separation between the freshwater above the clay layer and the saltwater beneath it. The vertical hydraulic conductivity of the Glacial Lake Clay layer is only 0.1 feet per day (compared to 20 feet per day above the clay layer), indicating there is very limited vertical movement of water through the clay layer. The elevation of
the upper surface of the Glacial Lake Clay confining unit of the aquifer is at an approximate NAVD 88 elevation of -71 feet7. The bottom of the irrigation well casing will be at an approximate NAVD 88 elevation of -30 feet. There is a vertical separation of approximately 41 feet between the upper surface of the aquifer confining unit and the well pump. The 41 foot vertical separation of the bottom of the irrigation well casing from the
Glacial Lake Clay layer, coupled with the extremely limited vertical movement of water (fresh or salt) through the Glacial Lake Clay layer makes up-coning of saltwater into the irrigation well a statistically improbable occurrence. The existing geologic formation and vertical separation between the bottom of the irrigation well casing and the top of the Glacial Lake Clay layer effectively prevents up-coning of saltwater into the irrigation well.
Furthermore, the relatively high hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer above the Glacial Lake Clay layer allows the irrigation well to effectively operate without creating an up-coning effect, particular since the amount of time the irrigation pump runs per day is limited, and the number of days the pump must run is limited. As a precautionary measure, the NYSDEC irrigation well permit requires chloride sampling at the beginning and end of
the growing season, to aide in detecting saltwater intrusion before it becomes problematic. The chloride monitoring limit set by the NYSDEC (65 mg/l) is significantly less than the chloride concentration permitted in drinking water (250 mg/l), thus providing a significant margin of safety in detecting saltwater intrusion before the concentration approaches the permissible concentration limit for drinking water. No mitigation is required.
5 “Hydrologic Framework of the North Fork and Surrounding Areas, Long Island, New York”, U.S.G.S. 2004; Page
18 6 “Hydrologic Framework of the North Fork and Surrounding Areas, Long Island, New York”, U.S.G.S. 2004; Plate 1E 7 “Hydrologic Framework of the North Fork and Surrounding Areas, Long Island, New York”, U.S.G.S. 2004; Plate
3B
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-12
3.2.10- Comment T-12:
As written in the DEIS “Based on the Subject Property size of 13.3± acres, Suffolk County Wastewater Management could potentially allow as many as13 single family residential homes to be constructed on the Subject Property.”
The Town comment is “This statement confuses the reader and the issues. Southold Town
zoning would not permit greater than one single family residential unit per 80,000 sq. ft. in the R-80 zoning district regardless of the SCDH Article 6 density regulations. Please clarify why this density on the parcel is not permissible.”
Response to Comment:
a. Section 3.2 of the DEIS is specific to water, not zoning. The Town zoning code has nothing to do with the allowable development density with regard to water and wastewater.
The allowable density under the zoning code was addressed elsewhere in the DEIS. Article
6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code sets forth the density limits, with regard to water and wastewater, which is what this section of the DEIS addresses.
b. As stated in the Suffolk County Board of review variance approval (see page A-70 in Appendix H of the DEIS), item 5 states “The parcel would yield 13 residential lots based
on the Suffolk County Sanitary Code Article 6 lot size requirements. The statement made
in the DEIS is accurate.
3.2.11- Comment T-13: “The DEIS states that public water supply is unavailable for the Subject Property. It is important to note that public water is not available for the entire surrounding area and
that potable water supply is obtained from a sole source aquifer, and in addition the test
wells show signs of contamination requiring filtration for any future homes on the site.” Response to Comment:
a. Recognition that public water is unavailable for the surrounding area is presented in the DEIS. First, the proposed subdivision map prepared for the Suffolk County Department of Health Service (Appendix G of the DEIS) specifically shows the locations of private wells for properties within 150 feet of the Subject Property, and no public water mains in the
streets. Second, the SCDHS Board of Review variance approval (see page A-71 in
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-13
Appendix H of the DEIS), item 17 states “The applicant submitted a Suffolk County Water
Availability letter dated September 13, 2019 stating a water main extension of 10,000 feet would be required” thus indicating there is no public water within 10,000 feet of the Subject Property.
b. The potable water supply is from a sole source aquifer. This fact is inherent in the
discussion of water and Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code on page 3-3 of the DEIS. The very first section of Article 6 states the water source for Suffolk County is a Federally designated sole source aquifer.
c. Test well contamination and the requirement for filtration for the future homes is fully
discussed in the DEIS. First, pages 3-5 and 3-6 of the DEIS discuss the test wells and the laboratory results showing contamination, as well as the requirement to filter the potable water for the proposed homes. Second, the SCDHS Board of Review variance approval (see pages A-71 and A-72 in Appendix H of the DEIS), specifically state the future home
potable water supply must be filtered and the specific contaminants of concern.
3.2.12- Comment T-14: “The Planning Board disagrees with the statement made on page 3-6 that “Based on SCDHS approval of the variance, which includes the engineering design layout for the
proposed sanitary system and potable water supply well for each proposed residential
home, no significant impact to the groundwater quality or quantity is anticipated.”
Response to Comment:
The Town’s position on this issue is not supported by the facts. Please refer to the SCDHS Board of Review variance approval (see page A-72 of Appendix H of the DEIS), which states in pertinent parts:
• “The variance should not impair groundwater, surface water and drinking water supplies
• The granting of the requested variance will not adversely affect the design of an adequate on-site water supply and/or sewage disposal system, taking
into account soil conditions, depth to groundwater, and site specific
physical conditions”
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-14
• As per §760-609 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, the approval of the variance with the specified conditions is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Sanitary Code to protect groundwater and drinking water supplies, surface water and other natural resources, and public health, safety and welfare.”
3.2.13- Comment T-15: “The Planning Board strongly disagrees with the statement also made on page 3-4 “SCDHS approval would not have been issued had the SCDHS review identified a significant impact””
Response to Comment: The Town’s position on this issue is not supported by the facts. As per section 760-612 of
Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code (see Appendix K of the FEIS), the Board of Review cannot, by law, issue a variance or waiver without making a determination that no significant impact would occur. The Board of Review made the required determination for the Subject Property and the proposed project. Please refer to the SCDHS Board of Review variance approval (see page A-72 of Appendix H of the DEIS), which states in pertinent
parts:
• “The variance should not impair groundwater, surface water and drinking water supplies
• The granting of the requested variance will not adversely affect the design of an adequate on-site water supply and/or sewage disposal system, taking into account soil conditions, depth to groundwater, and site specific physical conditions”
• As per §760-609 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, the approval of the variance with the specified conditions is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Sanitary Code to protect groundwater and drinking water supplies, surface water and other natural resources, and
public health, safety and welfare.”
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-15
3.2.14- Comment T-16:
The following Town comment relates to the proposed crop irrigation well: “What is the projected gallons per day year over year?”
Response to Comment: a. Town Code section 280-97.B (see Appendix H of the FEIS) states “Agricultural activities conducted on farmland, undertaken in compliance with applicable federal, state,
county and Town laws, rules and regulations, are presumed to be good agricultural
practices and presumed not to adversely affect the public health safety and welfare. We find that whatever nuisance may be caused to others by such uses and activities, so conducted, is more than offset by the benefits from farming to the community. Therefore, all such activities shall be protected farm practices within the Town of Southold.” The
irrigation well is part of normal and customary “agricultural activities”. As such, the use of
the irrigation well is, based on Town law, ”presumed not to adversely affect public health safety and welfare”. b. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, under 6 NYCRR Part
602, known as the Long Island Well Program, is the governmental agency with direct
jurisdictional responsibility for water withdrawals greater than 45 gallons per minute on a single property, except for public water supplies. In accordance with State law, the NYSDEC has issued approval for construction of an irrigation well (refer to Appendix O of the DEIS). The irrigation well is part of normal and customary “agricultural activities”
undertaken in compliance with State law. As such, the use of the irrigation well is, based
on Town law, ”presumed not to adversely affect public health safety and welfare”. c. The irrigation well is intended to supplement natural precipitation when the amount of precipitation is below that which is required for the crop being grown.
d. The growing season shall span roughly between May 15th and September 15th. For 241 days of the year, the daily irrigation water use shall be zero gallons per day. e. During the growing season the amount of irrigation water being used will vary depending
on the water required for the crop being grown; the water demand of the crop at that specific
stage of its development; atmospheric conditions including wind speed, atmospheric pressure, heat, and rate of evapotranspiration; and soil conditions including the amount of free water available at various depths of the root zone. There is no one specific answer to the question being asked. f. An estimation of the amount of irrigation water required for the growing season was prepared and is presented in Appendix S of the FEIS. The growing season is estimated to be 124 days long. An estimation can be made based on the total irrigation water demand
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-16
for the season being broken down to a daily usage basis with an equal amount of irrigation
water being required each day of the growing season. For a year where there is natural precipitation during the growing season equal to the average precipitation recorded for the past 11 years on the North Fork of Long Island, the daily usage would be 16,439 gallons per day during the growing season. In a worst case scenario where the natural precipitation
during the growing season was equal to the lowest amount of precipitation recorded for the
past 11 years on the North Fork of Long Island, the daily usage would be 28,116 gallons per day during the growing season. g. The above daily estimates for irrigation water usage are based on a corn crop. Crop
rotation is anticipated. It is further anticipated that 2 out of every 5 years will have a lower
irrigation water demand as the crop being planted will have a lower irrigation water demand than corn. h. The year over year water estimates will remain constant when corn is the crop being
planted. The year over year estimate will be lower during years when a crop other than
corn is being grown.
3.2.15- Comment T-17:
The following Town comment relates to the proposed crop irrigation well: “What is the
projected zone of influence from the well head?”
Response to Comment:
a. Town Code section 280-97.B (see Appendix H of the FEIS) states “Agricultural activities conducted on farmland, undertaken in compliance with applicable federal, state, county and Town laws, rules and regulations, are presumed to be good agricultural practices and presumed not to adversely affect the public health safety and welfare. We
find that whatever nuisance may be caused to others by such uses and activities, so
conducted, is more than offset by the benefits from farming to the community. Therefore, all such activities shall be protected farm practices within the Town of Southold.” The irrigation well is part of normal and customary “agricultural activities”. As such, the use of the irrigation well is, based on Town law, ”presumed not to adversely affect public health
safety and welfare”.
b. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, under 6 NYCRR Part 602, known as the Long Island Well Program, is the governmental agency with direct
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-17
jurisdictional responsibility for water withdrawals greater than 45 gallons per minute on a
single property, except for public water supplies. In accordance with State law, the NYSDEC has issued approval for construction of an irrigation well (refer to Appendix O of the DEIS). As such, the zone of influence of the irrigation well pump is, based on State law, presumed not to adversely affect public health safety and welfare as they would not
have issued the permit.
c. The estimated zone of influence for the proposed irrigation well pump is a horizontal radius of 85 feet from the location of the irrigation well. Refer to Appendix DD of the FEIS for the calculation details.
3.2.16- Comment T-18:
The following Town comment relates to the proposed crop irrigation well: “What are the potential impacts to private wells in the surrounding area?”
Response to Comment: a. Town Code section 280-97.B (see Appendix H of the FEIS) states “Agricultural activities conducted on farmland, undertaken in compliance with applicable federal, state,
county and Town laws, rules and regulations, are presumed to be good agricultural
practices and presumed not to adversely affect the public health safety and welfare. We find that whatever nuisance may be caused to others by such uses and activities, so conducted, is more than offset by the benefits from farming to the community. Therefore, all such activities shall be protected farm practices within the Town of Southold.” The
irrigation well is part of normal and customary “agricultural activities”. As such, the use of
the irrigation well is, based on Town law, ”presumed not to adversely affect public health safety and welfare”. b. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, under 6 NYCRR Part
602, known as the Long Island Well Program, is the governmental agency with direct
jurisdictional responsibility for water withdrawals greater than 45 gallons per minute on a single property, except for public water supplies. In accordance with State law, the NYSDEC has issued approval for construction of an irrigation well (refer to Appendix O of the DEIS). As such, the zone of influence of the irrigation well pump is, based on State law, presumed not to adversely affect public health safety and welfare as they would not
have issued the permit.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-18
c. No impacts to the surrounding existing wells are anticipated. The zone of influence for
the proposed irrigation well is 85 horizontal feet from the irrigation well location (see Appendix DD of the FEIS). The nearest existing well is more than 400 feet away from the proposed irrigation well (see Appendix G of the DEIS).
3.2.17- Comment T-19:
The following Town comment relates to the proposed crop irrigation well: “What are
mitigation measures for the potential impact?”
Response to Comment:
a. Town Code section 280-97.B (see Appendix H of the FEIS) states “Agricultural activities conducted on farmland, undertaken in compliance with applicable federal, state, county and Town laws, rules and regulations, are presumed to be good agricultural practices and presumed not to adversely affect the public health safety and welfare. We
find that whatever nuisance may be caused to others by such uses and activities, so conducted, is more than offset by the benefits from farming to the community. Therefore, all such activities shall be protected farm practices within the Town of Southold.” The irrigation well is part of normal and customary “agricultural activities”. As such, the use of the irrigation well is, based on Town law, ”presumed not to adversely affect public health
safety and welfare”. b. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, under 6 NYCRR Part 602, known as the Long Island Well Program, is the governmental agency with direct
jurisdictional responsibility for water withdrawals greater than 45 gallons per minute on a
single property, except for public water supplies. In accordance with State law, the NYSDEC has issued approval for construction of an irrigation well (refer to Appendix O of the DEIS). As such, the irrigation well is, based on State law, presumed not to adversely affect public health safety and welfare as they would not have issued the permit.
Furthermore, the NYSDEC well permit includes monitoring requirements for saltwater
intrusion, the right to require additional monitoring, and the right to modify the permit conditions. c. Mitigation, for SEQR purposes, relates to measures that could reduce or minimize
adverse impacts, and/or measures that could produce benefits. An adverse impact must first
be identified before mitigation measures need to be evaluated or implemented. No scientific based information has been put forth by the public or lead agency to demonstrate a potential adverse impact related to the irrigation well is reasonably probable. As stated in
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-19
response 3.2.15, a horizontal separation distance of more than four times the irrigation
well’s zone of influence exists between the nearest water supply well and the irrigation well. The irrigation well zone of influence does not affect the existing adjacent wells.
3.2.18- Comment T-21:
The following Town comment relates to the proposed crop irrigation well: “How will up-
coning of salt water be prevented”
Response to Comment:
a. Town Code section 280-97.B (see Appendix H of the FEIS) states “Agricultural activities conducted on farmland, undertaken in compliance with applicable federal, state, county and Town laws, rules and regulations, are presumed to be good agricultural practices and presumed not to adversely affect the public health safety and welfare. We
find that whatever nuisance may be caused to others by such uses and activities, so
conducted, is more than offset by the benefits from farming to the community. Therefore, all such activities shall be protected farm practices within the Town of Southold.” The irrigation well is part of normal and customary “agricultural activities”. As such, the use of the irrigation well is, based on Town law, ”presumed not to adversely affect public health
safety and welfare”.
b. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, under 6 NYCRR Part 602, known as the Long Island Well Program, is the governmental agency with direct jurisdictional responsibility for water withdrawals greater than 45 gallons per minute on a single property, except for public water supplies. In accordance with State law, the
NYSDEC has issued approval for construction of an irrigation well (refer to Appendix O of the DEIS). As such, the irrigation well pump is, based on State law, presumed not to adversely affect public health safety and welfare as they would not have issued the permit.
c. The geologic formation at the location of the proposed irrigation well, coupled with the
limited irrigation periods, and depth of the proposed irrigation well, create conditions whereby up-coning of saltwater does not have a reasonable probability of occurring. Freshwater is limited to the upper glacial aquifer above the top of the lower confining unit8 lying beneath the Subject Property. The lower confining unit is a layer of Glacial Lake
8 “Hydrologic Framework of the North Fork and Surrounding Areas, Long Island, New York”, U.S.G.S. 2004; Page
18
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-20
Clay9 that serves as a physical separation between the freshwater above the clay layer and
the saltwater beneath it. The vertical hydraulic conductivity of the Glacial Lake Clay layer is only 0.1 feet per day (compared to 20 feet per day above the clay layer), indicating there is very limited vertical movement of water through the clay layer. The elevation of the upper surface of the Glacial Lake Clay confining unit of the aquifer is at an approximate
NAVD 88 elevation of -71 feet10. The bottom of the irrigation well casing will be at an
approximate NAVD 88 elevation of -30 feet. There is a vertical separation of approximately 41 feet between the upper surface of the aquifer confining unit and the well pump. The 41 foot vertical separation of the bottom of the irrigation well casing from the Glacial lake Clay layer, coupled with the extremely limited vertical movement of water
(fresh or salt) through the Glacial Lake Clay layer makes up-coning of saltwater into the
irrigation well a statistically improbable occurrence. The existing geologic formation and vertical separation between the bottom of the irrigation well casing and the top of the Glacial Lake Clay layer effectively prevents up-coning of saltwater into the irrigation well. Furthermore, the relatively high hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer above the Glacial
Lake Clay layer allows the irrigation well to effectively operate without creating an up-
coning effect, particularly since the amount of time the irrigation pump runs per day is limited, and the number of days the pump must run is limited.
9 “Hydrologic Framework of the North Fork and Surrounding Areas, Long Island, New York”, U.S.G.S. 2004; Plate 1E 10 “Hydrologic Framework of the North Fork and Surrounding Areas, Long Island, New York”, U.S.G.S. 2004;
Plate 3B
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-21
3.2.19- Comment T-22:
The following Town comment relates to the proposed crop irrigation well: “What are the drought weather patterns for this location?”
Response to Comment: a. Town Code section 280-97.B (see Appendix H of the FEIS) states “Agricultural activities conducted on farmland, undertaken in compliance with applicable federal, state,
county and Town laws, rules and regulations, are presumed to be good agricultural
practices and presumed not to adversely affect the public health safety and welfare. We find that whatever nuisance may be caused to others by such uses and activities, so conducted, is more than offset by the benefits from farming to the community. Therefore, all such activities shall be protected farm practices within the Town of Southold.” The
irrigation well is part of normal and customary “agricultural activities”. As such, the use of
the irrigation well is, based on Town law, ”presumed not to adversely affect public health safety and welfare”. b. A detailed review of this issue is presented in Appendix CC of the FEIS. Based on the
100 year period from 1900-2000, the data compiled and analyzed by the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climate Data Center (NCDC) indicates periods of drought are cyclical in nature, and the overall PHDI for the 100 year time frame indicates the total PHDI for non-drought periods exceeded the total PHDI of drought periods. Based on the total net positive PHDI, non-drought conditions exist.
3.2.20- Comment T-23:
The following Town comment relates to the proposed crop irrigation well: “What specific best management practices will be employed to conserve water used to support crops or livestock?”
Response to Comment: a. Town Code section 280-97.B (see Appendix H of the FEIS) states “Agricultural
activities conducted on farmland, undertaken in compliance with applicable federal, state,
county and Town laws, rules and regulations, are presumed to be good agricultural practices and presumed not to adversely affect the public health safety and welfare. We find that whatever nuisance may be caused to others by such uses and activities, so
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-22
conducted, is more than offset by the benefits from farming to the community. Therefore,
all such activities shall be protected farm practices within the Town of Southold.” The irrigation well is part of normal and customary “agricultural activities”. As such, the use of the irrigation well is, based on Town law, ”presumed not to adversely affect public health safety and welfare”.
b. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, under 6 NYCRR Part 602, known as the Long Island Well Program, is the governmental agency with direct jurisdictional responsibility for water withdrawals greater than 45 gallons per minute on a single property, except for public water supplies. In accordance with State law, the NYSDEC has issued approval for construction of an irrigation well (refer to Appendix O
of the DEIS). As such, the zone of influence of the irrigation well pump is, based on State law, presumed not to adversely affect public health safety and welfare as they would not have issued the permit.
c. While water conservation is an important issue, the groundwater recharge rate at the
Subject Property exceeds the amount of water consumed/lost on the Subject Property (see Appendix FF of the FEIS). The aquifer gains water, even during years requiring the maximum amount of crop irrigation.
d. Management of the crop fields shall include regular use of the evapotranspiration (ET)
data published by Cornell Cooperative Extension. The ET data will be used to help determine when irrigation water needs to be applied. e. Soil moisture readings shall be used, in concert with the ET data, to determine the
irrigation demand for the crop being grown. By monitoring the soil moisture in the root
zone, the amount of irrigation water applied to the field can be optimized, thereby conserving water. f. Irrigation water requirements vary greatly based on the type of crop being grown, and
the stage of growth. For example, the need to irrigate corn is critical at limited times during
the growth cycle of the plant. Irrigation during non-critical plant growth periods will be minimized for conservation purposes, and as over-watering will increase expense (to produce the irrigation water) while decreasing crop yield.
g. One aspect of crop seed selection shall be the water required to grow the crop. Some of
the more recent hybrid seeds require less water per growing cycle, thus minimizing the irrigation water demand. h. Best irrigation practices will be developed with the assistance of the Cornell Cooperative
Extension, Long Island Farm Bureau, New York Farm Bureau and the experience of local
farmers and other farming professionals.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-23
3.2.21- Comment T-25; C-5; C-10; C-38: “The Planning Board strongly disagrees with the statement “The impact of thirteen single family homes discharging wastewater to the Subject Property is therefore deemed
acceptable by the SCDHS with regard to potential impacts to surface and groundwater
quality from the wastewater discharge.” There is no basis to support this assertion. Article 6 does not account for current conditions, is outdated and cannot supersede the Town zoning on the parcel.”
Response to Comment: a. There is a basis for the statement made in the DEIS which is supported by the facts.
Article 6 specifically states in pertinent part (see Appendix K of the FEIS, appendix page
A-179) “Properly designed, sited, installed, managed, and maintained wastewater treatment infrastructure provides a cost-effective and environmentally sound means of protecting Suffolk County’s water resources and improving public health protection. To promulgate the use of Community Sewerage Systems and improve the effectiveness of
Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems, the intent and purpose of this Article is to: a)
Continue the lot size and Population Density Equivalent requirements of this Article”. The phrase “water resources” includes surface and sub-surface waters as stated in section 760-601 of Article 6. As established by Article 6, and as specifically stated in the SCDHS Board of Review variance, the Subject Property would be permitted to construct thirteen single
family homes as that is the allowable population density. The construction of thirteen
homes complies with County law. b. The comment “Article 6 does not account for current conditions” is not supported by the facts to wit:
• Multiple test wells were drilled on the Subject Property. Groundwater samples were extracted from those test wells by the SCDHS and analyzed by the SCDHS as recently as 2018.
• A subdivision map was prepared and filed with the SCDHS in June 2019 (see Appendix G of the DEIS). The map indicated the locations of all private water supply wells within 150 feet of the Subject Property, the soil conditions on site, the depth to water on site, and the proposed location of all private water supply wells and sanitary systems for the proposed five
homes.
• The SCDHS Board of Review evaluated site specific attributes of the project and surrounding area, and issued a variance determination with detailed, specific site information on December 17, 2019.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-24
c. With regard to the comment that Article 6 is outdated, the comment on this issue is not
supported by the facts. The last page of Article 6 (see Appendix K of the FEIS, appendix page A-203) lists all the dates wherein Article 6 was amended. The two most recent dates of amendment are 12/1/2020 and 1/1/2018.
d. With regard to the comment that Article 6 cannot supersede the Town zoning on the
parcel, the DEIS never stated it could. Section 3.2 of the DEIS is focused on the issue of water and wastewater, not Town zoning. The amount of wastewater generated by a maximum of thirteen homes is permitted at the subject site, which relates solely to the quantity of wastewater that could legally be discharged on the Subject Property under the
housing density limits of Article 6, the code with direct jurisdictional responsibility for
protection of the water resources from excessive sanitary wastewater discharge.
3.2.22- Comment T-26: “The Planning Board strongly disagrees with the statement “The nitrogen load from the proposed five single family homes is not anticipated to significantly impact surface or
groundwater as it represents only 38% of the volume of wastewater permitted to be
discharged by the SCDHS regulation intended to protect water quality.” There is not a
nitrogen load reduction from the permissible yield of 5 lots on the property. The SCDHS requirements cannot be applied as a rationale to support mitigation.”
Response to Comment: a. The comment “there is not a nitrogen load reduction from the permissible yield of 5 lots on the property” is not supported by the Law of Conservation of Mass. Under Article 6 of
the Suffolk County sanitary code, the Applicant could construct 13 single family homes.
Under Article 6, each home is considered to discharge 300 gallons per day. The lot yield based on the Town zoning ordinance, which is not the regulation controlling wastewater discharge density, is not germane to the issue of the maximum permissible nitrogen loading from wastewater discharged by the future homes versus what the proposed loading will be.
Each residential home is considered to have the same nitrogen load in their wastewater,
which we will designate as “X” for purposes of this analysis. Based on Article 6, a maximum of 13X of nitrogen can be discharged on the Subject Property. As proposed, only 5X of nitrogen will be discharged on the property. 5X is less than 13X, thus demonstrating there is a nitrogen load reduction by building only 5 homes where 13 are permitted.
b. Article 6, which is focused on water resource protection, permits 13X of nitrogen to be discharged to the groundwater on the Subject Property. If there was an impact to groundwater by discharging 13X of nitrogen, Article 6 would not permit the discharge.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-25
Since the actual discharge of nitrogen will only be 38% of what is permitted, it logically
follows that the discharge of less nitrogen must therefore not create an impact. c. Mitigation, for SEQR purposes, relates to measures that could reduce or minimize adverse impacts, and/or measures that could produce benefits. Under the first criteria, an
adverse impact must first be identified before mitigation measures need to be evaluated or
implemented. For this specific project, it has been demonstrated that the SCDHS would allow 13X of nitrogen to be discharged to the subsurface from the proposed homes without any significant impact occurring. Therefore, the actual discharge of 5X of nitrogen cannot, under the Rule of Reason, create an impact when a greater amount of the same contaminant
does not create an impact as judged by the governmental agency directly responsible for
protection of the sole source aquifer. Under the second criteria, a reduction in the number of housing units being built, regardless of reason, is considered mitigation creating a benefit because the amount of nitrogen being discharged is only 38% of the permissible limit as judged by the governmental agency directly responsible for protection of the sole source
aquifer.
3.2.23- Comment T-27; C-16: “Provide a detailed nitrogen budget for the parcel and uses.”
Response to Comment: a. Use #1 Agricultural: Town Code section 280-97.B (see Appendix H of the FEIS) states
“Agricultural activities conducted on farmland, undertaken in compliance with applicable
federal, state, county and Town laws, rules and regulations, are presumed to be good agricultural practices and presumed not to adversely affect the public health safety and welfare. We find that whatever nuisance may be caused to others by such uses and activities, so conducted, is more than offset by the benefits from farming to the community.
Therefore, all such activities shall be protected farm practices within the Town of
Southold.” The use of fertilizer, herbicides, and pesticides which will result in the release of nitrogen to the sub-surface of the property is part of normal and customary “agricultural activities”. As such, nitrogen released to the sub-surface of the property that is associated with the agricultural use is, based on Town law, ”presumed not to adversely affect public
health safety and welfare”. The nitrogen budget associated with the agricultural use is,
under Town Law, deemed acceptable. The amount of nitrogen containing products utilized as part of the agricultural activities is limited as there is financial incentive to do so.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-26
b. Use #2 Single Family Homes: As explained in detail in response 3.2.22, the volume of
nitrogen containing wastewater being discharged from the five proposed homes is significantly less than the volume of nitrogen containing wastewater that is permitted by SCDHS. The nitrogen budget associated with the proposed single family homes is therefore acceptable.
c. A detailed nitrogen budget is presented in Appendix T of the FEIS. The results indicating the pounds of nitrogen added to the Upper Glacial aquifer are summarized below (pounds per year):
Minimum Farmland Irrigation Year Average Farmland Irrigation Year Maximum Farmland Irrigation Year
Project as Proposed 360.5 266.1 210.0
100% Farmland As-of-Right Use 425.5 267.8 240.2
As indicated by the table above, the as-of-right use as 100% farmland would result in a
greater amount of nitrogen being released into the Upper Glacial aquifer. The project, as
proposed with a mixed use of residential and farmland, results in less nitrogen being released to the Upper Glacial aquifer.
3.2.24- Comments T-38; C-6; C-9:
“There doesn’t appear to be enough mitigation proposed to avoid groundwater depletion,
salt water intrusion and groundwater pollution. Water usage is related to house size and
the area that is landscaped with plants that need frequent watering, including lawn area. In addition, if agriculture is planned on the open space area, there will be even more groundwater depletion from irrigation. This needs more specific evaluation of anticipated
water usage including landscape and lawn irrigation, agricultural irrigation and
household water use. Evaluate the water usage impact on water quantity, quality, saltwater
intrusion/up-coning, effects on neighboring wells. What mitigation will be provided for these impacts?”
Response to Comment:
a. The statement “There doesn’t appear to be enough mitigation” is speculative. No scientific based information has been put forth to demonstrate the proposed project would
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-27
cause a significant environmental impact to occur, i.e. groundwater depletion, salt water
intrusion and groundwater pollution. b. Mitigation, for SEQR purposes, relates to measures that could reduce or minimize adverse impacts, and/or measures that could produce benefits. An adverse impact must first
be identified before mitigation measures need to be evaluated or implemented. No
scientific based information has been put forth by the public or lead agency to demonstrate the Proposed Action would cause a significant environmental impact to occur, i.e. groundwater depletion, salt water intrusion and groundwater pollution, nor have the evaluations and studies conducted as part of the DEIS process.
c. The statement “Water usage is related to house size” is incorrect. Under SCDHS Article 6 design criteria for sanitary system design, a single family residence is considered to discharge 300 gallons per day regardless of the size of the house.
d. Town Code section 280-97.B (see Appendix H of the FEIS) states “Agricultural
activities conducted on farmland, undertaken in compliance with applicable federal, state, county and Town laws, rules and regulations, are presumed to be good agricultural practices and presumed not to adversely affect the public health safety and welfare. We find that whatever nuisance may be caused to others by such uses and activities, so conducted, is more than offset by the benefits from farming to the community. Therefore,
all such activities shall be protected farm practices within the Town of Southold.” Based on Town law, the agricultural use is deemed “not to adversely affect the public health safety and welfare”.
e. The proposed action does not result in net groundwater depletion. Refer to FEIS
response 3.2.8 for annual water consumption. Refer to Appendix FF of the FEIS for annual water recharge. The recharge rate from precipitation exceeds the amount of water lost. The net amount of water gained by the aquifer attributable to the precipitation that falls upon the Subject Property is as follows:
During year when no crop irrigation required 8,280,323 gals/yr During year when average crop irrigation required 6,241,857 gals/yr During year when the maximum crop irrigation is required 4,793,955 gals/yr
f. A detailed evaluation of the potential impact on groundwater quality was previously
presented in responses 3.2.22 and 3.2.23. g. A detailed evaluation of the potential for saltwater intrusion and up-coning was previously presented in responses 3.2.9 and 3.2 18.
h. A detailed evaluation of the potential impact to neighboring wells was previously presented in response 3.2.16.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-28
3.2.25- Comment C-11:
“The DEIS does not address the concerns for potential impacts to groundwater and
adjacent properties of discharge of pharmaceuticals, personal care products, VOCs, pesticides or herbicides and fertilizers from the residential properties.”
Response to Comment:
a. As part of the subdivision permitting process, the Town made a lot yield determination wherein the R-80 zoning district criteria was applied to the 13.3 acre parcel. It was determined that five building lots could be created using the R-80 zoning district criteria (see Yield Map in Appendix I of the FEIS). The Applicant is proposing no more than the
number of building lots than he is legally entitled to develop. Any incidental discharge of the items listed in the comment, and any associated impact, if any, is not worsened by the proposed project. The use and development of the proposed homes is consistent with what the Applicant is legally entitled to construct based on Town law. If the Town lawfully imposes certain restrictions as a condition of approval for the project, such as controlling
the type and application of fertilizer on the residential parcels, the Applicant will assess the restriction and determine if the restriction is satisfactory so as to proceed with the project. b. The storage and/or discharge of certain materials, and/or in certain concentrations, is
illegal under Article 12 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, as well as State and Federal
law. There is a presumption that future occupants of the homes will not violate the law. c. Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code (Appendix K of the FEIS) recognizes the potential discharge of certain materials into the sanitary systems of the proposed homes.
Section 760-601 states in pertinent part “Therefore, Suffolk County intends to facilitate the
best available wastewater management policies and technologies, to minimize and prevent the impacts of water pollution from nitrogen and other constituents (such as pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and volatile organic compounds) in sanitary wastewater to protect public health and water resources.” The proposed residential homes
will be constructed with SCDHS approved sanitary systems, thereby providing the
appropriate method of mitigating potential impacts from illicit disposal of the aforementioned products via the sanitary system.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-29
3.2.26- Comment C-12:
“The DEIS does not address the use of fertilizers and pesticides except to say that “Best Management Practices” will be implemented. There is no mention of Integrated Pest Management.”
Response to Comment: a. Town Code section 280-97.B (see Appendix H of the FEIS) states “Agricultural activities conducted on farmland, undertaken in compliance with applicable federal, state,
county and Town laws, rules and regulations, are presumed to be good agricultural
practices and presumed not to adversely affect the public health safety and welfare. We find that whatever nuisance may be caused to others by such uses and activities, so conducted, is more than offset by the benefits from farming to the community. Therefore, all such activities shall be protected farm practices within the Town of Southold.” The
application of fertilizer and pesticides are part of normal and customary “agricultural
activities”. As such, the use of fertilizer and pesticide is, based on Town law, ”presumed not to adversely affect public health safety and welfare”. b. The purpose of the DEIS is to identify potential significant impacts, and methods of
mitigation. The purpose is not to provide an exhaustive list of Best Management Practices
for growing and maintaining crop fields. The choice of which “Best Management Practice” to use is within the purview of the farmer as that choice is based on multiple considerations including, but not limited to, the crop being grown, the stage of crop growth, the specific problem being experienced, the severity of the problem being experienced, the soil
conditions, and the weather conditions. It is well established the purpose of implementing
“Best Management Practices” is to mitigate any potential impact. Whatever impact may occur, if any, is recognized by the Town code section 280-97.B as an acceptable consequence related to crop farming.
3.2.27- Comment C-31:
“While Aldicarbs will be filtered out by a system that is provided free to the homeowners-
there could be negative impacts from other contaminants.” Response to Comment:
The comment is speculative, lacks a scientific basis, and provides no specific examples.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-30
3.2.28- Comment C-41:
“Furthermore, seeking review and approval by the Suffolk County Health Department,
prior to Town’s SEQRA Determination, and Preliminary Plat Approval, is presumptuous and leads to more confusion.”
Response to Comment:
a. Seeking approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, the governmental agency with direct jurisdictional responsibility for the water resources of the entire County, was the appropriate course of action. Based on the voluminous comments received regarding the groundwater supply, wastewater discharge, and potential impacts,
it was clear the project could not proceed unless a suitable water supply could be provided for the proposed homes, the wastewater could be discharged without interfering with the private wells, and no significant environmental impact would occur. Proceeding through the Town subdivision review process without having established that these paramount issues could be satisfactorily addressed would have been a waste of Town resources
reviewing a project that could never have been built, as well as an unwarranted financial burden to the Applicant. b. The DEIS provides a detailed history of the development of the project, along with all
the supporting documentation. The DEIS is written is plain, concise language (in
accordance with the State SEQRA requirements) so as to be easily understood by those reading it.
3.2.29- Comment C-52:
“As the adjacent property to the southeast, we will be the first impacted by the quality of
the groundwater as it flows towards Long Beach bay. Perhaps the most disturbing and
confusing series of events occurs between 2016 and 2019, where the Applicant’s test well results in 2016 not only show the contamination but also SCDHS remarks regarding the depth to water of less than 40 feet (Appendix L) and the need to restrict lot size conforming
to the current R-80 zoning. Then by 2019, different well test results appear to allow for the
SCDHS Board of Review & variance (Appendix H) where lot size restrictions are removed.
Is cherry-picking results an acceptable approach to ignoring a well-known and documented concern regarding the fragile Orient water supply?”
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-31
Response to Comment: a. The comment “we will be the first impacted by the quality of the groundwater” is incorrect. The first parties to be impacted by the quality of the groundwater would be the
persons living in the proposed homes on the Subject Property. They too have private wells
for their drinking water supply. b. With regard to the test wells, in simplistic terms the test wells installed in 2016 were not installed to the minimum depth required by the SCDHS, which led to the SCDHS placing
a restriction on the density of housing. New wells were installed in 2019 to the proper depth
required by the SCDHS. c. There was no “cherry-picking” of results. In fact, the water quality test results from the 2016 wells showed the groundwater complied with the New York State Drinking Water
Standard. The groundwater obtained from the 2019 wells showed contaminants. It would
be counter-intuitive to cherry-pick results (i.e. the 2019 results) that are adverse to the project when the earlier results (i.e. the 2016 results) required no SCDHS variance or special treatment of the drinking water.
3.2.30- Comment C-53:
“Further, the DEIS spins the acts of contaminated water transformed by water filtration
technology to conclude that the filtered water discharged into the groundwater has no
impact to the water supply nor water quality, it is a benefit created by the development! Really?”
Response to Comment:
Yes, there is a benefit to the groundwater supply provided by the Proposed Action. The water filtration devices required for treatment of the drinking water for the proposed five homes will provide a positive impact on the groundwater quality. Each proposed home is
estimated to use 300 gallons of water per day (per SCDHS design standards). Each gallon
of water contains a certain concentration of Aldicarb, which we will express as “Y”. Therefore 1500Y units of Aldicarb (calculated as 300 units per home x 5 homes) will flow into the homes. The filtration device within each home will remove a certain percentage of Aldicarb. In this specific application, the filtration units will likely be activated carbon
(refer to SCDHS BOR variance in Appendix H of the DEIS). The Aldicarb in the
groundwater which is being pumped through the activated carbon adsorbs onto the surface of the activated carbon inside the filtration device and remains there. The discharge from the filtration device will have a lower concentration of Aldicarb (likely a minimum of 80%
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-32
lower than what went into the filtration device based on the average performance of carbon)
because some of the Aldicarb has been adsorbed onto the carbon surfaces. The concentration of the Aldicarb exiting the filtration device, which will ultimately be discharged back to the subsurface via the sanitary system, contains only 300Y units of Aldicarb (calculated as 20% x 1500Y) of what went into the filtration device. By the Law
of Conservation of Mass, 1500Y units of Aldicarb was in each gallon of water before
filtration, 1200Y units of Aldicarb were adsorbed onto the carbon surfaces, and 300Y units of Aldicarb will be returned back to the groundwater through the sanitary system. There is a reduction in the amount of Aldicarb in the groundwater due to the filtration devices in the proposed homes. The activated carbon filtration devices retain the Aldicarb and the
carbon is periodically changed (when the carbon becomes exhausted) and the Aldicarb is
disposed of off-site.
3.2.31- Comment C-58: “Hydrogeological studies need to be done before a project of this size may be lawfully done.”
Response to Comment: a. The commenter provides no statute requiring a hydrogeological study to support the
statement.
b. The project has undergone review by the SCDHS, the governmental agency with direct jurisdictional responsibility for the County’s surface and sub-surface water resources. The SCDHS did not require any hydrogeological study. c. The project has undergone review by the NYSDEC, the governmental agency with direct jurisdictional responsibility for the proposed irrigation well. The NYSDEC did not require any hydrogeological study and issued approval for the requested irrigation well permit.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-33
3.2.32- Comment C-63:
“As is well known and documented, the hydrogeologic setting of the North Fork is most vulnerable. With maximum water pumping from below ground, evidence of salt water has begun to intrude into the aquifer. This situation is exacerbated by the permanent water
level shifts and global warming trends, as local ground water tables are trending toward
dropping permanently. Changing sea levels due to global warming can be expected to
affect coastal drinking water wells by raising the level of salty water. Based on the above information, determining the availability of groundwater in the area
through hydraulic testing is needed.”
Response to Comment: a. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services is the governmental agency with direct jurisdictional responsibility for protecting the water resources of the entire County
(see section 760-602 in Appendix K of the FEIS), including the hamlet of Orient. In addition, the SCDHS has direct jurisdictional responsibility for drinking water well approvals and construction. The SCDHS evaluated the proposed drinking water wells for the proposed project and issued a variance approval (see Appendix H of the DEIS) stating, in pertinent part, the following:
• “The variance should not impair groundwater, surface water and drinking water supplies
• The granting of the requested variance will not adversely affect the design
of an adequate on-site water supply and/or sewage disposal system, taking into account soil conditions, depth to groundwater, and site specific physical conditions”
• As per §760-609 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, the approval of the
variance with the specified conditions is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Sanitary Code to protect groundwater and drinking water supplies, surface water and other natural resources, and public health, safety and welfare.”
No hydraulic testing was required by the governmental agency with direct jurisdictional responsibility, and an affirmation that adequate on-site water supply could be provided to the five proposed homes was issued.
b. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, under 6 NYCRR Part
602, known as the Long Island Well Program, is the governmental agency with direct jurisdictional responsibility for water withdrawals greater than 45 gallons per minute on a single property, except for public water supplies. The Long Island Well Program contributes to the protection and conservation of available water supplies. Issuance of the
irrigation well permit by the governmental agency with direct responsibility for aquifer
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-34
protection and conservation is constructive notice that the aquifer has the capacity to
support the intended uses. No hydraulic testing was required by the governmental agency with direct jurisdictional responsibility for the irrigation well.
3.3 Air No comments were received.
3.4 Vegetation 3.4.1- Comment T-28:
“The Environmental Resource Mapper website was consulted and the parcel is located
within a Significant Natural Community layer (occurs to the east and west of the parcel).
This layer shows areas within a 1/2 mile of the significant natural communities shown in the layer above. The natural community identified is Marine Back Lagoon Beach Bay. If project impacts are being assessed at a location within this vicinity layer, the nearby
significant natural communities should be considered in the assessment. Please discuss the
potential adverse impacts to the Significant Natural Community.”
Response to Comment:
No significant environmental impact is anticipated. Refer to Appendix U of the FEIS for a
detailed analysis.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-35
3.4.2- Comment T-29:
“Please contact the NYS Natural Heritage Program to determine if protected vegetation species occur on site.”
Response to Comment:
None of the New York State protected species historically observed in Orient will be adversely impacted by the proposed action. Refer to Appendix U of the FEIS for a detailed analysis.
3.4.3- Comment C-14:
The comment states, in pertinent part “The DEIS…offers “turf grass” in the unfarmed open space.” Response to Comment:
a. It is anticipated that each building parcel will have vegetated area consisting of natural vegetation, landscape planting, and turf grass. The amount of turf grass to be grown on each of the five building parcels is anticipated to be approximately 0.33 acres per parcel (see Response 3.2.8). This amounts to the following proposed lot percentages of turf grass:
• Lot 1 - 24% *based solely on the area designated for construction of the dwelling
• Lot 2 – 33%
• Lot 3 – 29%
• Lot 4 – 36%
• Lot 5 – 36%
The average percentage of lot area proposed to be covered by turf grass is 31.6%. b. Turf grass is consistent with the community character of the surrounding homes. A study using aerial photography was performed analyzing the approximate percentage of turf grass
currently being grown within the property boundary lines on neighboring properties
abutting, or immediately adjacent to (i.e. across the street from) the Subject Property. The study revealed the following information:
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-36
Address SCTM # Total Land Area Turf Area % Turf 1190 Platt 18-5-23 Undeveloped N/A N/A
1470 Platt 27-1-10.003 134,165 125,594 93.6 1610 Platt 27-1-10.004 88,427 31,359 35.5
1750 Platt 27-1-10.005 93,044 33,210 35.7
2050 Platt 27-1-9 Undeveloped N/A N/A 405 Halyoake 27-1-5 73,616 64,968 88.3
2303 Orchard 27-1-2.002 Undeveloped N/A N/A
2605 Orchard 27-1-4 20,909 13,058 62.5
3180 Orchard 27-3-3.001 54,886 9,000 16.4
2970 Orchard 27-3-2.002 49,223 26,000 52.8
2620 Orchard 27-3-2.003 41,818 40,500 96.8
2610 Orchard 27-3-2.004 20,473 18,500 90.4 205 Old Farm 25-5-6 60,548 45,387 75.0
200 Old Farm 25-5-5 60,113 30,661 51.0
2130 Orchard 25-5-4 61,885 49,402 79.8 Average Total 57.3%
As demonstrated by a study of the surrounding properties, the anticipated turf grass lot coverage percentage for the five proposed building lots (31.6%) is significantly less than the percentage that exists on the surrounding properties (57.3%).
3.5 Wildlife 3.5.1- Comment T-30:
“The DEIS does not include a discussion on the eastern box turtle, as a New York State-
listed species of Special Concern. The species requires some measure of protection to ensure that the species does not become threatened. Species of special concern are protected wildlife pursuant to Environmental Conservation Law section 11-0103(5)(c)”
Response to Comment: Refer to Appendix U of the FEIS for a detailed discussion.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-37
3.5.2- Comment T-31: “Correspondence from DEC and the New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP) indicates that no agency records currently exist for northern long-eared bat on the parcel, however, this is not a definitive assessment on the current or future use of the site by the
species. It is recommended that Ms. Michelle Gibbons at the NYSDEC is contacted at 631-
444-0306 to determine if the habitat is suitable for the species habit (sic). Please provide an assessment of these species potential for occurring on or using the site.” Response to Comment:
Refer to Appendix U of the FEIS for a detailed discussion.
3.5.3- Comment C-33:
“While there may, or may not be any threatened or endangered species inhabiting this site,
there are certainly plenty of deer there. The DEIS suggests that the wildlife (squirrels,
rabbits and birds) will move to the adjacent conserved properties and the repopulate the site, avoiding the subject of deer altogether. The 8’ deer fence that will inevitably surround the farmed area will not allow the deer to repopulate this site. As more and more fences
are erected the deer become more of a problem for homeowners who do not wish to, or
cannot fence in their properties, and to drivers as the deer dart across the roads instead of
open fields.” Response to Comment:
a. Town Code section 280-97.B (see Appendix H of the FEIS) states “Agricultural activities conducted on farmland, undertaken in compliance with applicable federal, state, county and Town laws, rules and regulations, are presumed to be good agricultural practices and presumed not to adversely affect the public health safety and welfare. We
find that whatever nuisance may be caused to others by such uses and activities, so
conducted, is more than offset by the benefits from farming to the community. Therefore, all such activities shall be protected farm practices within the Town of Southold.” If a deer fence is erected for the purpose of crop protection, it would be part of normal and customary “agricultural activities”. As such, erection of a deer fence is, based on Town
law, ”presumed not to adversely affect public health safety and welfare”.
b. The comment correctly acknowledges no threatened or endangered species are impacted by the proposed project.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-38
c. The comment is speculative with regard to whether or not a deer fence will be erected, and how deer will behave. d. The issue of deer over- population on Long Island is not specific to Orient. The Proposed
Action does not increase the deer population.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 4-1
4.0 HUMAN RESOURCES RELATED COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4.1 Land Use and Zoning
4.1.1- Comment T-5: “Note that the Planning Board requires I/A OWTS for all new subdivisions in the hamlet of Orient.”
Response to Comment: a. The Town of Southold criteria for acceptable sanitary disposal systems is codified in Section 240-47 of the Town Code (see Appendix HH) which states “All wastewater
treatment systems shall be installed in accordance with plans approved by the Suffolk
County Health Department. Such systems shall provide each residence and other structures containing plumbing fixtures with an adequate and safe method of sewage treatment.” b. Sanitary system design plans for each individual proposed parcel comprising the
subdivision (see Appendix JJ) were most recently submitted to the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services (SCDHS) Office of Wastewater Management (WWM) on November 22, 2021. The proposed sanitary system designs used were conventional septic tank and leaching pool systems. SCDHS WWM issued a Notice of Incomplete Application (NOI) dated December 2021 for each of the proposed lots (see Appendix BB). As indicated
in the NOIs, each proposed lot conventional sanitary system will be approved upon
completion of one ministerial task for each lot. The only task required is approval of the subdivision map by the SCDHS. The Applicant’s intention to utilize conventional sanitary systems is in compliance with Town Code section 240-47 and Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code.
c. Imposing a requirement for use of I/A OWTS when the Town Code and SCDHS Article 6 allow use of conventional sanitary systems is adverse to the rights of the Applicant, who has complied with the statutory, codified requirements.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 4-2
4.1.2- Comment T-20:
“Identify an open space use permitted by Chapter 240 Subdivision of Land of the Southold Town Code that would use much less potable water and still meet the landowner’s goals.”
Response to Comment:
a. Town Code section 280-97.A (see Appendix H of the FEIS) states “The Town Board of the Town of Southold finds that farming is an essential activity within the Town of Southold. Farmers provide fresh food, clean air, economic diversity and aesthetic open spaces to all the citizens of our Town. In addition, land in agricultural uses requires less
tax dollars for services than does land with residential or commercial development. Accordingly, farmers shall have the right to farm in Southold without undue interference from adjacent land owners or users.” Use of the open space as farmland is protected by the Town Code, and preservation of agricultural land is a key element of numerous Town of Southold plans, studies and reports. The Applicant wishes to exercise his right to farm
within the open space. b. Town Code section 240-44.D. provides a list of restrictions for use of open space areas. A summary of the list of uses permitted within the open space area is as follows:
(1) Conservation of open land in its natural state (2) Agricultural and horticultural uses (3) Game preserve, wildlife sanctuary or other similar conservation use (4) Woodlots, arboreta and silviculture
(5) Neighborhood open space uses such as village greens and picnic areas
(6) Active noncommercial recreation areas, such as playing fields and playground provide such areas do not consume more than half of the minimum required open space area (7) Water supply and sewage disposal systems, and stormwater detention area
(8) Easement for drainage, access, sewer, or other public purpose
None of the alternate permitted uses for the Open Space area meet the landowner’s goals.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 4-3
4.1.3- Comment T-34:
“The Southold Town Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2020. Please assess the project to the document. Include an assessment on climate change and sea level rise.”
Response to Comment:
The proposed project encompasses many of the objectives and goals stated in the 2020 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan (TCP). An overview is as follows:
Land Use & Zoning (Chapter 3) -
a. As stated in the TCP11, “one of the defining features of the character of Southold is its agriculture.” The largest land use category in Southold Township is residential (33%) followed closely by agricultural (30%). The proposed project includes both of the predominant land uses in the Township.
b. “The Town’s land use regulations contain the zoning code with the zoning districts”. “A zoning district describes how much and what type of development may occur on the land.”12 The TCP presents Objective 2.213 which includes
revisiting the lot coverage and bulk schedule for residential districts to limit the size
of future homes, and revisit the setbacks and maximum building height permitted by the present code. The proposed project shall conform to the requirements of the zoning code as the code presently exists.
c. The TCP presents Goal 6 that states14 “Protect groundwater and surface water
quality and quantity; Protect land-based natural resources including agricultural soils and natural habitat for wildlife.” The proposed project does not cause a significant adverse impact to the groundwater and surface water quality or quantity, as was discussed in detail elsewhere in the FEIS. The project does permanently
protect 60% of the subject site property area for agricultural use. As discussed
elsewhere in the FEIS, the project does not have a significant adverse impact on the natural habitat for wildlife. Goal 6 is fulfilled by the Proposed Action. d. The TCP presents Goal 915 that states “Retain and Advance the Business of
Agriculture”. The project shall retain 60% of the Subject Property area for the
purpose of agriculture with the intent to return the agricultural land to productive use. Goal 9 is fulfilled by the Proposed Action.
11 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan February 2020 Chapter 3, page 1 12 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan February 2020 Chapter 3 page 2 13 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan February 2020 Chapter 3 page 12 14 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan February 2020 Chapter 3, page 14
15 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan February 2020 Chapter 3, page 14
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 4-4
e. The TCP presents Goal 1016 that states “Continue to Preserve Farmland and Open
Space.” It goes on to state “Southold’s character is created in large part by its open spaces, including farmland, natural lands, and parks.” The majority of the Subject Property shall be farmland, which is consistent with the character and goal set forth in the TCP. Goal 10 is fulfilled by the Proposed Action.
f. The TCP discusses the hamlet of Orient in specific terms17. The TCP states “Orient’s character is defined by its farms and its traditional hamlet center with narrow streets lined by trees and historic buildings. Agricultural land uses cover over a third of the hamlet’s land area.” The Subject Property is not within the hamlet center. The majority of the Subject Property shall remain as farmland, which is
consistent with the character of Orient as described in the TCP. Transportation & Infrastructure (Chapter 4) -
a. As stated in the TCP18, Goal 1 is to reduce stormwater runoff. The project shall
conform to the Town requirements for stormwater control. Stormwater run-off from the roofs of the proposed homes shall be directed to underground stormwater leaching facilities where the water can recharge to the aquifer below.
Community Character (Chapter 5) – The Proposed Action is for the return of nearly 8 acres of agricultural land to active crop farming use, constructing an agricultural barn, and constructing five single
family homes. The TCP specifically identifies agriculture as being a significant character in the Township of Southold. The Town Code goes further and encourages and protects the rights of persons to farm, even if certain nuisances are created as a result of the
farming operation via the Farmland Bill of Rights in Chapter 280-97 of the Town Code. As such, the agricultural aspect of the Proposed Action (i.e. the agricultural barn and crop farming) is in keeping with the community character as defined by the Town’s own publications.
The five proposed single family homes also conform to the community character as defined by the Town’s own publications. A summary is as follows:
• The Town Code provides the foundation for establishing community character through its regulations regarding allowable use, density of
16 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan February 2020 Chapter 3, page 14 17 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan February 2020 Chapter 3, page 40
18 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan February 2020 Chapter 4, page 31
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 4-5
housing, square footage of housing, height of the house, setbacks from the
property lines, and buffers. The Town Code assigned a residential zoning district designation to the Subject Property. This establishes residential use is legally permissible and appropriate for the community character in the area of the Subject Property.
• The Town required a yield map from the Applicant for the purpose of determining the maximum number of single family residential homes that could be constructed on the Subject Property (see Appendix I in the FEIS). The Town determined that the Subject Property had a yield of five single
family homes. This establishes the construction of five single family homes on the Subject Property is legally permissible and appropriate for the community character of the surrounding area.
• Section 240-42.B of the Town Code requires clustering of the proposed single family homes. Clustering is also part of the 2020 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan19 as discussed elsewhere in the FEIS. This establishes the mandate that the single family homes, with the exception of the one home associated with the farmland use, must be clustered and that a
clustered arrangement of homes is appropriate for the community character of the surrounding area.
• The only question remaining with regard to the proposed four single family homes is the appropriate location for the clustered homes. This final
question is answered by Town Code section 240-43.B and the 2020 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan. The Town Code states “The location of open space lands shall be determined in general accordance with the goals of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan and in particular with the
Southold Town Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy to provide an
interconnected network of open space and farmland. The Town Comprehensive Plan states, in pertinent part under Objective 1.3, “Design both standard and conservation subdivisions involving farmland to enhance farming and minimize potential incompatibility with residential neighbors
by incorporating the following into the design: Design the location of the
open space/farmland so it is contiguous with other farmland”. The proposed farmland occupies the westerly portion of the Subject Property. The land abutting the Subject Property along the westerly property line is part of a subdivision map approved by the Town Planning Board on March 7, 2012
(see Appendix V of the FEIS – Final Plat of Patrick Guadagno). The
Guadagno subdivision includes a 6 acre Open Space Conservation Easement and a future agricultural barn. The proposed farmland on the Subject Property has been placed to be contiguous with the open
19 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan February 2020 Chapter 10, page 3 Objective 1.3
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 4-6
space/farmland on the Guadagno property, which is consistent with
Objective 1.3 in the TCP. No greater view shed can be provided than what is afforded by placing the two large tracts of farmland/open space immediately adjacent to each other, thus maximizing the open space character of the community. Placing the four clustered homes on the
westerly side of the Subject Property would result in a disconnect between
the two open space tracts of land and interrupt the view shed.
• The size and location of each individual proposed single family residence is governed and restricted by the Town Code regulations for maximum lot
coverage, required minimum setbacks, and height, just as all the other homes in the surrounding area are likewise governed by the same regulations, thus establishing the appropriate physical characteristics that are appropriate for the surrounding community.
a. The TCP sets forth an Objective 1.120 to “Identify important scenic resources” and “Develop and adopt a Town Scenic Resources Map to achieve greater protection of viewsheds in the application review processes including assessment to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and the Local
Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) policy standards and recommendations.” As stated by the Town, a formalized map identifying important viewsheds does not exist. The Proposed Action establishes an area of protected farmland contiguous to an abutting protected open space area. The viewshed has been maximized for the proposed redevelopment of the property as is permitted and
governed by the Town Code. b. The TCP sets forth an Objective 1.421 to “Enhance scenic qualities through design standards and innovative site planning and architecture in public and private development projects” by developing “voluntary structural design standards for
residential architecture”. Currently the Town Zoning Code governs the manner in which a residential home is designed. If the Town Objective was one day fulfilled, the standards for residential home design would still be voluntary. In either case, the design of the proposed residential homes would be governed solely by the limitations set forth in the zoning code. The proposed homes will comply with the
requirements of the Town zoning code applicable to their design. c. The TCP sets forth Objective 1.522 to “Protect scenic vista outside the hamlet centers by clustering compatible developments in existing residential or commercial areas to prevent sprawl”. The objective goes on to state “Cluster and
20 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan February 2020 Chapter 5, page 2 21 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan February 2020 Chapter 5, page 4
22 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan February 2020 Chapter 5, page 5
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 4-7
consolidate new development close to hamlet centers to encourage vitality and
affordability.” The Subject Property is located in an existing residentially developed area, which is consistent with the Objective stated in the TCP. The Town Board established a HALO zone for the hamlet of Orient (see Appendix W in the FEIS). The idea behind adopting HALO zones in each hamlet was to identify areas
for growth. The Subject Property is located less than 425 feet east of the Orient
HALO zone which is consistent with the Town’s Objective of new development being located in close proximity to the hamlet center. d. The TCP sets forth Goal 223 to “Protect Cultural Resources”. The Proposed
Action is consistent with that Goal. A Phase I archaeological investigation was
performed for the Proposed Action in June 2015 (see Appendix U of the DEIS). It was determined that the Proposed Action had no impact on any archaeologically significant items. A search was made on the New York State Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation web site on February 4, 2021. As indicated by
the search results (see Appendix X of the FEIS), no NYS OPRHP listed landmarks
exist in the immediate vicinity of the Proposed Action. Two “undetermined” sites are indicated on the NYS OPRHP map. The two sites are located at 675 Halyoake Rd. and 2610 Orchard St. respectively. Both sites had building inventories submitted in 1988 which resulted in the NYS OPRHP issuing the “undetermined”
status designation. A search was made of the Town of Southold “Town Register of
Historic Landmarks” last updated October 18, 2017 (see Appendix Y of the FEIS). The Town landmarks having an Orchard Street address are not within the immediate vicinity of the Subject Property. No Town landmarks are listed with a Halyoake Road address.
e. The TCP sets forth an Objective 4.124 to “Elevate and preserve the Town’s natural heritage through preservation of the working landscapes and waterscapes and the people who interact with them. It goes on to state “Protect agricultural lands in Southold Town.” The Proposed Action is consistent with that goal through the
permanent protection of nearly 8 acres of agricultural land.
Natural Resources and Environment – Water resources (Chapter 6) -
An extensive discussion regarding groundwater resources is included elsewhere in
the FEIS. This section shall be limited to addressing the groundwater related issues with direct correlation to the Southold Town Comprehensive Plan.
23 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan February 2020 Chapter 5, page 6
24 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan February 2020 Chapter 5, page 13
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 4-8
a. Goal 1 “Conserve Water Quantity”, and the associated Objectives, as stated in
the TCP25 relate to the public water supply as provided by the Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA) on the mainland areas, and other public water suppliers on Fishers and Plum Islands. The Proposed Action does not include connection to the public water supply. The proposed agricultural land and homes will be served by
private wells. The agricultural land has already received approval from the
NYSDEC to install an irrigation well (see Appendix O of the DEIS). The water supply for the five proposed homes already received approval from the SCDHS Board of Review (see Appendix H of the DEIS). The location of all the proposed wells are shown on the site plan submitted for the SCDHS BOR hearing (see
Appendix G of the DEIS).
b. Goal 2 “Protect Groundwater Quality”, and the associated Objectives, as described in the TCP26 is in the context of “The Town’s two SGPAs for which water quality protection management strategies were developed include portions of the hamlets of Mattituck, Laurel, Cutchogue, Peconic and Southold.” The Subject
Property does not lie within the two SPGAs (Special Groundwater Protection Areas) that form the basis for this section of the TCP. However, several of the Town’s Objectives have broader applicability beyond the SGPAs.
• “Objective 2.7- Evaluate and recommend Best Management Practices for proactive reduction of VOCs capable of entering groundwater and surface waters”27. The illicit discharge of VOCs is prohibited by existing laws at the Federal, State and County levels. The Proposed Action does not include any use other than what is permitted in the
Town zoning district, nor does it create any significant threat for the release of VOCS beyond that which exists at every farm and residential home in the Township of Southold.
• “Objective 2.8- Evaluate and recommend Best Management Practices for the proactive reduction of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in groundwater and surface waters.”28 As pointed out in the TCP, currently there are no USEPA health standards or guidelines for pharmaceuticals or personal care products. The Proposed Action does
not include any use other than what is permitted in the Town zoning district, nor does it create any significant threat for the release of PPCPs beyond that which exists at every residential home in the Township of Southold.
25 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan February 2020 Chapter 6, page 3 26 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan February 2020 Chapter 6, page 5 27 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan February 2020 Chapter 6, page 8
28 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan February 2020 Chapter 6, page 9
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 4-9
• “Objective 2.9- Work with regulatory agencies to reduce pesticide and herbicide use on residential properties”29. While the future residential home property owners cannot work directly with regulatory agencies in support of the Town’s objective, the owners have a vested interest in minimizing the use of pesticides and herbicides as the drinking water
for their homes is obtained from the groundwater supply located directly below their properties. They are not served by public water supply wells as other parts of the Township are. Excessive application of pesticides and herbicides on the Subject Property could have a direct negative impact to the future homeowners, thus creating a self-policing incentive
to minimize application rates, which is the goal set forth by the Town.
• “Objective 2.14- Work with regulatory agencies and institutions to reduce nitrogen and phosphorous loads to groundwater due to
residential fertilizer.”30 While the future residential home property owners cannot work directly with regulatory agencies in support of the Town’s objective, the owners have a vested interest in minimizing the use of fertilizers as the drinking water for their homes is obtained from the groundwater supply located directly below their properties. They are
not served by public water supply wells as other parts of the Township are. Excessive application of fertilizers on the Subject Property could have a direct negative impact to the future homeowners, thus creating a self-policing incentive to minimize application rates, which is the goal set forth by the Town. Adherence to existing laws regarding fertilization
of residential properties including, but not limited to: Prohibition on using lawn fertilizers containing phosphorous except for new lawn establishment; No application of fertilizer between December 1 and April 1; Maximum fertilization rate of 1 lb per 1000 SF/ year for turf is appropriate and expected of the future homeowners.
• “Objective 2.15- Continue to support education programs that achieve agricultural nitrogen load reductions, to include promoting agricultural Best Management Practices, expanding Agricultural Environmental
Management (AEM) strategies, and promoting organic farming, among
other initiatives.”31 The TCP goes on to state “The application of fertilizer and pesticides is necessary in crop farming, a staple in the Town’s economy.” The Proposed Action includes the return of nearly 8 acres of agricultural land to productive use. Based on the Town Code
and multiple other Town publications, use of the Subject Property for
farming is encouraged and permissible. Management of fertilizer and
29 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan February 2020 Chapter 6, page 9 30 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan February 2020 Chapter 6, page 10
31 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan February 2020 Chapter 6, page 11
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 4-10
pesticide applications is critical to the farm operator as the crop yield
can be dramatically affected, and there is a substantial cost for use of the products. The farmer has multiple incentives to minimize the amount of fertilizer and pesticides used in the operation. As expressed in the DEIS, Best Management Practices will be employed as will
Agricultural Environmental Management. The specifics of how these
will be implemented depends upon a multitude of considerations including, but not limited to, the crop being grown, the stage of crop growth, the weather patterns, the type of crop disease or infestation, and the extent of the disease/infestation, and is beyond the scope of an FEIS.
The future farm operator has a vested interest in maximizing crop yield
with minimal use of products that would add to the nitrogen load of the groundwater beneath the site. A detailed discussion of the nitrogen budget for the project is presented elsewhere in the FEIS.
c. Goal 3 “Protect Surface Water Quality”, and the associated Objectives, as
described in the TCP32. The Subject Property is not directly abutting any surface water and therefore has limited influence on potential impacts. Two sources of potential impact originating at the Subject Property exist. First, groundwater beneath the site will eventually flow to, and become a part of, the surface water in Long Beach Bay. As discussed elsewhere in the FEIS, the groundwater
concentration of nitrogen reaching Long Beach Bay that is attributable solely to the activities proposed for the Subject Property has no significant adverse impact. Second, stormwater discharge from the Subject Property could carry pollutants. The potential stormwater discharge can be broken down into two categories: during construction and post-construction. In accordance with NYSDEC regulations, a
stormwater construction permit will be obtained prior to disturbing any land area in excess of one acre at the Subject Property. Stormwater generated during construction shall be contained on-site. Post-construction, the Proposed Action includes containment and recharge of the stormwater runoff from the proposed developed residential homes to the groundwater located beneath the Subject
Property by use of underground leaching structures. All stormwater will be contained on-site. No direct discharge from the Subject Property to surface waters will occur. Natural Resources and Environment – Land Resources (Chapter 6) - a. Goal 1 “Protect Soils and Geologic Features” of the TCP includes Objective 1.1 “Protect agricultural soils from conversion to other land uses”33. The statement of
the Objective includes, in pertinent part, “Reduce the loss of Prime Agricultural
32 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan February 2020 Chapter 6, page 13
33 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 6, page 22
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 4-11
Soils and Soils of Statewide Importance to development through clustering of
residential density”. The Proposed Action is consistent with Goal 1 of the TCP. Nearly eight acres of agricultural soils will be permanently preserved as part of the Proposed Action by clustering of the proposed residential homes.
b. Goal 4 “Monitor and Control Nuisance Species” of the TCP includes Objective
4.1 “Manage Whitetail Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) populations and work with wildlife management agencies to educate the public on the advantages and disadvantages of deer populations. Deer population is a serious problem in Southold, affecting quality of life, the economy, and public health. Concerns
include loss of crops, landscaping and gardens, collisions with vehicles, loss of
understory in woodlands, and the spread of tick-borne diseases.” The Applicant is in full support of whatever measures the Town may take to control the deer population. A usual and customary practice for farmland located in the Township of Southold is to install deer resistant fence to protect the crops. As stated in the
Town Code’s Farmland Bill of Rights, the presence of a deer fence is part of normal
agricultural practices and is therefore considered acceptable by the Town. As is typical for farms in the Township of Southold, it is anticipated the deer fence will be eight feet in height, and be constructed of treated wood posts spaced between 8 and 10 feet on center with large opening galvanized steel welded wire mesh to
mitigate visibility of the fence mesh while excluding the deer from the cropland.
c. Goal 6 “Take Action Against Climate Change by Reducing Energy Consumption” of the TCP includes Objective 6.2 “Continue to improve the energy efficiency of new construction and remodeling projects.”34 The proposed
residential homes and future agricultural barn will be built in conformance with the
New York State Energy Code in effect at the time the proposed design plans are filed with the Town of Southold Building Department, thus fulfilling the Goal of the TCP.
d. Goal 7 “Adapt to the Effects of Climate Change and Rising Sea Levels” brings
to light a significant issue for future Town Planning that is beyond the scope of the Proposed Action or the Applicant’s ability to control. Data indicates that an increase in the seal level is occurring. The Subject Property is located upland, but could potentially be impacted by the rising sea level. In order to evaluate the future
potential of inundation due to sea level rise, the Natural Resources Navigator &
Coastal Resilience Map Tool35 was used. The map was set to display “Future SLR Inundation”. The “Future SLR Inundation” layer displays the areas predicted to experience increased inundation due to future Sea Level Rise (SLR) for each region using the best match of models for the IPCC 2050 A2 + rapid ice melt (2m) climate change scenario. Thus the map will display the predicted inundation in the year
34 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 6, page 36
35 Available at https://maps.coastalresilience.org/newyork/
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 4-12
2050 based on the cumulative effects of sea level rise and climate change. The map
for the Subject Property is presented in Appendix Z of the FEIS. As indicated on the map, the subject site is predicted not to be inundated in the year 2050 by the cumulative effect of sea level rise and climate change.
Economic Development (Chapter 7) - Goal 4: “Preserve and Encourage Industries that Support Existing and Future Agriculture and Aquaculture Uses” of the TCP includes multiple Objectives related to the Proposed Action.
a. Objective 4.2 “Work with the Long Island Farm Bureau, Peconic Land Trust and Cornell Cooperative Extension to create community seminars and events focused on prominent issues including how to start up a small agricultural business and where to go for help or find available resources and land.”36 The proposed project
embraces the Towns goal. The Applicant seeks to begin a small agricultural business as envisioned by the Town’s goal. The Applicant is a member of the Long Island Farm Bureau and has relied upon the expertise of the Cornell Cooperative Extension, as well as other farmers in the area, to develop a proposed plan of action
to return a significant portion of the Subject Property to active agricultural use.
b. Objective 4.8 “Consider the economic impact to agricultural landowners when considering zoning actions.” As further stated in the TCP, Agricultural landowners must be able to secure financing for equipment and management of ongoing farm operations. Often agricultural landowners’ equity is in the land that they own; the
highest and best use is considered for appraisal purposes in evaluating loans. As a result, land use decisions that change the highest and best use of land, could potentially affect the ability of agricultural landowners to secure financing. This should be considered in the context of potential zoning actions.”37 The Town TCP
recognizes that zoning decisions impact the viability of agricultural businesses,
albeit start-ups or existing. The Proposed Action includes the permanent conservation of 60% of the Subject Property as farmland. The Town zoned the Subject Property for residential use and established, through review of a yield map, the Applicant can construct a maximum of five single family residential homes on
the Subject Property. One of those proposed homes is part of the proposed farm
operations, leaving four potential home sites available for sale. The proceeds from the sale of the four home sites is an integral and important part of financing the start-up agricultural business. The Applicant is seeking no greater density of residential homes than what the Town Code allows and encourages the Town to
fulfill Objective 4.8 contained within the TCP.
36 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 7, page 17
37 Southold Town Comprehensive Code, Chapter 7, page 20
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 4-13
c. Objective 4.9 “Continue to explore additional means to control the Town’s deer population. The agricultural economy is negatively impacted by the deer population that eats crops”.38 The Applicant is in full support of whatever measures the Town may take to control the deer population. In order to mitigate crop damage, a usual and customary practice for farmland located in the Township of Southold is to
install deer resistant fence to protect the crops. It is anticipated the Applicant may find it necessary to incur the expense of erecting and maintaining a deer fence to protect the crops and mitigate the financial impact of the nuisance animal. Agriculture (Chapter 9) - a. Goal 1: “Retain and Advance the Industry of Agriculture”.39 The Proposed Action includes the permanent conservation of nearly 8 acres of land (60% of the
Subject Property total land area) for the purpose of agriculture. In addition to
conservation, the Proposed Action anticipates returning the agricultural land to productive use. Approval of the Proposed Action fulfills Goal 1 of the TCP. b. Objective 1.2 “Promote awareness of and enforce the provisions of the Farmland
Bill of Rights (aka Right to Farm) in the Town Code.”40 The Proposed Action is in
full support of this Town objective. Comments obtained as part of the DEIS process demonstrate a desire to eliminate the farmland use of the Subject Property based on perceived potential impacts associated with usage of the groundwater supply for supplemental irrigation, the addition of nitrogen to the groundwater from fertilizer
and pesticide use, and reduction of the view shed due to a crop field and the
presence of a deer fence. Each of these items are part of normal and customary agricultural practice and is therefore permitted and protected acts under the Town’s Farmland Bill of Rights. The Applicant has sought and obtained approval for the irrigation system supply well, and shall implement Best Management Practices
with regard to limiting nitrogen discharge to the aquifer as it is in both his personal
and financial interest to do so. c. Objective 1.3 “Continue to protect farmland from conversion to a non-agricultural use.”41 The Proposed Action is consistent with Objective 1.3 of the
TCP. Nearly eight acres of agricultural soils will be permanently preserved as part
of the Proposed Action. d. Goal 2: “Protect Prime Agricultural Soils from Depletion, Removal, and Excessive Erosion“. The Goal goes on to state, in pertinent part, “Encourage crop
38 Southold Town Comprehensive Code, Chapter 7, page 20 39 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 9, page 2 40 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 9, page 4
41 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 9, page 4
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 4-14
rotation, where appropriate”.42 The Proposed Action includes growth of row crops.
It is anticipated that the primary crop will be corn. Crop rotation is a necessary part of growing corn. It is anticipated that crop rotation will be an integral part of the farm operation where alternate vegetables will be grown in lieu of corn in certain years. This fulfills the Town’s stated Goal.
e. Goal 3: “Promote Best Management Practices for Agricultural Pesticides and Herbicides”.43 Management of pesticide and herbicide applications is critical to the farm operator as the crop yield can be dramatically affected, and there is a substantial cost for use of the products. The farmer has multiple incentives to minimize the amount pesticides and herbicides used in the operation. As expressed
in the DEIS, Best Management Practices will be employed as will Agricultural Environmental Management. The specifics of how these will be implemented depends upon a multitude of considerations including, but not limited to, the crop being grown, the stage of crop growth, the weather patterns, the type of crop disease or infestation, and the extent of the disease/infestation, and is beyond the scope of
an FEIS. The future farm operator has a vested interest in minimizing use of these products. Land Preservation (Chapter 10) -
a. Goal 1: Farmland “Continue to promoter farming with an overall goal of retaining at least 8,000 acres (80 percent of the current agricultural acreage) in agriculture”.44 The Proposed Action embodies the Town Goal with the permanent
preservation of nearly 8 acres of agricultural land.
b. Objective 1.3 “Promote conservation subdivisions and design all subdivisions of farmland to enhance agriculture. Where land is being subdivided, continue to encourage conservation subdivisions where possible. Where standard subdivisions do occur on farm and, ensure that the clustering provision of the subdivision code
is implemented to best preserve the future of farming on the parcel.”45 It goes on to state, in pertinent part, “Design the location of the open space/farmland so it is contiguous with other farmland”.46The Proposed Action is in direct alignment with this Town objective. The proposed subdivision has been designed with clustering
of the proposed residential homes (excluding the home associated with the
agricultural use). Furthermore, the farmland has been, to the extent possible, maintained in a shape conducive to row crops and is contiguous to an adjacent
42 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 9, page 7 43 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 9, page 7 44 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 10, page 2 45 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 10, page 3
46 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 10, page 4
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 4-15
property (Guadagno- see Appendix V of the DEIS) that has 6 acres protected by a
conservation easement with indications of future use for agricultural purposes.
4.1.4- Comment C-37: “Likewise, the introduction of farming is questionable due to its intensive use of groundwater. The limit of “The Orchards” to two building lots would also better conform
with the present environment in this part of Orient.”
Response to Comment:
a. The Subject Property is agricultural land. The Town Code, the 2020 Southold Town
Comprehensive Plan, and numerous other Town documents/studies/reports encourage use of agricultural land for farming purposes. The Town Code section 280-97 includes the Farmland Bill of Rights which provides farmers the right to farm without interference.
b. The Town evaluated a yield map prepared for the Subject Property (see Appendix I of
the DEIS) and concluded the Subject Property has the legal right to develop five single family residential building plots. Five single family homes on the Subject Property is consistent with the development density permitted under the R-80 zoning district regulations.
4.1.5- Comment C-39:
“This Proposed Preliminary Plat does little to address the many concerns expressed early on and are still relevant today. In fact, this Proposed Preliminary Plat is a clear disregard for the goals for future land use and zoning reflected in the Town’s Vision Statement and
Comprehensive Plan as well as County and State Conservation planning.”
Response to Comment: a. The commenter provided no factual examples, or specific references to any of the
sources cited to support the statement. As such, a detailed response to the statement is not
possible.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 4-16
b. The Proposed Preliminary Plat layout is in conformance to the Town Code. The
subdivision is planned as a cluster as is required by Code, preserves a minimum of 60% of the Subject Property area as farmland/open space, and locates the farmland contiguous to an adjacent property with 6 acres of preserved open space that may become active farmland (based on the future agricultural barn indicated on the subdivision map- see Appendix V
of the FEIS). Each of these site design elements are required, and in accordance with, the
requirements set forth by the Town. c. With regard to the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, the project embodies a significant number of the goals and objectives contained within the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. A
detailed list is provided in response 4.1.3 of the FEIS.
4.1.6- Comment C-64: “The adjacent residential development proposed on the subject site as well as the nearby homes will be negatively impacted for years to come if proper testing is not required and
if (sic) Open Space Conservation Easement does not provide restrictions for use/activities,
crop limitations, and the water related issues.”
Response to Comment:
a. The comment regarding “testing” relates to pump testing of the irrigation well. The
irrigation well has been addressed in detail in other FEIS responses. The NYSDEC is the governmental agency with direct jurisdictional control over the irrigation well permit. The NYSDEC issued the irrigation well permit. Pump testing is not required for this irrigation well.
b. The commenter provided no scientific based evidence to support the statement regarding negative impacts to the homes if (pump) testing was not performed. c. With regard to restrictions for use/activities within the Open Space Conservation area,
the DEIS included a sample document that was part of the Guadagno subdivision approval
for the property immediately to the west, and abutting, the Subject Property. A review of the Guadagno Conservation Easement shows an extensive list of restrictions on the property area being preserved. It is anticipated similar language will be presented to the Applicant. d. Crop limitations would be contrary to the Town Code, the 2020 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan, and numerous other Town documents/studies/reports. The Town
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 4-17
Code section 280-97 includes the Farmland Bill of Rights which provides farmers the right
to farm without interference. 4.2 Transportation and Traffic
4.2.1- Comment C-2:
“The contribution to traffic also seems fundamentally understated. Whatever the database that was used for the calculation, if one makes the reasonable assumption that these houses are likely to be sold to young families fleeing the City, the assumption of fewer that two
trips a day per household seems absurd.”
Response to Comment: a. As stated on page 4-7 of the DEIS, the trip generation data was extracted from the
Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual using the peak hourly flow
for all times of the week for Land Use Code 210 (single family residential). The Trip Generation Manual is based on extensive studies and is the industry standard for estimating trip generation rates.
b. The commenter attempts to support his claim by the use of his perceived “reasonable
assumptions”. There is no scientific basis for the assumptions made, nor are such assumptions appropriate to make when empirical data exists from an authoritative source.
4.3 Public Health and Safety/Community Services No comments were received.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 4-18
4.4 Aesthetic and Open Space
4.4.1- Comment C-1: “The proposal to place a suburban development of this magnitude in this location will fundamentally change the character of this part of Orient Village.”
Response to Comment: The five proposed single family homes conform to the community character as defined by the Town’s own publications. A summary is as follows:
• The Town Code provides the foundation for establishing community character through its regulations regarding allowable use, density of housing, square footage of housing, height of the house, setbacks from the property lines, and buffers. The Town Code assigned a residential zoning
district designation to the Subject Property. This establishes residential use
is legally permissible and therefore appropriate for the community character in the area of the Subject Property.
• The Town required a yield map from the Applicant for the purpose of
determining the maximum number of single family residential homes that could be constructed on the Subject Property (see Appendix I in the FEIS). The Town determined that the Subject Property had a yield of five single family homes. This establishes the construction of five single family homes
on the Subject Property is legally permissible and therefore appropriate for
the community character of the surrounding area. If five homes were not appropriate, the zoning district would not be R-80.
• Section 240-42.B of the Town Code requires clustering of the five proposed
single family homes. Clustering is also part of the 2020 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan47 as is discussed elsewhere in the FEIS. This establishes the mandate that the single family homes must be clustered, and that a clustered arrangement of homes is therefore appropriate for the
community character of the surrounding area. If it were not, clustering
would not be mandated for this project.
• Since a portion of the Subject Property is being developed for use as farmland, one of the five residential home lots is not required to be
clustered. As such, only four of the five proposed single family residential building parcels are clustered.
47 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan February 2020 Chapter 10, page 3 Objective 1.3
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 4-19
• The only question remaining with regard to the proposed four single family home building lots is the appropriate location for the clustered homes. This final question is answered by Town Code section 240-43.B and the 2020 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan. The Town Code states “The location
of open space lands shall be determined in general accordance with the goals of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan and in particular with the Southold Town Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy to provide an interconnected network of open space and farmland. The Town Comprehensive Plan states, in pertinent part under Objective 1.3, “Design
both standard and conservation subdivisions involving farmland to enhance farming and minimize potential incompatibility with residential neighbors by incorporating the following into the design: Design the location of the open space/farmland so it is contiguous with other farmland”. The proposed farmland occupies the westerly portion of the Subject Property. The land
abutting the Subject Property along the westerly property line is part of a subdivision map approved by the Town Planning Board on March 7, 2012 (see Appendix V of the FEIS – Final Plat of Patrick Guadagno). The Guadagno subdivision includes a 6 acre Open Space Conservation Easement and a future agricultural barn. The proposed farmland on the
Subject Property has been placed to be contiguous with the open space/farmland on the Guadagno property, which is consistent with Objective 1.3 in the TCP. Therefore the four clustered homes must be placed on the easterly side of the Subject Property. This is consistent with maximizing the open viewshed of the area by placing the two farmlands
contiguous with each other. If placement of the clustered homes were a higher priority design consideration for maintaining the character of the area, the Town Code and Town Comprehensive Plan would not prioritize continuity of farmland as a specific requirement/objective.
4.4.2- Comment C-20:
“While the DEIS indicates that the five homes will be “modest sized” with footprints of
approximately 1750 sf and overall square footage of 3,500 sf. Once the lots are subdivided, it seems that the Town has almost no control over what will be built on the individual lots. There is presently almost no limitation on the sizes of the homes, and while there are very stringent oversight of what is built in the nearby Historic District, there are no rules at all
about the design quality of these homes. These “structural design components”, potentially
very LARGE homes, will have clear negative impact on the “visual quality and scenic resources” at the very center of Orient.”
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 4-20
Response to Comment:
a. The Town Code sets forth limitations on the maximum footprint of the proposed homes (lot coverage), the height of the homes, and the number of stories. The proposed homes will comply with the Town’s requirements. b. The Town’s Comprehensive Plan sets forth an Objective 1.448 to “Enhance scenic qualities through design standards and innovative site planning and architecture in public and private development projects” by developing “voluntary structural design standards for residential architecture”. If the Town Objective was one day fulfilled, the standards for residential home design would still be voluntary. The design of the proposed residential
homes would be governed solely by the limitation set forth in the zoning code. c. The Town Code also establishes required setbacks and buffers where the proposed homes cannot be placed. Section 240-43.F(1), subsections (a), (b), and (c) all require a 50
foot buffer, which exceeds the typical yard requirements for the R-40 zone. This results in
a significant reduction in the building envelopes (i.e. the area in which the proposed building can be located) on all five building lots, thereby further restricting the potential size of the future homes.
d. The Subject Property is zoned R-80. The proposed building lots are based on using the
R-40 zoning district regulations so as to comply with the Town’s cluster subdivision requirement. The maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-40 and R-80 zones is identical, i.e. 20%. Since the proposed home building lots are smaller in size than a traditional R-80 lot, the size of the proposed homes is effectively reduced. For example, if a home was constructed on an R-80 lot 2.0 acres in size, the maximum lot coverage would be 17,424.
If a home was constructed on an R-40 lot 1.0 acres in size, the maximum lot coverage would be 8,712 SF. By use of the cluster subdivision and R-40 zoning requirements, the size of the potential homes is reduced by half of what it could have been had it been developed under the R-80 zoning district regulations. e. Each building lot will require a sanitary system and well to provide drinking water. The proposed locations for the sanitary systems and water supply wells are indicated on the plan in Appendix G of the DEIS. In addition, individual lot sanitary and water supply well design plans were prepared and filed with the SCDHS (see Appendix JJ of the FEIS). Due
to the SCDHS setback requirements between water supply wells and sanitary systems, the
proposed locations for the sanitary systems and water supply wells cannot substantially vary from what is presented on the referenced plan. The location and sizes of the proposed homes are further limited beyond the Town Zoning Code required setbacks due to the physical constraints created by the location of the sanitary and water supply systems.
f. The comment regarding “potentially very large homes” is speculative and lacks a basis.
48 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan February 2020 Chapter 5, page 4
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 4-21
g. The commenter equates a large home with having a negative visual impact. That is a subjective opinion contradicted by the building structures located at 605 Halyoake Ave which lies one tax parcel north of the Subject Property. Both structures are large in scale and one was submitted to the New York State Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation by the Town of Southold/SPLIA for its contribution to the “ambience of the
area”.
4.4.3- Comment C-21: “Table1 of the DEIS has the Total Area of buildings as .2927 acres, which seems to be based on 5 houses with footprints of 1,750 sf + 4,000 sf barn. Page 4-10 of the DEIS states
“A primary purpose of the Bulk Schedule for Residential Districts is to ensure properties
are developed in a manner that provides the appropriate amount of open space between building lots with appropriately sized buildings. Thus the size and location for each of the proposed homes are limited”. Unfortunately this is not the case, the houses can be almost unlimited in size based on the Bulk Schedule.”
Response to Comment: a. Refer to response 4.4.2.
b. The maximum home size permitted by the Town Code is not an indicator of how large the future homes will be, as is demonstrated by many of the existing homes on the parcels abutting, or adjacent to, the Subject Property49. For example:
• The home at 3585 Orchard Street sits on a 5 acre parcel with an allowable lot coverage of approximately 43,569 SF, yet the home constructed circa 1995 only has a footprint of approximately 1,904 SF.
• The home at 140 Platt Road sits on a 0.918 acre parcel with an allowable lot coverage of approximately 7,998 SF, yet the home constructed circa 2000 only has
a footprint of approximately 1,104 SF. c. The size of the future homes used for the DEIS analysis was based on an analysis of the size of the existing homes on the properties abutting or immediately adjacent to (i.e. on the
opposite side of the public roadway) the Subject Property. The analysis is presented in
49 It is noted that “lot coverage” as defined in the Town Zoning Code includes all “building area”. “Building area” as defined in the Town Zoning Code would include the footprint of the home as well as other site improvements
including, but not limited to, garages, porches, decks, pools, and patios.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 4-22
Appendix AA of the FEIS. The size of the existing homes were determine by obtaining a
copy of the Town of Southold property record cards for each of the abutting/adjacent properties. The size of the existing homes was taken directly from the Town property cards. The average size building footprint of the existing homes on the 13 developed lots abutting/adjacent to the Subject Property is 1,472 SF. The 1,750 SF proposed home
footprint used in the DEIS exceeds the size of the existing homes abutting/adjacent to the
Subject Property. The DEIS analysis accounted for homes that are potentially larger than the existing homes. d. The National Association of Home Builders analyzed the average size of new single
family homes from 1999 through third quarter of 201950. The analysis showed the average
total size of new single family homes as of the third quarter of Nov 2019 was 2,464 square feet. For a two story home, the footprint would be approximately 1,232 square feet. The size of the potential homes used for the DEIS analysis is 42% larger than the average reported by NAHB.
e. “Lot coverage” as defined in the Town Zoning Code includes all “building area” on the parcel. “Building area” includes, but is not limited to, balconies, porches, decks, accessory structures above grade, terraces, patios, and swimming pools. Based on the existing homes abutting or immediately adjacent to the Subject Property, it is highly likely the future
homes will have some of these elements such as a porch, deck, or patio. As such, the area
of these elements reduces the net amount of square footage available for the footprint of the home.
4.4.4- Comment C-22:
“For the residential lots, landscape buffers per 240-43 are not indicated and potential
hedges and fences are not addressed.”
Response to Comment:
a. The comment regarding landscape buffers not being shown in incorrect. Appendix Y of
the DEIS illustrates, and specifically calls out in note form, each of the landscape buffers required by section 240-43 of the Town Code. b. It is not normal or customary practice to indicate the potential location of future hedges
and fences on a subdivision map, nor is it required by the Town Code.
50 Available at https://nahbnow.com/2019/11/new-single-family-homes-are-getting-smaller/
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 4-23
4.4.5- Comment C-23:
“Additionally, the 4,000 sf barn is directly on axis with the view from Old Farm Road.”
Response to Comment:
Although the comment does not specifically state it, for purposes of a response, we must
assume the commenter is adverse to the location of the barn. a. The barn is an integral part of the proposed agricultural use. It must therefore be located in a manner that allows use of the facility.
b. The barn, and use of the barn, are part of normal and customary agricultural activities. Town Code section 280-97.B states, in pertinent part, “whatever nuisance may be caused to others by such uses and activities, so conducted, is more than offset by the benefits from farming to the community”.
c. The presence of a barn is in keeping with the character of the Township of Southold, as is described in numerous Town publications. Furthermore, the view of a barn from a street named “Old Farm Road” seems appropriate.
d. Appendix EE of the FEIS is an aerial photograph taken September 19, 2019.
Superimposed on the aerial photograph is an arrow indicating the view shed of the Subject Property from Old Farm Road. As shown on the aerial photograph, the view shed from Old Farm Road consists of three single family dwellings built in 1984, 1985, and 2008 respectively. None of the homes are designated historic, nor were they constructed with a
historic aesthetic. Construction of the proposed barn is more in keeping with the
historic/agricultural aesthetic than the three existing homes. e. The location of the potential future barn is more than 600 feet from the closest view point from Old Farm Rd.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 4-24
4.4.6- Comment C-24:
“The rural nature of the Orchard and Halyoake corner is still mostly intact, and will be permanently spoiled by the addition of four potentially massive houses.”
Response to Comment:
a. The comment is based upon speculation regarding the size of the future homes. The commenter provided no basis to support the statement.
4.4.7- Comment C-25:
“This proposal does not “enhance the visual quality and protect scenic resources” and
there are no safeguards in place to insure that the structures that will be built will not seriously detract from the visual qualities of the area.”
Response to Comment:
a. The potential size of the structures is governed by various sections of the Town Code, as was previously discussed in the FEIS. The future owners of the building parcels should be afforded the same protections and restrictions afforded to every other resident of the Township of Southold.
b. The Town’s Comprehensive Plan sets forth an Objective 1.451 to “Enhance scenic qualities through design standards and innovative site planning and architecture in public and private development projects” by developing “voluntary structural design standards for residential architecture”. If the Town Objective was one day fulfilled, the standards for
residential home design would still be voluntary. The design of the proposed residential homes would be governed solely by the limitations set forth in the zoning code, as it is now.
51 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan February 2020 Chapter 5, page 4
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 4-25
4.4.8- Comment C-26:
“We would like to see a full visual impact study showing the impact of the maximum sized homes and barn.”
Response to Comment:
a. The Proposed Action is for approval of a subdivision map. It is not for approval of a site plan where a specific building is being proposed. Preparation of a full visual impact study was not required for this Proposed Action, nor should it be. b. If a full visual impact study had been conducted, use of the maximum sized buildings would be prejudicial to the application as there is no sound scientific basis to support using the maximum sized structures. No properties surrounding the Subject Property have built the maximum sized structure permitted. c. The Proposed Action is for approval of a subdivision map that includes an agricultural use, an agricultural barn, and five single family residential homes. As was discussed at length in response 4.4.1 of the FEIS, and as summarized herein, the agricultural use and barn are encouraged and protected by various Town publications including the Farmland
Bill of Rights. The proposed five residential homes are permitted on the Subject Property
as was determined by the Town’s evaluation of the yield map. The clustering of four homes is required by the Town Code. The location of the farmland on the west side of the property is consistent with the Town’s requirement for placing farmland contiguous to other farmland. The layout of the proposed subdivision and potential home locations were the
result of applying the Town Code. The Applicant had little to no flexibility in developing
the subdivision map. If there is any visual impact due to the Proposed Action, it is unavoidable as the Proposed Action, and the future construction of single family homes in the general locations shown, is permitted by the Town Code and complies with the regulations set forth by the Town and County.
4.4.9- Comment C-27:
“Considering the proximity to the Orient Historic District and to the Hallock Farm Complex, the houses and the barn should all be contextual in design, restricted in height above natural grade, and limited in footprint in order to maintain the aesthetics and character of the area.”
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 4-26
Response to Comment:
a. There is no basis in the law for placing such restrictions on the Proposed Action, which is for approval of a subdivision map. The proposed design and future construction will comply with the applicable requirements of the Town Code. Based on the Town’s Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Objective 1.452 if the Town were to develop residential
design standards in the future, the standards would be voluntary. b. The Subject Property does not lie within the Orient Historic District and is not subject to its design requirements as the requirements are specific to the Historic District, not to
properties that lie within a certain distance from the Historic District.
c. The “Hallock Farm Complex” does not appear on the NYS OPRHP CRIS system for culturally significant resources (see Appendix X of the FEIS), does not appear on the Town’s Historic registry (see Appendix Y of the FEIS), was subdivided into multiple parcels, the parcels were sold off and developed with single family homes that do not
appear to have had any contextual, height, footprint or aesthetic restrictions placed on their development other than what is required by the Town Code.
4.4.10- Comment C-43:
“The subject site at 13.3 acres is currently guided by the area’s R-80 zoning district and
is informed by its historical context and the goals represented by the Village of Orient
Historic District with its eastern boundary at Tabor Road, just 880 feet from the subject site.”
Response to Comment:
a. There commenter correctly points out the Subject Property is zoned R-80. A yield map using the R-80 zoning requirements was prepared and reviewed by the Town of Southold (see Appendix I of the FEIS). The Town determined the Subject Property would yield five
residential building lots. The Applicant seeks only to develop what the Town has deemed
permissible for the Subject Property. b. The Subject Property does not lie within the Orient Historic District and is not subject to its design requirements as the requirements are specific to the Historic District, not to
properties that lie within a certain distance from the Historic District.
52 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan February 2020 Chapter 5, page 4
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 4-27
4.4.11- Comment C-44:
“Moreover, the surrounding properties defining the existing neighborhood character reflect lot sizes between 1.5 acres to 6 acres providing a rural, not suburban, landscape profile.”
Response to Comment: a. The proposed four home cluster subdivision is required by section 240-42.B of the Town Code. The Applicant has no choice as to whether or not to utilize the cluster configuration.
It is required by the Town Code.
b. An analysis was performed of the lot areas for the parcels of land abutting, or immediately adjacent to, the Subject Property. The data is presented in Appendix AA of the FEIS. The average parcel size for the thirteen developed lots abutting, or immediately adjacent to, the Subject Property is 1.72 acres. The average lot size for the Subject Property
is 2.66 acres.
4.4.12- Comment C-48: “For example, in the proposed Preliminary Plan, the full build-out scenario for the very crowded east and southeast portion of the subject site would result in negating any
historical reference to “famous” Hallock Farm and its Halyoake approach and natural or
scenic values along the 701 feet of combined Halyoake Avenue frontage and the Orchard Street portion east of the existing house on Lot 4.” Response to Comment:
a. The proposed four home cluster subdivision is required by section 240-42.B of the Town Code. The Applicant has no choice as to whether or not to utilize the cluster configuration. It is required by the Town Code.
b. The siting of the four home cluster is in accordance with Town’s requirement for the proposed farmland to be placed contiguous to any other farmland that may abut the property.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 4-28
c. The Hallock Farm does not appear on the NYS OPRHP CRIS system for culturally significant resources (see Appendix X of the FEIS), does not appear on the Town’s Historic registry (see Appendix Y of the FEIS), was subdivided into multiple parcels, the parcels were sold off and developed with single family homes, including the parcel owned and developed by the commenter circa 1995, with subsequent construction of a tennis court
and in-ground swimming pool, neither of which are in keeping with the “historical reference to famous Hallock Farm and its Halyoake approach and natural or scenic values”. d. The Subject Property does not have any frontage on Halyoake Road. The property that lies between Halyoake Avenue and the Subject Property is part of tax parcel 1000-27-1-5
with street address 405 Halyoake Avenue.
4.4.13- Comment C-49: “Any scenic value associated with the remaining Orchard Street frontage (approximately 400 feet west of Lot 4) is similarly diminished as 8 foot deer fencing would surround all of
Lot 1 (residential house, agricultural barn, and open space), the driveway entrance and
gate, the residential building on a 1.35 acre lot and the separate 4,000 square foot barn all stand in the way and interrupt any scenic value perceived to be gained by the relatively small (under 8 acres) open space under the “cluster” configuration of the subject site lots.”
Response to Comment: a. The Town has stated in numerous publications previously discussed in the FEIS agricultural use is a priority in the Township. This includes the Farmland Bill of Rights
contained in section 280-97 of the Town Code which states, in pertinent part” “Agricultural
activities conducted on farmland, undertaken in compliance with applicable federal, state, county and Town laws, rules and regulations, are presumed to be good agricultural practices and presumed not to adversely affect the public health safety and welfare. We find that whatever nuisance may be caused to others by such uses and activities, so
conducted, is more than offset by the benefits from farming to the community. Therefore,
all such activities shall be protected farm practices within the Town of Southold.” The proposed home for the farmer, the proposed agricultural barn, and the deer fence are all usual and customary parts of agricultural activities and are therefore presumed by the Town not to adversely affect the public. The proposed home site associated with the farmland is
one of the five proposed building lots deemed by the Town to be the permissible yield for
the Subject Property.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 4-29
b. There is an existing single family home located at 2605 Orchard Street, which is located
approximately midway along the east-west traverse of the Subject Property. The existing home on Orchard Street, as well as the existing homes/structures located at 1470, 1610, and/or 1750 Platt Road are within the same viewshed described by the commenter.
c. The presence of a barn is in keeping with the character of the Township of Southold, as
is described in numerous Town publications. d. The cluster subdivision configuration is required by Town Code section 240-42.B.
4.4.14- Comment C-55:
“The Open Space Conservation Easement “sample” (2011) provided in Appendix D is
irrelevant to subject site’s scale and complexity of the proposed development as presented
in the Proposed Preliminary Plat” Response to Comment:
a. The Town has not presented the Applicant with a proposed Open Space Conservation Easement document specific to the Subject Property. In the interest of providing as much information as possible to the public through the DEIS process, the Easement applicable to the abutting parcel to the west, was provided as a general guide as to what may be
expected in the Easement for the Subject Property.
b. There is no significant difference in “scale and complexity” of the Subject Property’s proposal versus the abutting property. The abutting property was subdivided into 3 parcels. The Subject Property is being subdivided into 5 parcels. The use of the cluster subdivision configuration is mandated by the Town Code, hence the Applicant had minimal choice in
design options. The location of the cluster is likewise dictated by the Town Code as the proposed farmland must be continuous to abutting farmland. The abutting subdivision map indicates potential use of the property as farmland.
4.5 Archeological No comments were received.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 5-1
5.0 REQUIRED DEIS ELEMENTS COMMENTS AND
RESPONSES
5.1 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 5.1.1- Comment T-32:
“This claim that the agricultural land lost by the proposed construction is 1.12 acres is not
correct. The total agricultural land lost is equal to the acreage of all areas proposed for
development. Please provide the total estimated agricultural lands lost. Response to Comment:
a. The DEIS estimation of agricultural land lost was based on the criteria set forth in the State SEQRA regulation. Specifically, the criteria for the evaluation is “irreversible and irretrievable”. Using that criteria, agricultural land is lost when the agricultural soil is permanently disturbed and removed, as occurs when a home foundation is installed,
sanitary systems are installed, and driveways are installed. Use of the agricultural soil for
the purpose of growing lawns, landscaping, and trees at a single family home preserves the ability to return the land back to agricultural use. An “irreversible and irretrievable” loss of agricultural land does not occur when the land could be returned to agricultural use. This viewpoint is consistent with Goal 2 “Protect Prime Agricultural Soils from Depletion,
Removal, and Excessive Erosion”, Objective 2.1B of the 2020 Southold Town
Comprehensive Plan which states “Prevent stripping of soil underneath farm structures through education programs in partnership with Cornell Cooperative Extension”. By leaving the agricultural soil in place to grow lawn, landscape, and trees (and even under a farm building as promoted by the Southold Town Comprehensive Plan) the agricultural
soil is not irreversibly lost and could one day return to agricultural use.
b. If the criteria of “irreversible and irretrievable” are not strictly applied to the evaluation of the amount of agricultural land lost, and the criteria is modified to include all areas proposed for development, it is estimated that 5.319 acres of agricultural land will be lost,
calculated as follows:
• Proposed total area of lot 1 buildable area: 1.3526 acres
• Proposed total area of lot 2: 0.987 acres
• Proposed total area of lot 3: 1.143 acres
• Proposed total area of lot 4: 0.9184 acres
• Proposed total area of lot 5: 0.918 acres
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 5-2
The building area earmarked for the future agricultural barn (4,000 SF) is not included in the estimate. If the barn is constructed, the Applicant will seek to construct the barn in a manner consistent with Goal 2, Objective 2.1B of the 2020 Southold Town Comprehensive Code to mitigate loss of agricultural soils.
5.2 GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS
No comments were received. 5.3 USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY
No comments were received.
5.4 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
No comments were received.
5.5 SPECIAL GROUNDWATER PROTECTION AREA
No comments were received.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 6-1
6.0 ALTERNATIVES COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
6.1 NO ACTION
No comments were received.
6.2 PRESERVATION
6.2.1- Comment T-33: “The DEIS states that “The Preservation alternative would eliminate benefits provided by the proposed project. A brief summary of the benefits that would be lost include: 1. Return fallow agricultural land to productive use.” This statement is not correct. The preservation
of property by the Town or other qualified entity does not preclude returning land to
agriculture.” Response to Comment:
a. The comment is acknowledged and agreed with.
6.2.2- Comment C-28: “Even more of the property could be open space or the land could be sold to a trust or individual who would preserve all of the land as open space.”
Response to Comment:
a. No trust, individual or governmental entity has ever tendered a financial offer to the Applicant for the purpose of purchasing the land with the intent of 100% preservation as
open space.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 6-2
b. The Applicant has owned the Subject Property since 2005. The Applicant has gone
through an exhaustive Town subdivision approval process, obtaining County approval, and securing State approval, that all began over 8 years ago. The Town determined via the yield map that five residential building lots were permissible on the Subject Property. Farming is permissible on the Subject Property, is encouraged by the Town, and is protected from
interference. Residential use is permissible on the Subject Property. The Applicant has laid
out the subdivision map using a cluster of four residential building lots as is required by the Town Code. The Applicant has located the farm contiguous to the neighboring open space/potential future farm. At this point, the Applicant has no desire to sell the property.
6.2.3- Comment C-59:
“I would prefer that the land stay completely undeveloped and unused to maintain the
openness of the area and to preserve the quality and sustainability of the water supply.
However, I realize that the land will likely be developed in some way.” Response to Comment:
a. The Applicant has owned the Subject Property for over sixteen years. The Applicant has gone through an exhaustive Town subdivision approval process, obtaining County approval, and securing State approval, that all began over 8 years ago. The Town determined via the yield map that five residential building lots were permissible on the
Subject Property. Farming is permissible on the Subject Property, is encouraged by the
Town, and is protected from interference. Residential use is permissible on the Subject Property. The Applicant has laid out the subdivision map using a cluster of four residential building lots as is required by the Town Code. The Applicant has located the farm contiguous to the neighboring open space/potential future farm as is desired by the Town
and set forth in the 2020 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan53. The Applicant is only
seeking to develop and use the property as is permitted by the Town Code.
53 2020 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 10, page 4
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDICES
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDIX A
Town SEQRA DEIS Notice of Completion and Public Hearing
October 6, 2020
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDIX B
Transcript of DEIS Public Hearing
December 7, 2020
72:12)6287+2/'3/$11,1*%2$5'
&2817<2)68))2/. 67$7(2)1(:<25.
;
72:12)6287+2/'
3/$11,1*%2$5'
;
9LD9LGHRFRQIHUHQFH
'HFHPEHU
30
%2$5'0(0%(5635(6(17
-$0(6+5,&+,,,9LFH&KDLUPDQ
0$57,16,'25%RDUG0HPEHU
3,(5&(5$))(57<%RDUG0HPEHU
0$5<(,6(167(,1%RDUG0HPEHU
+($7+(5/$1=$3ODQQLQJ'LUHFWRU
0$5.7(55<$VVLVWDQW3ODQQLQJ'LUHFWRU
%5,$1&800,1*63ODQQHU
-(66,&$0,&+$(/,6$VVLVWDQW
'HFHPEHU3XEOLF+HDULQJV
,1'(;
1$0( 3$*(
6WHUOLQJ$JULFXOWXUDO%DUQ
7KH2UFKDUGV6WDQGDUG6XEGLYLVLRQ'UDIW
(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW6WDWHPHQW
6WURQJ
V6WRUDJH%XLOGLQJV'UDIW6FRSH
'HFHPEHU3XEOLF+HDULQJV
0(0%(5(,6(167(,1 $\H
0(0%(55$))(57< $\H
9,&(&+$,50$15,&+ $\H
$Q\ERG\RSSRVHG"
1R5HVSRQVH
9,&(&+$,50$15,&+ 6RZHFORVHGWKH
KHDULQJ,EHOLHYHWKDWWKHWLPHIRU
ZULWWHQFRPPHQWVUHPDLQVRSHQIRUWZR
ZHHNV,VWKDWQRWFRUUHFW+HDWKHU"
06/$1=$ 1RWQHFHVVDU\IRUWKLV
DSSOLFDWLRQ
9,&(&+$,50$15,&+ 1RWQHFHVVDU\
$PRWLRQLVPDGHDQGSDVVHGWRFORVHWKH
KHDULQJ7KDQN\RX
7+(25&+$5'667$1'$5'68%',9,6,21
'5$)7(19,5210(17$/,03$&767$7(0(17
1H[WRUGHURIEXVLQHVVWKH2UFKDUGV
6WDQGDUG6XEGLYLVLRQ'UDIW(QYLURQPHQWDO
,PSDFW6WDWHPHQW7KLVSURSRVDOLVIRUD
&OXVWHUHG6WDQGDUG6XEGLYLVLRQWRVXEGLYLGH
DDFUHSDUFHOLQWRILYHORWVZKHUH
/RWHTXDOV DFUHVLQFOXGLQJD
DFUHEXLOGLQJHQYHORSHDQG DFUHVRI
SUHVHUYHG2SHQ6SDFH/RWHTXDOV
'HFHPEHU3XEOLF+HDULQJV
DFUHV/RWHTXDOVDFUHV/RW
HTXDOV DQG/RWHTXDOV DFUHVLQ
WKH5=RQLQJ'LVWULFW7KHSURSHUW\LV
ORFDWHGDW 2UFKDUG6WUHHWRQWKH
QRUWKHDVWVLGHRI2UFKDUG6WUHHW
DSSUR[LPDWHO\IHHWQRUWKZHVWRI3ODWW
5RDGLQ2ULHQWZLWKD6&70
$Q\RQHZLVKLQJWRDGGUHVVWKH7RZQ
3ODQQLQJ%RDUGRQWKLVLVVXHUDLVHWKHLU
HOHFWULFKDQGRQ=RRPDQGVWDWH\RXUQDPH
DQGDGGUHVV<RXDUHVSHDNLQJWRWKH
3ODQQLQJ%RDUG$QGLIWKHUHLVD
UHSUHVHQWDWLYHRIWKH2UFKDUGVZKRZRXOG
OLNHWRJLYHDQ\LQIRUPDWLRQRQWKLVZH
ZRXOGZHOFRPHWKHLULQSXWWKHLULQSXW
ILUVW
060,&+$(/,6 ,KDYHOHW6WHYH
0DUWRFHOOR$QG,GRQ
WNQRZLI6WHYH
ZDQWVWRVSHDNRUKLVDWWRUQH\0U/RWWH
050$572&(//2 7KLVLV6WHYH
0DUWRFHOOR7KHGHVFULSWLRQZDVILQH
7KLVZDVWKHGUDIWHQYLURQPHQWDOLPSDFW
VWDWHPHQWZHDUHKHUHIRUWRQLJKW,ZRXOG
OLNHWRLQWURGXFH:LOOLDP/RWWH%LOOLV
RXUDSURIHVVLRQDOHQJLQHHUDVZHOODV
'HFHPEHU3XEOLF+HDULQJV
DQHQYLURQPHQWDOHQJLQHHU+HKDVWDNHQ
FHQWHUSRLQWLQKHOSLQJXVSUHSDUHWKH
GUDIWHQYLURQPHQWDOLPSDFW6RE\DOO
PHDQVKHFDQSUREDEO\DQVZHUDQ\
TXHVWLRQVWKH%RDUGPD\DVNRUP\VHOI
7KDQN\RX
9,&(&+$,50$15,&+ 7KDQN\RX
$Q\RQHZLVKLQJWRDGGUHVVWKH7RZQ3ODQQLQJ
%RDUGRQWKLV2UFKDUGDSSOLFDWLRQ"
060,&+$(/,6 ,KDYH1DQF\)DUULVW
06)$55,67 +L0\QDPHLV1DQF\
)DUULVW,OLYHDW2UFKDUG6WUHHW
,W
VWKHFRUQHUSURSHUW\RQ2UFKDUGDQG
+ROO\2DN'LUHFWO\RSSRVLWHWKH
2UFKDUG
V+ROO\2DN$YHQXHIURQWDJH:H
KDYHEHHQLQWKHFRPPXQLW\IRU\HDUV,
DORQJZLWKRWKHUVLQWKHFRPPXQLW\
FRPPHQWHGEDFNLQ$QGPDQ\RIWKRVH
FRQFHUQVDUHVWLOOUHOHYDQW7KHSURSRVHG
LQDXGLEOH WRWKH2ULHQWFRPPXQLW\$QG,
GRQRWIHHOWKDWWKHVHLVVXHVKDYHEHHQ
DGHTXDWHO\DGGUHVVHGE\WKHDSSOLFDQWV(,6
QRUWKHSURSRVHGSUHOLPLQDU\SODW
FRQILJXUDWLRQRIWKHILYHORWVRQWKLV
VXEGLYLVLRQ,KDYHVHYHUDOPDMRU
'HFHPEHU3XEOLF+HDULQJV
FRQFHUQV7KHVLWHLVFXUUHQWO\JXLGHGE\
WKHDUHD
V5]RQLQJGLVWULFW7KH
GHWHUPLQDWLRQE\WKHDSSOLFDQWWRVTXHH]H
ILYHEXLOGLQJORWVXVLQJWKHVPDOOHU5
ORWVL]HDQGVHWEDFNUHJXODWLRQVZLWKLQWKH
UHTXLUHGFOXVWHUHGVXEGLYLVLRQVHHPVWR
EHQHILWRQO\WKHGHYHORSHUZLWKRXW
DQ\WKLQJSRVLWLYHRUIDYRUDEOHWRWKH7RZQ
DQGWKHFRPPXQLW\$OVR2ULHQW
VIUDJLOH
ZDWHUVXSSO\LVWRWDOO\RYHUORRNHG7KH
PRVWFULWLFDOLQWKH'(,6LVWKH
GHYHORSPHQWSDUWLFXODUO\LW
VGHQVLW\RQ
ERWKZDWHUVXSSO\DQGTXDOLW\,GRQ
W
XQGHUVWDQGKRZWKH6XIIRON&RXQW\
'HSDUWPHQWRI+HDOWK6HUYLFHVPDNHVWKHLU
GHWHUPLQDWLRQV7KHUHZHUHWHVWUHVXOWVLQ
LQ$SSHQGL[/LQGLFDWLQJUHVWULFWLQJ
WKHORWVL]HVWRWKH5WZRORWPLQLPXP
$QGWKHQLQWKHUHZHUHWHVWUHVXOWV
JUDQWLQJDZDLYHU7KDWLVLQ$SSHQGL[+
:HDOONQRZWKDWWKH2ULHQWDTXLIHULVDW
ULVN0\IHDULVWKDWWKHRSHQVSDFH
FRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQWZLOOQRWFRQWDLQ
VXIILFLHQWUHVWULFWLRQVDQGOLPLWDWLRQVWR
DUFKLYHWKHJRDOVLQKHULWSURYLVLRQVDQG
'HFHPEHU3XEOLF+HDULQJV
WKH7RZQ
V&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQ$PRUH
HTXLWDEOHDQGIDLUSODQVKRXOGEH
FRQVLGHUHGZLWKIHZHUEXLOGLQJORWV
UHIOHFWLYHRIWKH5UHJXODWLRQVWKH
QHLJKERUKRRGFKDUDFWHUZKLFKLVYHU\
LPSRUWDQWDQGJXLGHGE\DWUXH
HQYLURQPHQWDOLPSDFWVWXG\:HDVD
FRPPXQLW\UHO\RQWKH3ODQQLQJ%RDUGWR
UHTXLUHWKHDSSOLFDQWWRGREHWWHU7KH
GHYHORSHUVKRXOGSURYLGHDEHWWHU(,6DQGD
EHWWHUDOWHUQDWLYHSODQZLWKOHVVGHQVLW\
WKDWWUXO\GHPRQVWUDWHVWKHEDODQFHEHWZHHQ
SULYDWHSURILWDQG7RZQJRDOVDQGWR
SUHVHUYHDQGSURWHFWWKHVSHFLDOFKDUDFWHU
RIWKHKLVWRULFDO2ULHQWFRPPXQLW\,
ZRXOGOLNHWRLQWURGXFH%DUEDUD&RKHQZKR
KDVDVVLVWHGPHZLWKP\VXEPLVVLRQWR
KLJKOLJKWDIHZRWKHUNH\SRLQWVWKDWWKH
3ODQQLQJ%RDUGVKRXOGFRQVLGHU7KDQN\RX
YHU\PXFK
060,&+$(/,6 7KDQN\RX1DQF\
9,&(&+$,50$15,&+ ,ZRXOGOLNHWR
NHHSWKHVHFRPPHQWVRPHZKDWEULHIDQGQRW
RYHUO\UHGXQGDQW7KDQN\RX
060,&+$(/,6 %DUEDUD"
'HFHPEHU3XEOLF+HDULQJV
06&2+(1 <HV,DPKHUH0\QDPH
LV%DUEDUD&RKHQ,DPDUHVLGHQWRI
3HFRQLF:KDW1DQF\KDVODLGRXWLQKHU
VXEPLVVLRQDORQJZLWK%DUEDUD)UHHGPDQ
V
VXEPLVVLRQ,WKLQNLVYHU\VSHFLILFDQGLQ
ZKHUHWKHVKRUWFRPLQJVRIWKH(,6FRPHLQWR
SOD\$QGLQUHYLHZLQJDORWRIWKH
GRFXPHQWDWLRQIURPWKHYHU\EHJLQQLQJWKH
3ODQQLQJ%RDUG
VFRPPHQWVDERXWWKH
SURSRVHGSODQDUHUHDOO\YHU\FOHDU$QG
WKHSUHOLPLQDU\SURSRVHGWKHSURSRVHG
SUHOLPLQDU\SODWWKDWLVVKRZQZKLFKLV
YHU\GLIIHUHQWWKDQWKHDSSURYHGVNHWFK
GRHVUHDOO\QRWKLQJWRGRUHVSRQGWRVR
PDQ\RIWKHFRPPHQWVWKDWZHUHODLGRXW
$QGWKHRWKHULVVXHLVWKHUHOLDQFHRQWKH
+HDOWK'HSDUWPHQW
VGHWHUPLQDWLRQZKLFKRI
FRXUVHDUHMXVWYHU\QDUURZDQGGRQ
WWDNH
LQWREURDGHUFRQWH[WWKH7RZQ
VFRQFHUQV
7KDWZKHQ\RXGRPDNH\RXUFROXPQRI
GHYHORSHUWRZQWKHUHDUHDORWPRUH
EHQHILWVWRWKHGHYHORSHU7KHVSOLW
FOXVWHULQLWVHOIZLWKWKDWVHSDUDWH
EXLOGLQJORWLVZLWKRXWLWEHLQJFOXVWHUHG
LV,WKLQNDOLWWOHH[FHVVLYH$QGLW
'HFHPEHU3XEOLF+HDULQJV
UHDOO\LVNLQGRIWU\LQJWRVKRYHDEXQFK
RIVWXIILQDSRXQGEDJ$QGWKHUH
GHILQLWHO\KDVWREHDEHWWHUEDODQFH
GHVLJQZLVH7KHRWKHUFRQFHUQDQGPD\EH
KDOIDTXHVWLRQLVVRDVWKHHIIRUWWR
VTXHH]HHYHU\WKLQJLQOHGWRDGMXVWLQJ
WKHVHVHWEDFNUHTXLUHPHQWVWRJRDORQJZLWK
WKH5QRWWKH5ZKHQLW
VDFWXDOO\
VRUWZKHQEXLOGLQJGRHVDFWXDOO\EHJLQ
WRRFFXUGRHVHDFKORWIROORZWKH
5XQGHUO\LQJ]RQLQJRUWKHYHU\VSHFLILF
VHWEDFNVWKDWDUHGHILQHGLQWKHVHSODQV
DUHWKH\WKHVRUWRIDSSURYHGVWDUWLQJ
SRLQW,JXHVVZKDWP\FRQFHUQLVZKHQ\RX
EHJLQWRORRNDWWKRVHEXLOGLQJORWVDQG
WKH\EHJLQWRQDUURZGRZQDQGWDNH\RX
NQRZDGLIIHUHQWVKDSHWKHQZKHQD
KRPHRZQHUEHJLQVWRGHVLJQWKHLUEXLOGLQJ
DQGWU\WRILWLWLQWRWKHGHYHORSDEOHDUHD
DQGWKHQ\RXEHJLQWRGRWKHSRROWKH
WHQQLVFRXUWDQGHYHU\WKLQJHOVHP\VHQVH
ZDVWKDWWKHVHLWZRXOGEHHQGLQJXSDW
WKHYDULDQFHERDUGVHHNLQJPRUHZDLYHUV
6R,ZDVQ
WVXUH,OLYHLQDVXEGLYLVLRQ
DQG,DPDQRQFRQIRUPLQJLUUHJXODUVKDSHG
'HFHPEHU3XEOLF+HDULQJV
ORW$QGDQ\WLPH,VQHH]H,KDYHWRJRWR
WKHYDULDQFHERDUGEHFDXVHLW
V56R,
ZRQGHUHGKRZWKDWKRZWKRVHORWVWKDW
DUHEHLQJGHILQHGE\WKH5GRWKH\
UHDOO\JHWGHILQHGE\5ODWHURQ"$QG
HYHQWKHUHVSRQVHLQWKHOHWWHUDQGWKH
SXEOLFFRPPHQWVIROGHUWKDWDJDLQWKLV
LGHDWKDWWKLVSUHOLPLQDU\SODWZDVDOPRVW
DSSURYHGE\WKH%RDUGDQGWUXWKIXOO\KDV
QRWHYHQDGGUHVVHGDORWRIWKHFRPPHQWV
,WMXVWVHHPHGDOLWWOHSUHPDWXUHWRUHO\
RQMXVWWKH6XIIRON&RXQW\
V+HDOWK
'HSDUWPHQW
VILQGLQJV6RRQH,ZRXOGOLNH
WRJHWDFRQILUPDWLRQIURPWKH%RDUGWKDW
WKLVKHDULQJLVDERXW(,6":KHWKHULW
V
JRRGHQRXJKRUQRW"1RWWKHKHDULQJWR
DSSURYHWKHSUHOLPLQDU\SODW",VWKDW,
ZRXOGOLNHWRJHWDVHQVHRIZKHUHZHDUH
LQWKHSURFHVV"6RZHNQRZZKDWDUHWKRVH
QH[WVWHSVDQGKRZWKHSXEOLFFRQWLQXHVWR
IROORZLWWKURXJK
9,&(&+$,50$15,&+ 'R\RXZDQWPH
WRDQVZHUWKDWRU0DUN"
057(55< 6RWKHVHFRPPHQWVDUHRQ
WKHGUDIWHQYLURQPHQWDOLPSDFWVWDWHPHQW
'HFHPEHU3XEOLF+HDULQJV
:KDWZLOOKDSSHQLVHDFKVXEVWDQWLDWLYH
FRPPHQWZLOOEHDGGUHVVHGLQWKHILQDO
HQYLURQPHQWDOLPSDFWVWDWHPHQW7KDWLV
WKHQH[WVWHS
06&2+(1 $QGWKHSUHOLPLQDU\SODW
WKDWSODQZKLFKLVGLIIHUHQWWKDQWKH
FRQGLWLRQDODSSURYHGVNHWFKZKLFKLVD
WRWDOO\GLIIHUHQWOD\RXWKRZGRWKRVHWZR
WKLQJVFRPHWRJHWKHU",FRXOGQ
WTXLWH
ILQGKRZRQHEHFDPHWKHRWKHULQWKH
PDWHULDOV"
057(55< 6RWKHDSSOLFDQW
VXEPLWWHG\RXVDZHDUOLHUDVNHWFKSODQ
DQGZKHQWKLVSODQFDPHLQZHLPPHGLDWHO\
GHFLGHGWRVWDUWWKH6(45$SURFHVVRQWKLV
SODQWKDW\RXVHHEHIRUH\RXEHFDXVHRIWKH
SRWHQWLDOVLJQLILFDQWDGYHUVHLPSDFWV6R
WKDWLVZKHUHZHDUH7KLVLVWKHSODQ
XQGHUUHYLHZRQWKHVFUHHQ$QGLWZLOO
FRQWLQXHXQGHUUHYLHZXQWLOWKHHQGRIWKH
SURFHVV$QGQRWWRVDWWKDWWKLQJVZRQ
W
FKDQJHLQWKHHQGEHFDXVHLQWKHHQGSRLQW
RIWKH6(45$SURFHVVWKHUHLVDILQGLQJ
VWDWHPHQW$QGWKHILQGLQJVWDWHPHQWLV
ZKHUHWKH3ODQQLQJ%RDUGDVOHDGDJHQF\
'HFHPEHU3XEOLF+HDULQJV
ZLOODWWHPSWWRPLWLJDWHDOOWKHODUJH
LQDXGLEOH VLJQLILFDQWLPSDFWVRUKDYHD
QRDFWLRQGHWHUPLQDWLRQRUDPRGLILHG
OD\RXWWKDW\RXZLOOVHHEHIRUH\RX7KHUH
LVDORWRIRSWLRQV7KDW
06&2+(1 <HVWKDW,XQGHUVWDQG
$QGWKHUHFRXOGEHDQRWKHUGUDIWIURPWKLV
WRWKHILQDO(,6PRUHVWXGLHV,JXHVV
SRWHQWLDOO\LQWHUPVRIWKHZDWHUTXDOLW\
DQGVRRQWKDWLVPLVVLQJ$QGMXVWWR
DQVZHUWKHTXHVWLRQZKHQ\RXJRWREXLOGRQ
WKHVHORWVDUHWKH\VXEMHFWWRWKH5RU
DUHWKH\VXEMHFWWR5"+RZGRHVVRPHRQH
WKHUHLVDOVRFHUWDLQO\VXEPLWWHGLQ
1DQF\
VVXEPLVVLRQWKHUHLVWKHLVVXHRI
WKH3ODQQLQJ%RDUGSOD\LQJLWRXW<RX
NQRZLQWHUPVRIWKHUHDOLW\WKDW\RXNQRZ
ILOOVDOOWKHVHEXLOGLQJORWV+RZGRHV
WKH]RQLQJDSSO\KHUH"
06/$1=$ ([FXVHPH:HZLOOKDYH
WRVD\RXUQDPHHDFKWLPHZHEHJLQ
VSHDNLQJ7KDQN\RX
057(55< 0DUN7HUU\7KH=RQLQJ
DSSOLHVDVDVWDUWLQJSRLQWLQWKH5
=RQLQJ'LVWULFW0DWKHPDWLFDOO\\RXKDYH
'HFHPEHU3XEOLF+HDULQJV
WRFOXVWHUWKHSDUFHOVGRZQWRDFKLHYH
RIEXLOGDEOHRSHQVSDFH2ND\7KH
FOXVWHUODZDOVRDOORZVWKH3ODQQLQJ%RDUG
WRVHWVHWEDFNVRQHDFKORWDVWKH\PRYH
IRUZDUG,FDQ
WDQVZHU\RXZKDWWKH
VHWEDFNVZLOOORRNOLNHLQWKHHQGLIWKLV
LVDSSURYHGEHFDXVHLW
VJRLQJWRJR
WKURXJKWKHSURFHVV$QGWKH\FRXOG
FKDQJH7KH\FRXOGUHPDLQDVWKH\DUH
06&2+(1 7KLVLV%DUEDUD&RKHQ
6RMXVWRQHODVWWKLQJ6RZKHQWKHILQDO
ILQDOVXEGLYLVLRQJHWVGRQHWKRVHVHWEDFNV
DUHVRUWRIZLWKLQWKDWVXEGLYLVLRQDQG
FUHDWLRQDQGGHILQLWLRQV6RWKDWZKHQ\RX
JRWRJHWDEXLOGLQJSHUPLWWKH\
UHJXLGHG
E\WKRVHVSHFLILFVHWEDFNVDQGVHWZLWKLQ
WKHFUHDWLRQRIWKH=RQLQJ'LVWULFW"
057(55< &RUUHFW7KHVHWEDFNV
ZLOOEH LQDXGLEOH 6RPHWLPHVEXLOGLQJ
GHYHORSVDUHRQWKHORW6RPHWLPHVWKH\
DUHQRW,W
VUHDOO\JRLQJWRGHSHQGRQ
WKH3ODQQLQJ%RDUG
VHYDOXDWLRQRI
ZKHWKHURUQRWWKRVHDFWVZRXOGPLWLJDWH
LPSDFWV
06&2+(1 2ND\
'HFHPEHU3XEOLF+HDULQJV
06/$1=$ :HKDYHWRUHPLQG
RXUVHOYHVWRVD\RXUQDPHEHIRUHZHWDON
EHFDXVHWKHQWUDQVFULSWLRQEHFRPHVYHU\
GLIILFXOW-XVWUHPLQGLQJHYHU\RQH
9,&(&+$,50$15,&+ 7KDQN\RX
+HDWKHU0V&RKHQDUH\RXGRQHWKHQ"
060,&+$(/,6 6RUU\,SXWKHU
EDFNDVDQDWWHQGHH
06/$1=$ ,WKLQNVKHZDVGRQH:H
KDYHDQRWKHUSHUVRQZDLWLQJ
060,&+$(/,6 (ULN2GHUUD
052'(55$ +L0\QDPHLV(ULN
2GHUUDDQGP\IDPLO\UHVLGHVRQ2OG
)DUP5RDGDQGZHDUHDWWKHFRUQHURI
2UFKDUGDQG2OG)DUP5RDG5LJKWDWWKH
FRUQHU$QGZHKDYHEHHQKHUHIRU
\HDUV6R,MXVWZDQWHGWRH[SUHVVVRPHRI
WKHFRQFHUQVWKDW,KDYHUHJDUGLQJWKLV
SURMHFW6RDV,MXVWVWDWHGZHDUHDW
WKHFRUQHURI2OG)DUP5RDGDQG
2UFKDUG$QGDVLWLVWKHUHLVDORWRI
WUDIILFWKDWSUHYHQWVXVIURPHQMR\LQJRXU
SHDFHDQGTXLHWFXUUHQWO\7KLV
LQWHUVHFWLRQLVEXV\$QGDGGLQJPRUH
GULYHZD\VFORVHWRRXUGULYHZD\RQO\
'HFHPEHU3XEOLF+HDULQJV
SUHVHQWVDVDIHW\ULVNWRXV)RUH[DPSOH
MXVWGULYLQJRXWRIP\JDUDJHLVDSDLQLQ
WKHQHFNEHFDXVHZHKDYHYHKLFOHV
DSSURDFKLQJIURP2OG)DUP5RDGDQGERWK
YHKLFOHVDSSURDFKLQJRXUGULYHZD\WKDWLV
IURPWKHOHIWDQGULJKWKDQGVLGH6R
EXLOGLQJPRUHGZHOOLQJVDQGHQWUDQFHVWR
WKHSURSRVHGEXLOGLQJVZLOOFOHDUO\
LQFUHDVHWKHPXOWLGLUHFWLRQDOWUDIILFIORZ
WKDWZHPXVWEHDUZKHQGULYLQJWRDQGRXW
RIRXUSURSHUW\7KLVFRQJHVWLRQZLOORQO\
LQFUHDVHWKHDFFLGHQWVULJKWRXWVLGHRXU
KRPHDQGRXUQHLJKERUV$VLWFXUUHQWO\
VWDQGV2OG)DUP5RDG2UFKDUG6WUHHWDQG
WKHURDGOHDGLQJWRRXUQHLJKERUKRRGDUH
DOOQDUURZHG6R\RXPXVWPRYH\RXU
YHKLFOHWRWKHHGJHRIWKHURDGZKLOH
GULYLQJZKHQWKHUHLVDFDUWUDYHOLQJRQ
WKHRSSRVLWHVLGHGLUHFWLRQ6RZKDWLV
FOHDULVWKDWWKHVHURDGVDUHPHDQWIRU
IHZHUFDUVIHZHUSHGHVWULDQVZDONHUVDQG
ELNHUV$GGLQJIRXURUILYHPRUHKRXVHV
PHDQVWKDWZH
UHJRLQJWRGHDOZLWK
PXOWLSOHFRQVWUXFWLRQYHKLFOHV0XOWLSOH
YHKLFOHVJRLQJWRDQGIURPWKHSURSRVHG
'HFHPEHU3XEOLF+HDULQJV
IDUP$QGZHDOUHDG\KDYHDVTXHH]HGXS
URDG6RWRPHWKLVSURMHFWUHDOO\GRHV
QRWPDNHVHQVH$QGWKHQ,ZDVORRNLQJDW
WKHUHSRUWDQGWKHUHSRUWVVD\VWKHUHLV
JRLQJWREHVL[WULSVGXULQJWKHSHDNKRXU
EXWZKHQ\RXWKLQNDERXWLWWKHVDPH
UHSRUWPHQWLRQVWKDWWKHUHLVJRLQJWREHD
IDUP$QGLI\RXIDFWRUYHKLFOHVJRLQJWR
DQGIURPWKHIDUPGHOLYHULHVE\836
)HG([VFKRROEXVGURSRII
VDQGSLFNXS
V
,GRQ
WWKLQNWKHQXPEHUFRPHVGRZQWRVL[
,GRQ
WNQRZKRZWKH\DUULYHGDWWKLV
QXPEHU$QGWKHRWKHUWKLQJLVWKHKRXVHV
WKDWDUHGHVFULEHGDVPRGHVWO\VL]HGZHOO
WKHJHQHUDOFKDUDFWHULQRXUQHLJKERUKRRG
DUHQRWPRGHVW$GGLQJWKHVHIRXUWRILYH
KRXVHVZLWKWKHLUPRGHVWVL]HKRXVHVLVD
PLVPDWFK,WGLVUXSWVDQGLWGLVWRUWVWKH
FKDUDFWHURIRXUQHLJKERUKRRGDQGWKHYDOXH
RIRXUUHDOHVWDWH$QGWKHQWKHUHSRUW
DOVRWDONVDERXWWKHLUEHLQJPLQLPDOQHHG
IRUFRPPXQLW\VHUYLFH,GRQ
WNQRZKRZ
WKH\DUULYHGDWWKLVFRQFOXVLRQEXW,WKLQN
LW
VXQGHUVWDWHG:HDOUHDG\KDYHD
VHULRXVYHKLFXODUURDGZLGWKLVVXH7KHUH
'HFHPEHU3XEOLF+HDULQJV
LVWKH2ULHQWDTXLIHULVVXH$QGZHDOVR
KDYHRWKHULVVXHVVXFKDVWKHQRLVHDQG
SROOXWLRQWKDWLVJRLQJWREHFDXVHGE\
YHKLFOHVOHDYLQJDQGHQWHULQJWKHSURSRVHG
DUHD<RXKDYHQRLVHSROOXWLRQIURPIDUP
HTXLSPHQW$QG\RXKDYHIHUWLOL]HUDQG
RWKHUIDUPLQSXWVVLSSLQJLQWRWKHZDWHU
6R,WKLQN\RXNQRZZKHQWKHUHSRUWVWDWHV
WKHUHLVJRLQJWREHDPLQLPDOQHHGIRU
FRPPXQLW\VHUYLFH,MXVWGRQ
WWKLQNLW
V
DUDWLRQDOFRQFOXVLRQJLYHQVRPHRIWKH
WKLQJVWKDW,KDYHPHQWLRQHG$QG,ZDQW
WRWKDQN1DQF\DQG%DUEDUDIRUWKHLUYHU\
WKRURXJKGHWDLOHGSUHVHQWDWLRQLQUHJDUGV
WRWKLVPDWWHU7KDQN\RX
9,&(&+$,50$15,&+ 7KDQN\RX(ULN
1H[WVSHDNHU"-HVVGRZHKDYHDQ\RQH
HOVH"
060,&+$(/,6 1RWDWWKLVWLPH,I
\RXZRXOGOLNHKHUHZHJR6WHSKDQ
)DLUYHQW"
05)$,59(17 <HV7KLVLV6WHSKDQ
)DLUYHQW0\ZLIHDQG,RZQWKHSURSHUW\
WKDWDEXWVWKHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWRQ
+ROO\2DN,WKLQNLWVD\VRQWKHSURSHUW\
'HFHPEHU3XEOLF+HDULQJV
PDSWKDWLW
V'RULV0RUJDQ
VSURSHUW\:H
KDYHEHHQWKHUHVLQFH6RUWRI
IROORZHGWKHHYROXWLRQRIWKLVSRVVLEOH
VXEGLYLVLRQ$QGP\ELJJHVWFRQFHUQVZLWK
WKLVGHYHORSPHQWDUH1RWKHLPSDFWRQ
WKHZDWHUVXSSO\7KHIRXUFOXVWHUHGKRPHV
RQWKHFRUQHUWKHUHDUHLQWKHORZHVW
HOHYDWLRQRQWKLVSURSHUW\$QGLWMXVW
VHHPVORJLFDOWKDWLI\RX
UHJRLQJWREH
FOXVWHULQJSURSHUWLHV\RXVKRXOGFOXVWHU
WKHPLQHLWKHUWKHKLJKHVWHOHYDWLRQRU
GRQ
WGRDQ\FOXVWHULQJZKLFKLVP\
SUHIHUUHGVROXWLRQIRUWKLVGHYHORSPHQW
$QG,DPYHU\FRQFHUQHGRQWKHZDWHUVXSSO\
RQRXUSURSHUW\ZLOOKDYHSHUPDQHQWKDUP
DQGIRUWKHQHLJKERULQJSURSHUWLHVDVZHOO
EHFDXVHWKHVHIRXUKRXVHVDUHEHLQJ
FOXVWHUHG6RWKRVHDUHP\FRQFHUQVZLWK
WKHGHYHORSPHQWDQGWKHRYHUDOOLPSDFWRQ
WKHIHHOLQJRIWKHQHLJKERUKRRG7KLVLV
GHILQLWHO\JRLQJWRIHHOPRUHOLNHDVXEXUE
WKDQDUXUDODUHDDQG,DPFRQFHUQHGDERXW
KRZWKDWZLOOHYROYH7KHTXHVWLRQWKDW,
KDYHIRUWKH%RDUGDQG,JXHVV0U7HUU\
NQRZVWKHDQVZHUWRWKLVLVWKHUHDPHWKRG
'HFHPEHU3XEOLF+HDULQJV
WRZKLFKWKHFOXVWHULQJUHTXLUHPHQWFDQEH
PRGLILHGRUZDLYHGE\WKLVERG\RUVRPH
RWKHUERG\",VWKDWHYHQSRVVLEOHRU
VLPSO\LPSRVVLEOH"
057(55< :RXOG\RXOLNHPHWR
DQVZHUWKDW"
05)$,59(17 <HVSOHDVH
057(55< 0U9LFH&KDLUPDQ"
9,&(&+$,50$15,&+ <HV<RXFDQ
DQVZHUWKDWEULHIO\7KLVLVUHDOO\D
KHDULQJIRULQSXWDQGQRWIRUHGXFDWLRQ
:K\GRQ
WZHKDYHDUHDOTXLFNDQVZHUWR
LW0DUNLI\RXFDQ"
057(55< 6RWKHDQVZHUWRLVLW
V
PDQGDWRU\FOXVWHULQJDFUHVDQGDERYH
SXUVXDQWWR&KDSWHURIWKH6RXWKROG
7RZQ&RGH7KHUHLVQRZD\DURXQGLW$QG
LWKDVEHHQDSSOLHGFRQVLVWHQWO\VLQFHWKH
FRGHZDVUHZULWWHQLQ,EHOLHYH
9,&(&+$,50$15,&+ 7KDQN\RX0DUN
0U6WHSKDQGR\RXKDYHDQ\RWKHUFRPPHQWV
WRWKH3ODQQLQJ%RDUG"
05)$,59(17 7KDQN\RXYHU\PXFK
IRUDOORZLQJPHWRVSHDN
9,&(&+$,50$15,&+ 7KDQN\RX
'HFHPEHU3XEOLF+HDULQJV
-HVVGRZHKDYHDQ\ERG\HOVHWKDWZRXOG
OLNHWRVSHDN"
060,&+$(/,6 $WWKLVWLPH,GRQ
W
KDYHDQ\ERG\HOVHUDLVLQJWKHLUKDQG,I
\RXZRXOGOLNHWRDGGUHVVWKH%RDUGRQD
WHOHSKRQH\RXFDQKLW
RULI\RXDUHLQ
WKHFRPSXWHUWKHUHLVDOLWWOHWRJJOHRQ
WKHERWWRPWR5DLVH\RXUKDQG+HUHZH
JR:HKDYH(OOHQ0F1HDO\
060&1($/< +HOOR0\QDPHLV
(OOHQ0F1HDO\,KDYHEHHQD\HDU
UHVLGHQWRI2ULHQW:KHQWKHVLWHEHWZHHQ
3ODW5RDGDQG1DUURZ5LYHU5RDGZDVEXLOW
XSFRQVLGHUDEO\DWRQHSRLQWSXUVXDQWWR
WKHSRVVLELOLW\RIDPDMRUHGHYHORSPHQW
JRLQJLQWRWKDWSRLQWSDUWRIWKHUHDVRQ
WKDWIDLOHGZDVEHFDXVHRIWKH'(,6DWWKDW
SRLQWUHODWLYHWRWKHLPSDFWRQWKHZDWHU
DQGWKHZDWHUIORZIURP+DOORFN
V%D\EDFN
WRZDUGVWKH7RZQ,ZRQGHULIWKDWKDV
EHHQORRNHGDWDQGWKRXJKWDERXWLQWKLV
SDUWLFXODULQVWDQFH"$QGZH
UHWDONLQJ
DERXWVHSWLFV\VWHPVIURPWKHROGHUW\SH
IURPWKHORRNVRILWWKDWPD\EHUHDOO\
SUREOHPDWLFDQGKRZWKDWZLOOLPSDFWWKH
'HFHPEHU3XEOLF+HDULQJV
ZDWHU,NQRZSHRSOHDUHKDYLQJ
GLIILFXOWLHVDVLWH[LVWULJKWQRZZDWHU
LQILOWUDWLRQLQWRWKHEDVHPHQWDUHDVHYHQ
LIWKH\DUHDOORZHGWRKDYHEDVHPHQWV
,W
VDFRQFHUQWKDW,WKRXJKWQHHGHGWREH
UDLVHG LQDXGLEOH HDUOLHULVVXHVWKDWKDG
WDNHQSODFH7KDQN\RX
9,&(&+$,50$15,&+ 7KDQN\RX
-HVVGR\RXKDYHDQ\RQHHOVH"
060,&+$(/,6 ,KDYH%DUEDUD,DP
QRWVXUHRIKHUODVWQDPH%DUEDUD"
06)5,('0$1 <HV"
060,&+$(/,6 3OHDVHVWDWH\RXU
QDPH"
06)5,('0$1 %DUEDUD)ULHGPDQ,
UHYLHZHGWKH'(,6TXLWHWKRURXJKO\DQG,
MXVWGRQ
WIHHOWKDWLWUHDOO\EURXJKWXS
DQ\PLWLJDWLQJIDFWRUVIRUWKLVSURSRVDO
,WMXVWVWDWHGDQGUHVWDWHGVTXDUHIRRWDJHV
DQGYDULRXVVLWHFRQVLGHUDWLRQV7KH\
ZHUHQ
WWKH\GLGQ
WDGGUHVVWKHDGYHUVH
LPSDFWVRIWKLVIDLUO\DJDLQVWFOXVWHURI
KRXVHVRQWKLVFRUQHUZKLFKLVLQP\YLHZ
DYHU\VFHQLFFRUQHURI2ULHQW$QG\RX
NQRZLW
VSDUWRIDODUJHURSHQVSDFH
'HFHPEHU3XEOLF+HDULQJV
7KHFRQVHUYHGSURSHUW\SUHYLRXVO\RZQHGE\
3DWULFN LQDXGLEOH WRWKHZHVW$QGLW
H[WHQGV\RXNQRZHYHQIXUWKHUDOPRVW
WRWKH+LVWRULF'LVWULFWZLWKWKHFHPHWHU\
DQGDIHZKRXVHVWKHUH%XWWKH'(,6
VWDWHVWKDWWKH6XIIRON&RXQW\'HSDUWPHQW
RI+HDOWK6HUYLFHVDSSURYHGDWDOO$QG,
DOVRZRQGHUDERXWWKHIODJORWV7KH
=RQLQJ&RGHFDOOVIRUIODJORWVRIXVXDO
VL]HDQGWKHVHDUHFOHDUO\QRWXVXDOVL]H
,NQRZWKDW\RXFDQFKDQJHIURP5WR
5WRDOORZIRUWKHFOXVWHULQJEXW,
GLGQ
WVHHDQ\WKLQJLQWKHFRGHWKDWVDLG
\RXFRXOGFKDQJHWKHIODJORWVWDWXV6R
WKDW
VDTXHVWLRQ7KLVLVDOVRDQROGHU
VLWHSODQ7KHVHWEDFNVDUHGLIIHUHQW,W
VD\V3ODWW5RDGKHUHDQGLW
VDFWXDOO\
+ROO\2DN7KHPDMRUSRLQWUHDOO\LVWKH
ZDWHU3HRSOHKDYHKDGVDOWZDWHU
LQWUXVLRQLQWRWKHLUZHOOVLQ2ULHQW$QG
LW
VUHDOO\RQO\DPDWWHURIWLPHLIZH
KDYHDIHZGURXJKW\HDUVDQGSHRSOHDUH
XVLQJZDWHUDQG LQDXGLEOH FDOOVIRUWXUI
ODZQVRQWKHVHEXLOGLQJORWVZKLFK
SRWHQWLDOO\KDYHLUULJDWLRQDVVRFLDWHGZLWK
'HFHPEHU3XEOLF+HDULQJV
WKHP,WMXVWUDLVHVDORWRIDODUPEHOOV
DVIDUDVZDWHUDYDLODELOLW\DQGWKH
TXDOLW\RIZDWHUIRUDOOWKHUHVLGHQWVRI
2ULHQW$QGWKDWLVDOO,KDYHWRVD\
9,&(&+$,50$15,&+ 7KDQN\RXYHU\
PXFKIRU\RXUFRPPHQWV0V)ULHGPDQ
-HVVDQ\ERG\HOVH"
060,&+$(/,6 ,GRQ
WVHHDQ\ERG\
7KHUHLVDUDLVHKDQGWRJJOHDWWKHERWWRP
RI\RXUVFUHHQRULI\RX
UHRQWKHSKRQH
\RXFRXOGKLW
9,&(&+$,50$15,&+ ,IWKHUHLV
QRERG\HOVH
060,&+$(/,6 ,GRQ
WVHHDQ\RQH
9,&(&+$,50$15,&+ &DQZHJHWD
PRWLRQWRFORVHWKHKHDULQJ"
0(0%(56,'25 ,ZLOOPDNHDPRWLRQ
WRFORVHWKHKHDULQJWR-DQXDU\WK
9,&(&+$,50$15,&+ ,WKLQNZHZRXOG
OLNHWRFORVHWKHKHDULQJDQGNHHSLWRSHQ
IRUZULWWHQFRPPHQWVXQWLO-DQXDU\WK
,VWKDWZKDW\RXUPRWLRQLV"
0(0%(56,'25 7KDWZRXOGEHP\
PRWLRQ<HV
0(0%(5(,6(167(,1 ,ZLOOVHFRQGLW
'HFHPEHU3XEOLF+HDULQJV
9,&(&+$,50$15,&+ $Q\GLVFXVVLRQ"
1R5HVSRQVH
9,&(&+$,50$15,&+ $OOLQIDYRU"
0(0%(56,'25 $\H
0(0%(5(,6(167(,1 $\H
0(0%(55$))(57< $\H
9,&(&+$,50$15,&+ $\H
67521*
66725$*(%8,/',1*6'5$)76&23(
9,&(&+$,50$15,&+ 2XUQH[W3XEOLF
+HDULQJZDVKHOGRYHU,W
VIRU6WURQJ
V
6WRUDJH%XLOGLQJV'UDIW6FRSH7KLV6LWH
3ODQLVIRUWKHSURSRVHGFRQVWUXFWLRQRI
WZREXLOGLQJVIRUERDWVWRUDJHRQHDW
VTXDUHIHHWDQGWKHRWKHUDW
VTXDUHIHHWORFDWHGRQDFUHVLQWKH
0,,DQG5=RQLQJ'LVWULFWVZKHUHWKHUH
DUH VTXDUHIHHWRIH[LVWLQJERDW\DUG
EXLOGLQJV7KHSURSHUW\LVORFDWHGDW
0LOO5RDG0DWWLWXFN
6&70
$Q\ERG\WKDWUHSUHVHQWVWKH6WURQJ
V
WKDWZRXOGOLNHWRJLYHDQRSHQLQJ
VWDWHPHQWZHZLOOKHDUWKDWILUVWDQGWKHQ
UHRSHQWKLVKHDULQJWRWKHSXEOLF,W
V
'HFHPEHU3XEOLF+HDULQJV
&(57,),&$7,21
,-(66,&$',/$//2D&RXUW5HSRUWHU
DQG1RWDU\3XEOLFIRUDQGZLWKLQWKH6WDWH
RI1HZ<RUNGRKHUHE\FHUWLI\
7+$7WKHDERYHDQGIRUHJRLQJFRQWDLQVD
WUXHDQGFRUUHFWWUDQVFULSWLRQRIWKH
3XEOLF+HDULQJ
VKHOGRQ'HFHPEHU
YLDYLGHRFRQIHUHQFHDQGZHUHWUDQVFULEHGE\
PH
,IXUWKHUFHUWLI\WKDW,DPQRW
UHODWHGWRDQ\RIWKHSDUWLHVWRWKLV
DFWLRQE\EORRGRUE\PDUULDJHDQGWKDW,
DPLQQRZD\LQWHUHVWHGLQWKHRXWFRPHRI
WKLVPDWWHU
,1:,71(66:+(5(2),KDYH
KHUHXQWRVHWP\KDQGWKLVUGGD\RI
-DQXDU\
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
-HVVLFD'L/DOOR
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDIX C
Public Commenter Identification List
DE
I
S
W
r
i
t
t
e
n
P
u
b
l
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
e
r
s
Co
m
m
e
n
t
e
r
I
D
Da
t
e
o
f
Co
m
m
e
n
t
Na
m
e
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
I
D
P‐
0
1
1
0
/
1
9
/
2
0
2
0
Ma
y
e
r
M
&
T
C‐1; C‐2
P‐
0
2
1
1
/
2
/
2
0
2
0
Fr
i
e
d
m
a
n
C
‐
3
t
h
r
u
C
‐
3
5
P‐
0
3
1
1
/
3
/
2
0
2
0
Wa
c
h
s
b
e
r
g
e
r
C
‐
3
6
;
C
‐
3
7
P‐
0
4
1
1
/
8
/
2
0
2
0
Ma
y
e
r
R
C
‐
3
;
C
‐
4
P‐
0
5
1
1
/
1
2
/
2
0
2
0
Fu
h
r
m
a
n
n
a
n
d
M
a
r
i
l
l
C
‐
3
;
C
‐
4
;
C
‐
7
;
C
‐
1
2
;
C
‐
2
1
;
C
‐
2
6
P‐
0
6
1
1
/
2
3
/
2
0
2
0
Di
L
o
r
e
n
z
o
C
‐
7
P‐
0
7
1
1
/
2
3
/
2
0
2
0
Fe
r
r
a
r
i
s
C
‐
3
9
t
h
r
u
C
‐
5
5
P‐
0
8
1
1
/
3
0
/
2
0
2
0
Ch
u
r
c
h
i
l
l
D
u
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
P‐
0
9
1
1
/
3
0
/
2
0
2
0
Jo
h
n
s
o
n
D
u
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
P‐
1
0
1
1
/
3
0
/
2
0
2
0
Ne
f
s
k
y
C
‐
5
6
P‐
1
1
1
2
/
1
/
2
0
2
0
Bl
o
o
m
D
u
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
P‐
1
2
1
2
/
1
/
2
0
2
0
Gl
u
c
k
m
a
n
D
u
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
P‐
1
3
1
2
/
1
/
2
0
2
0
Ma
r
k
e
l
D
u
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
P‐
1
4
1
2
/
1
/
2
0
2
0
Se
r
r
a
D
u
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
P‐
1
5
1
2
/
2
/
2
0
2
0
Ch
r
i
s
t
C
‐
5
8
P‐
1
6
1
2
/
2
/
2
0
2
0
Fe
u
e
r
a
b
e
n
d
t
C
‐
5
9
;
C
‐
6
0
;
C
‐
6
1
P‐
1
7
1
2
/
2
/
2
0
2
0
Gi
n
s
b
e
r
g
&
C
r
a
n
e
D
u
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
P‐
1
8
1
2
/
3
/
2
0
2
0
St
r
a
u
e
l
D
u
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
P‐
1
9
1
2
/
4
/
2
0
2
0
Be
c
k
e
r
D
u
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
P‐
2
0
1
2
/
4
/
2
0
2
0
Ha
a
g
D
u
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
P‐
2
1
1
2
/
6
/
2
0
2
0
Gr
o
u
p
f
o
r
t
h
e
E
a
s
t
E
n
d
C‐62
P‐
2
2
1
2
/
7
/
2
0
2
0
Fr
i
e
s
e
n
D
u
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
P‐
2
3
1
2
/
7
/
2
0
2
0
Fu
h
r
m
a
n
n
a
n
d
M
a
r
i
l
l
(
2
n
d
s
u
b
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
)
D
u
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
P‐
2
4
1
2
/
7
/
2
0
2
0
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
D
u
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
P‐
2
5
1
2
/
7
/
2
0
2
0
La
u
b
e
r
D
u
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
P‐
2
6
1
2
/
7
/
2
0
2
0
Mc
B
r
i
d
e
D
u
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
P‐
2
7
1
/
1
1
/
2
0
2
1
B
e
n
n
e
r
D
u
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
P‐
2
8
1
/
1
1
/
2
0
2
1
B
r
a
d
d
o
c
k
Du
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
P‐
2
9
1
/
1
1
/
2
0
2
1
F
e
r
r
a
r
i
s
(
2
n
d
s
u
b
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
)
C
‐
6
3
;
C
‐
6
4
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDIX D
Town Summary of Public and Town Staff Comments
January 29, 2021
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDIX E
Written Public Comments
Nancy and Mark Ferraris 1
Nancy and Mark Ferraris
3585 Orchard Street ♦ Orient NY 11971
nancyferraris@me.com ♦ 516.375.8149
November 23, 2020
Ms. Heather Lanza, Director
Town Planning Department
Town of Southold
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Via Email: heather.lanza@town.southold.ny.us
mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us
Re: Draft EIS for Subdivision Approval of
“The Orchards” - Dated August 2020
Proposed “Cluster” Subdivision”
2595 Orchard Street, Orient NY
SCTM # 1000-27- 1-3
Dear Director Lanza and Board Members:
We are resident owners of 3585 Orchard Street, a corner property at Halyoke Avenue,
opposite the subject site’s Halyoke Avenue frontage (SCTM # 1000-27-2-2.10). We
have been an active member of the Orient community for over 25 years and spoke to
this proposed subdivision in 2015, along with others in the community.1
The key findings and recommendations are based on a review of the application
materials (including both conditional approved and proposed plans) and the first Draft
EIS document, the subject of the upcoming public hearing on December 7, 2020.
Moreover, the following recognizes and is in full support of the recent submission by
Barbara Friedman (resident of 835 Halyoke Avenue, Orient; SCTM# 1000-27-1-7). 2
Duplication and repetition is avoided, as Ms. Friedman’s detailed response addresses
many specific issues in the DEIS, and are supported by the findings in agency reports
1 Public Comments (25 + pages) at May 4 2015 Sketch Plan Public Hearing provide cogent responses still relevant
today.
2 See Exhibit 1 – Friedman Letter – Oct 31, 2020
Nancy and Mark Ferraris 2
that confirm the proposed development generates multiple adverse impacts and
nominal mitigating measures are offered.3
Therefore, this submission aims to build on Ms. Friedman’s analysis, revisit key issues
that haven’t been addressed, and make comment specific to the Applicant’s DEIS and
Proposed Preliminary Plat –- all clear evidence that the DEIS and its reliance on a
Proposed Preliminary Plat is very problematic and comes up short in evaluating the full
impact of the proposed development at the subject site.
Key Findings & Recommendations
A. Multiple Plans: Conditionally Approved, Proposed, and Premature
Referenced in the DEIS (pages 2-3, 2-4, 2-12, 3-5, 3-6, 4-2, Appendix) are different
plans used as a basis for different reports. The initial review reflected the ”5 Lot” Yield
Map (6-5-2005) based on Existing R-80 Zoning, the Conditionally Approved Sketch Plan
(6-15-2013) (Appendix P) and the Existing Resource & Site Analysis Plan (10-17-2013)
based on Sketch Plan Lot Configuration.
The Applicant’s significant departure from the Conditionally Approved Sketch Plan is
represented by the Proposed Preliminary Plat for Standard Clustered Subdivision (1-21-
2015) (Appendix B). This Proposed Preliminary Plat does little to address the many
concerns expressed early on and are still relevant today. In fact, this Proposed
Preliminary Plat is a clear disregard for the goals for future land use and zoning
reflected in the Town’s Vision Statement and Comprehensive Plan as well as County
and State Conservation planning.
Regardless, the Applicant’s DEIS seeks to defend the Proposed Preliminary Plat and
fails to demonstrate its benefits. More proposed and premature plans are put forth in an
effort to provide mitigation and support for the proposed development scheme.
Existing Resources & Site Analysis Plan (11-18-2017) based on Proposed
Preliminary Plat Lot Configuration (Appendix C)
Proposed Subdivision Map with Corrected Building Envelopes (July 8, 2020)
(Appendix Y)
Proposed Subdivision Map with Sanitary Systems and Water Wells for Suffolk
County Department of Health Services June 18, 2019 (Appendix G)
3 Planning Board Positive Declaration; Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) “INCONSISTENT”
conclusion; Comments and requests in numerous Planning Board Staff Memos and other Town Departments and
jurisdictions, including but not limited to, Alternate Plans and Visual Impact Study.
Nancy and Mark Ferraris 3
Plan Inconsistencies Abound --- basic code compliance goes uncorrected, lot sizes
change, setbacks are modified and incomplete, irrigation well appears in different
locations or missing altogether. Furthermore, seeking review and approval by the
Suffolk County Health Department, prior to Town’s SEQRA Determination, and
Preliminary Plat Approval, is presumptuous and leads to more confusion.
Planning Board clarification in assisting public input is required to define
purpose of December 7, 2020 hearing --- are we to focus on the quality and
incompleteness of the DEIS document, or the Proposed Preliminary Plat, or both?
Even though much work has been done and this Proposed Preliminary Plat has
served as the basis for the Towns SEQRA Positive Declaration dated July 6,
2015, the LRWP Assessment dated April 15, 2015, and review by various
agencies, it is critical that the Planning Board stay firm in its recognition of the
shortcomings of the Proposed Preliminary Plat and current DEIS and work further
to demand better from the Applicant.
The Applicants impatience and reluctance to respond to key issues should not
replace nor lessen the Planning Departments authority to make plan
modifications according to Article IX Cluster Development, Section 240-42 A. The
Preliminary Plat Review phase of the subdivision approval process is critical to
shaping the final subdivision map of the subject site and reflects the Towns
commitment to the fundamental guiding principles for rational and appropriate
land development.
B. Balancing Developer Profits and Town Vision
The subject site at 13.3 acres is currently guided by the area’s R-80 zoning district and
is informed by its historical context and the goals represented by the Village of Orient
Historic District with its eastern boundary at Tabor Road, just 880 feet from the subject
site. Moreover, the surrounding properties defining the existing neighborhood character
reflect lot sizes between 1.5 acres to 6 acres providing a rural, not suburban, landscape
profile. The initial Yield Map for 5 Lots combined with the goals of the Cluster
subdivision approach applied to the larger than 7 acre subject site has put the
Applicant/Developer interests and the Town’s Vision at odds with each other.
Source of Conflict: Number of Lots, Lot Sizes and Split Cluster Configuration
The determination by the Applicant to achieve 5 residential lots utilizing the R-40 lot size
and setback criteria is at the expense of the natural and scenic values of the open
space goals of the Cluster development provision and the Town’s Vision. As discussed
below, it is even questionable as to whether the Cluster development approach, yielding
only 8 acres of open space (including a 4,000 sf Barn building), is the best thinking for
the development of the site and its impact on the community. Even though the Cluster
provision allows for modification of the underlying zoning district, the key elements of
Nancy and Mark Ferraris 4
the existing R-80 district (minimum 2 acre lot size and deeper setbacks) should not be
abandoned in its entirety.
In considering any proposed plan, it is essential to envision the full build-out and the
desire of developer and prospective homeowners to build to the maximum and then to
ensure privacy. Once setbacks are defined, the allowable buildable area, following the
shape of the lot, sets the parameters for design and construction. With small lot sizes
as presented in the Proposed Preliminary Plat, the building lots may be predisposed to
seek ZBA waivers to reduce setbacks and other requirements to accommodate a large
house, pool, cabana/other accessory structures, and possible tennis court on a site An
undersized lot as defined by a subdivision can become the “hardship” justification for
granting the variance, increase levels of activity on each site, prompting evergreen
screening along property lines for privacy and noise buffers.
For example, in the Proposed Preliminary Plan, the full build-out scenario for the very
crowded east and southeast portion of the subject site would result in negating any
historical reference to “famous” Hallock Farm and its Halyoke Avenue approach and
natural or scenic values along the 701 feet of combined Halyoke Avenue frontage and
the Orchard Street portion east of the existing house on Lot 4. 4
Any scenic value associated with the remaining Orchard Street frontage (approximately
400 feet west of Lot 4) is similarly diminished as 8 foot high deer fencing would
surround all of Lot 1 (residential house, agricultural barn, and open space), the driveway
entrance and gate, the residential building on a 1.35 acre lot and the separate 4,000
square foot barn all stand in the way and interrupt any scenic value perceived to be
gained by the relatively small (under 8 acres) open space under the “cluster”
configuration of the subject site lots.
The split-cluster lot configuration created by allowing a larger residential building lot,
agricultural building and access road, all as part of the privately-held Lot 1, is excessive
and unacceptable, as all the benefits go to the Applicant/Developer with none to the
Town.
Moreover, the owner of Lot 1 not only gets value from the residential building on the
largest lot with the most surrounding open space, but also can gain additional income
by leasing the farmland portion the site. Finally, the owner of Lot 1 can benefit
financially from either income tax credits or generate cash by selling the open space
conservation easement to a land trust.5
Without further discussion of the serious negative impact on water supply and quality as
well as the important role the Open Space Conservation Easement document to define
restrictions, the Proposed Preliminary Plat (1-21-2015) itself clearly demonstrates that
the benefits to the Applicant/Developer far exceeds the Town’s nominal increase in the
property tax base.
4 See Exhibit 2 – Hallock Farm; Cultural Resources; Historic Bldg Inventory
5 See Exhibit 3 – “14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020) You Should Know”
Nancy and Mark Ferraris 5
We strongly suggest that the Planning Board use its authority to modify the
Proposed Preliminary Plat and provide a more equitable and fair balance between
the Applicant s interests and the Town s Vision. For example, fewer number of
lots, more reflective of the R-80 regulations and neighborhood character,
achieved by removing the Lot 1 residential building lot, reallocating excess lot
area to remaining four lots or less. An alternative design can then be assessed
for its impact on critical water issues.
C. DEIS – Critical Shortcomings
Water Water Everywhere: Not Enough … Not Safe to Drink
Perhaps the most critical shortcoming in the DEIS is the impact of the development
(particularly its density) on both water supply and quality, covered in Section 3.2 for a
total of 4 ½ pages. On page 3-4, there is recognition that “The subject site is not served
by a community water supply. A potential impact from the project would be depletion of
the groundwater supply lying beneath the subject property.” However, the DEIS avoids
any hydrogeologic analysis regarding the severe limitations of Orient’s groundwater
supply. In fact, a document search for the word “aquifer” is virtually absent from the
DEIS, except for in the Town’s Positive Declaration in Appendix A.
As the adjacent property to the southeast, we will be the first impacted by the quality of
the groundwater as it flows towards Long Beach Bay. Perhaps the most disturbing and
confusing series of events occurs between 2016 and 2019, where the Applicant’s test
well results in 2016 not only show the contamination but also SCDHS remarks
regarding the depth to water of less than 40 feet (Appendix L) and the need to restrict
lot size conforming to the current R-80 zoning. Then by 2019, different well test results
appear to allow for the SCDHS Board Review & Variance (Appendix H) where lot size
restrictions are removed.6 Is cherry-picking results an acceptable approach to ignoring
a well-known and documented concern regarding the fragile Orient water supply?
The Applicant’s DEIS continues to push the Suffolk County Health Department lot size
determination that 13 houses can be supported, but that the proposed plan only
provides for 5 houses and an irrigation well for farming. Further, the DEIS spins the
facts of contaminated water transformed by water filtration technology to conclude that
the filtered water discharged into the groundwater has no impact to water supply nor
water quality, it is a benefit created by the development! Really?
The Applicant’s DEIS addresses water related issues and the use of fertilizer associated
with the farming of the open space by simply assigning it to NYSDEC reporting (for
subject site only) and best farming management practices. The broad-brush statements
about this and other issues require more specification.
6 See Exhibit 4 – Select Pages DEIS; Appendix L and H
Nancy and Mark Ferraris 6
On prior occasions, the Planning Board and others have expressed concerns relating to
water issues and development densities. For example, as recent as June 27, 2017, the
Planning Board disapproved ZBA #7063, a proposed variance request to split a 4.2 acre
parcel in a R-80 zone at 2050 Platt Road (SCTM 1000-27-1-9), recognizing the
sensitive area of Orient and its sole source aquifer and the impact on ground and
surface waters as a result of increased residential density. 7
The “Settlers at Oysterponds” subdivision created in 1984, located directly opposite the
subject site at Halyoke Avenue and Orchard Street, was also challenged by constraints
and concerns surrounding water issues, influencing the density and configuration of
the lots. A proposed plan for 47 house lots on 67+- acres was reduced to 10 building
lots (minimum 5 acres) due to water and other concerns.8
The Planning Board should require a second DEIS that provides a more in-depth
analysis regarding Orient water issues and the impact of the Proposed
Development as well as an Alternative Plan representing lower density and better
lot configuration that mitigates many of the non-water issues of equal importance
to the community.
D. Devil in the Details: Open Space Conservation Easement | Covenants,
Restrictions & Maintenance Agreements
The Open Space Conservation Easement “sample” (2011) provided in Appendix D is
irrelevant to subject site’s scale and complexity of the proposed development as
presented in the Proposed Preliminary Plat. The adjacent property at 2295 Orchard
Street (SCTM # 1000-27-1-2.3) is a 6 acre parcel with an allowable 1,000 square foot
agricultural building compared to the proposed 4,000 square foot barn building, access
drive to a proposed 1.35 acre residential building lot.
Although it may be premature during this SEQRA Determination step of the Proposed
Preliminary Plat Review to craft the Open Space Conservation Easement as well as the
Covenants, Restrictions, and Maintenance Agreements, it is important to evaluate any
subdivision plan and how it informs these agreements and provides a level of
confidence that implementation and enforcement will be strict and rigorous in defending
the goals and objectives of the final approved subdivision. Simply put, a more complex
subdivision plan requires a more complex set of agreements that are more likely to be
challenged at a later date and uncertain enforcement.
More specifically, a subdivision with multiple land uses and activities will prompt special
attention and detailed agreements to issues that include, but not limited to the following:
7 See Exhibit 5 – ZBA #7063 Determination with Planning Board Disapproval Letter
8 See Laserfiche – Town Of Southold > Planning Department > Applications > Major Subdivision (MJ) > Approved
> 1000-27.-2-2.1
Nancy and Mark Ferraris 7
1.If an Open Space Conservation Easement is applicable, it must be consistent
with mitigating efforts to offset the subdivision adverse impacts and therefore
very detailed as it anticipates all possible uses (agricultural vs. non-agricultural),
types of farming and crops, if livestock – what type, ingress and egress,
irrigation, fertilization, tenant leasing, among other items.
2.If a proposed future agricultural building is permitted in the subdivision plan,
issues of location, size, building profile, framework for appropriate architectural
design (eg. metal Morton building or historically inspired), and the impact
anticipated if future modification is sought for conversion to habitable space for
either workers associated with the use of the open space or if accessory to a
residential building lot.
3.If a residential building lot is not assigned its own tax lot and remains part of the
open space parcel, there is much to define in terms of the location of the house
structure within the entire open space lot, required utility connection to the house
and accessory buildings as well as the potential cost that could prompt future
modification in the plan, the relationship of the residential development to the
open space and any accessory buildings, shared or different access, etc.
4.Future Development on Lots – anticipating the build-out scenarios and desire of
developer/new owners to maximize development either “as-of-right” or by
variance, especially if the subdivision plan predisposes building lots to allow
waivers and modifications inconsistent with the mitigating efforts to address
negative impacts of the subdivision. Individual lot guidelines relating to building
design, plantings, etc. may also be considered.
5.Overall Subdivision - Detailed restrictions and responsibilities regarding
constructing and maintaining access drives, lighting, street trees, natural and
artificial buffers. Planting plans and implementation schedules would be
appropriate to ensure that expectations are met and compliance is complete.
Therefore, the Planning Board should evaluate the impacts of any Proposed
Subdivision plan at every stage of development, as the full implementation is the
reality that the community will experience for years to come.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy and Mark Ferraris
Enclosures
EXHIBIT 1
1
Barbara Friedman
835 Halyoke Avenue
PO Box 11
Orient NY, 11957
October 31, 2020
Donald Wilcenski, Chairman
And members of the Southold Planning Board
54375 State Road 25
Southold, NY 11971
Re: The Orchards Subdivision
SCTM # 1000‐21‐7‐3
I am deeply concerned about the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Orchards
Subdivision accepted for public review on September 28, 2020.
Two aspects of this project appear to not be code compliant:
Based on Town Code‐Article XI Cluster Development 240‐42 ‐H.(4):
Roads, streets and rights‐of‐way may not be included in the calculation of the minimum
required open space.
The area of the conservation easement is based on 16’ right of way for Lot #1 driveway. The
State requires a 25 foot clearing and in a letter dated March 6, 2015 the Town Highway Engineer
said the Right of Way should be 25 feet. The additional 9 feet of right of way increases the size
of Lot #1 to 1.4744 acres and reduces the conserved area by .1218 acres. This would bring the
Conservation Area below the 60% required threshold.
Based on Town Code Article XII Design Standards 240‐45 for flag lots:
D. Flag lots: The Planning Board may permit a limited number of flag lots in a residential
subdivision plat provided they’re well shaped, they are generally larger than usual lots…
(1) to assure that the flag lot is of adequate size and shape, a flag lot located within the
residential zones shall contain at least the minimum lot area of the applicable zoning
district in which it is situated, within the bulk of the lot, exclusive of the area contained in
the flagpole access strip.
Both Lots 2 and 3 are flag lots and they are NOT larger than usual lots. I am not sure what
“usual lots” means, but the average size of 17 abutting lots is 2.5 acres, based on current tax
maps. I would suggest that Lots 2 and 3 should therefore be at least the minimum required in R‐
80 zoning which is 80,000 square feet.
Lot #2 is inadequately sized for even R‐40 zoning, which requires a minimum lot size of 40,000
sf. When the 3,169 sf access strip is deducted from the area of Lot #2, the result is below the
40,000 sf threshold.
2
This subdivision should not be allowed to proceed without corrections to non‐compliant conditions
and recalculations of conservation and open space areas for all aspects of the proposal.
******
Addressing the DEIS in terms of its response to the areas of concern outlined in the Positive
Declaration:
1. Impacts on Surface Water:
The Positive Declaration states “The impacts of the new sanitary systems proposed on down gradient
surface water must be assessed”
The DEIS suggests that Suffolk County Sanitary Code would yield 13 homes, and therefore 5 is a
mitigation of impact. Town Bulk Regulations would only allow 6 homes so the proposal should
not be held up against the County standards. The DEIS proposes standard sanitary systems and
merely states that since the SCDHS gave them approval, it must be okay.
To my knowledge, the DEIS does not assess the impacts of sanitary systems on down gradient surface
water at all.
2. Impacts on Groundwater
Positive Declaration 2a “Potential adverse impacts to groundwater quality and quantity could be severe
and boundless and must be assessed. The probability of the impact occurring is moderate and could
affect the area population”
According to the Southold Town Comprehensive Plan “Water supply projections indicate that
Southold will need additional water sources by 2030”. I believe this assumes that the
infrastructure is in place to provide Orient with water from the aquifer areas included in the
Special Groundwater Protection Areas. Since that infrastructure is not in place, the sole source
aquifer in Orient needs to be protected too! According to the Comprehensive Plan, the pace of
“build‐out” has already picked up, and the predictions of a few years ago should be adjusted for
the new normal of COVID‐19, which has not only created more water demand from existing
houses being used full‐time, but has also created an even greater urgency to build additional
homes on existing individual lots. Again the DEIS states that since the SCDHS gave them
approval it must be okay.
To my knowledge, the DEIS does not address the quantity of water available based on projected water
use for this project and the homes that share this resource.
In addition to the five new homes proposed, the DEIS states that the NYSDEC permit allows
maximum of 4 million gallons a year to be used for crop irrigation. This is a staggering number,
equivalent to 62‐120 homes. The DEC approval requires testing the irrigation well for salt‐water
intrusion twice a year, acknowledging the threat of salt water intrusion.
The DEIS does NOT adequately address the site specific availability of groundwater for the proposed
use and there seems to be no consideration for water conservation. The DEIS does not address the
effects on the quality of the water for the area population. If salt water intrusion occurs in the irrigation
well, it likely means that there will be salt water intrusion in neighboring residential wells too. The
applicant should be required to identify the salt water interface and evaluate the impacts of pumping.
The proposed subdivision has the potential to impact the fresh water supply for the whole village. I
3
question the DEIS statement on page 3‐6 that “SCDHS” approval would not have been issued had the
SCDHS review identified significant impact”. The SCDHS is looking at narrow legislated parameters
covering all of Suffolk County. It is imperative that the Town of Southold protect the available potable
water supply for the residents of Orient.
Positive Declaration 2d:” Assessment of potential impacts to groundwater from new sanitary systems
(pharmaceuticals and personal care products) pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers must be included.
Impacts to adjacent properties must also be discussed”.
The DEIS does NOT address the concerns for potential impacts to groundwater and adjacent
properties of discharge of pharmaceuticals, personal care products,VOCs, pesticides or
herbicides from the residential properties.
The DEIS does not address the use of fertilizers and pesticides except to say that “Best
Management Practices” will be implemented. There is no mention of Integrated Pest
Management. I am not a farmer, but I am told that sweet corn is especially susceptible to pests
and can require frequent pesticide applications (more than once a week). Is this really
appropriate in a residential area, and in particular within 100’ of two private wells? The wells for
2650 Orchard and Lot #2, along with the irrigation well for the proposed farmland are within
100’ of the proposed farmed acreage (these areas should be mapped, cannot be used as
farmland and should be deducted in all area calculations). Even with Integrated Pest
Management, most of the pesticides used to control corn pests are toxic sprays.
The DEIS does not propose the use of I/A sanitary systems, proposes a crop that requires an
abundance of fertilizer and pesticides and offers “turf grass” in the unfarmed open space. There is no
mention of how the new sanitary systems might mitigate the impact of the pharmaceutical, personal
care products etc.
Positive Declaration 2f: A discussion of the current groundwater quality, contamination and impacts on
the proposed action and adjacent properties must be included:
The water on the site was in fact found to contain excessive nitrates and Aldicarbs. The DEIS
states that the homes will require filters for excessive Aldicarbs. According to SCDHS private
Water Systems Standards 406.4‐15 if water exceeds MCL and treatment is required a “covenant
regarding water treatment must appear on all realty subdivision and development maps” I don’t
see this covenant on any site maps. The test well for Lot 2 also exceeded the allowable for
Nitrates, and yet an I/A Sanitary system was not proposed.
What will the effects be on neighboring properties quality and quantity of drinking water? The overall
impact of the additional demand for water has not been assessed and the overall impact of
wastewater has not been assessed.
Why is there no consideration given for conservation or alternative sources of irrigation water, such
as using drip irrigation, gray water recycling and rain water collection? Why isn’t there any mention
of drought‐resistant plantings or limitations on irrigation and fertilization for the areas anticipated to
be “turf grass.” Why was a potentially water and pesticide intensive crop selected for farming? Why
weren’t I/A sanitary systems proposed at the outset, and if the SCDHS has approved the site plan, will
I/A sanitary systems be required (after July 2021)?
4
3. Impact on Agricultural Resources
Positive Declaration 3a “The conversion of farmland to residential use is INCONSISTENT with the Town of
Southold Local Waterfront revitalization Program Policies”
As mentioned above, the conserved area will not meet the 60% criteria for open space when the
Lot #1 and Lot #2 are corrected for code compliance unless some building lots are eliminated.
The configuration of the conserved area is not conducive to agricultural use with several
notches that will be difficult to plant and maintain. Why is the designated area for the barn
separate from the farmhouse? This does not seem to conform with the intent of the code.
The DEIS argues that the sale of four homes/ home lots is necessary to support the agricultural
uses. When this proposal was first submitted, the owner said that this was going to be a family
compound, which presumably would not generate income to support the agricultural uses. Lot
#1, which has been presented as the owner’s personal residence is not clustered with the other
lots, instead it is in the northwest corner of the site to take advantage of conservation
easements of neighboring properties rather than be clustered with the other homes. The split
cluster layout of the site does not suggest a family compound, it looks more like a plantation
except that the low lying land to the southeast will not be populated by farm workers, but by
wealthy second home owners who can afford 1‐2 million dollar homes.
At the planning board meeting on April 6, 2015 the owner stated that “we are not going to do spec
houses” and yet the DEIS suggests that is the intent. The owner should clarify how many houses he
intends to build himself, and will they be built on spec or for his family? The proposed layout appears
to maximize the profit from new homes, not maximize the continuity of the open space or its viability
as farmland.
4. Impact on Archeological Resources
Based on historical maps, this appears to be “virgin” land, never having been built on. However,
there are adjacent parcels which are included in the Comprehensive Plan for the Town of
Southold as having historic value. See attached documentation of the Hallock Farm, and
description below.
5. Impacts on Aesthetic Resources
Positive Declaration 5a. “The potential impact for the siting and scale of homes could be moderate to
large based on lot size.”
While the DEIS indicates that the five homes will be “modest sized” with footprints of
approximately 1750 sf and overall square footage of 3,500 sf. Once the lots are subdivided, it
seems that the Town has almost no control over what will be built on the individual lots. There
is presently almost no limitation on the sizes of the homes, and while there are very stringent
oversight of what is built in the nearby Historic District, there are no rules at all about the design
quality of these homes. These “structural design components”, potentially very LARGE homes,
will have clear negative impact on the “visual quality and scenic resources” at the very center of
Orient.
Based on 20% lot coverage, the FOOTPRINTS of these houses can be up to:
Lot 1 approximately 11,783 sf (not including additional ROW acreage)
Lot 2 approximately 8,600 sf (based on current non‐compliant plat)
Lot 3 approximately 9,960 sf
5
Lot 4 approximately 8,000 sf
Lot 5 approximately 8,000 sf.
Total Buildable (House) Area =46,343 sf
Barn footprint 4,000 sf
Total Area of Buildings = 50,343 sf equals 1.16 acres
Table 1 of the DEIS has the Total Area of buildings at .2927 acres, which seems to be based on 5
houses with footprints of 1,750 sf + 4,000 sf barn. Page 4‐10 of the DEIS states ”A primary
purpose of the Bulk Schedule for Residential Districts is to ensure properties are developed in a
manner that provides the appropriate amount of open space between building lots with
appropriately sized buildings. Thus the size and location for each of the proposed homes are
limited” Unfortunately this is not the case, the houses can be almost unlimited in size based
on the Bulk Schedule.
Positive Declaration 5a continued: “Minimize introduction of design components (including utility lines,
lighting, signage and fencing) which would be discordant with the existing scenic components and
character)
On page 4‐10 of the DEIS “the project shall provide aesthetically pleasing views of the open
space and active farmland” There is no mention of fencing in the DEIS. Clearly, there will need
to be an 8 foot fence surrounding the agricultural land. The statement that this will be an
“aesthetically pleasing view” of an 8 foot fence and the owner’s home in the distance, is highly
subjective. Potential hedges and fences on the other lots are also not addressed.
Positive Declaration 5a continued:”Protect visual quality associated with agricultural land, open space
and natural resources.”
Two of the properties associated with the Hallock Farm are within 500 feet of the proposed
subdivision. These properties, along with several others just outside of the 500’ buffer, are
indicated on figure 5.1 of the Southold Comprehensive Plan as listed by the Society for the
Preservation of Long Island Antiquities. The Hallock Farm was an innovative and prosperous
farm that helped shape the community of Orient. As I have mentioned in past correspondence,
Halyoake Avenue was formerly the driveway approach to Hallock Farm from Orchard Street.
Attached is figure 5.1 and additional information about the Hallock Farm Complex. The rural
nature of the Orchard and Halyoake corner is still mostly intact, and will be permanently
spoiled by the addition of four houses.
Additionally, the 4,000 sf barn is directly on axis with the view from Old Farm Road.
This proposal does not “enhance the visual quality and protect scenic resources” and there are no
safeguards in place to insure that the structures that will be built will not seriously detract from the
visual qualities of the area. We would like to see a full visual impact study showing the impact of the
maximum sized homes and barn.
Considering the proximity to the Orient Historic District and to the Hallock Farm Complex, the houses
and the barn should all be contextual in design, restricted in height above natural grade, and limited
in footprint in order to maintain the aesthetics and character of the area.
6
Based on design standards established by 240‐45 both of the non‐compliant flag lots should be
eliminated.
7. Assessment of the No Action Alternative
These six points outlined in the DEIS are of questionable mitigation value:
1.”Return fallow agricultural land to productive use”
Is there anything stopping this owner from farming this land as is?
2. “Permanently protect 60% of the agricultural land comprising the subject property from future
development though an environmental conservation easement”.
Even more of the property could be open space or the land could be sold to a trust or individual who
would preserve all of the land as open space.
3.”Create new modest size residential homes to provide additional housing in the community”
If these lots are sold at current prices for real estate in Orient, they will not be modestly priced. The
estimate of cost to build these homes in the DEIS is very conservatively posited at $150/sf. Homes
recently built in Orient are about twice that. So with the cost of land being around $600 per acre, and
the cost of a 3,500 sf home at $1,050,000, this is not the type of housing that Orient “needs”.
4. “Control of vegetation to enhance scenic vistas from the abutting roadways. “
This DEIS claims that the view sheds will be improved because the land will be cleared of overgrowth
and if no action is taken “existing vegetation would go unchecked and eventually consume the
property”. I don’t believe anyone would object to the owner maintaining his vacant property.
5. “Increase the annual tax revenue”
This cannot be denied. However the increase in density and use of limited resources doesn’t offset
this gain. The conversion of farmland to residential use in order to produce tax revenue on the one
hand is contradictory to the use of preservation funds to conserve farmland on the other.
6. “Removal of contaminants from the aquifer via filtration of domestic water for proposed homes”
This is lipstick on a pig.
The following concerns mentioned in the Full Environmental Assessment Form, were not mentioned
in the Positive Declaration:
Impact on Flooding
When it was farmed, the eastern end of this site was prone to ponding and flooding. While the
site is not in a currently designated FEMA flood zone, it is susceptible to storm surge. Part of lot
#5 is located within an area expected to be impacted by a storm surge 6‐8 feet above normal,
with the majority of the lots 2,3 and 4 in storm surge zone 3 (9‐12 feet above normal) .
https://gis3.suffolkcountyny.gov/shelterlocator/
Impacts on Plants and Animals
While there may, or may not be any threatened or endangered species inhabiting this site, there
are certainly plenty of deer there. The DEIS suggests that the wildlife (squirrels, rabbits and
birds) will move to the adjacent conserved properties and then repopulate the site, avoiding
7
the subject of deer altogether. The 8’ deer fence that will inevitably surround the farmed area
will not allow the deer to repopulate this site. As more and more fences are erected the deer
become more of a problem for homeowners who do not wish to, or cannot fence in their
properties, and to drivers as the deer dart across the roads instead of open fields.
In addition the street trees should not be in ROW‐ they are supposed to be on private property‐ see
Town Code ‐ Article III Roadway Construction 161‐44 B.
This subdivision should not be allowed to proceed as proposed. We have owned our 200 year old
farmhouse for 26 years and in that time development has very slowly changed the character of the
Village of Orient. We are now at a tipping point where the pace of development has increased while
we approach a precipitous limit in resources. 7 acres of corn is a Trojan Horse that does not justify the
density of development outlined in this subdivision proposal. I believe it is antithetical to the goals of
the Southold Town Comprehensive Plan, Community Character and severely detrimental to the
character and sustainability of the Orient community.
Sincerely,
Barbara Friedman
EXHIBIT 2
Southold Town Comprehensive Plan Chapter 5:Community Character
Figure 5.1 Cultural Resources Map
Co-- Road 48
01
r a Q
Oriole Dr
r RoatlB O i!`P
i
r,
Y Traveler St F eA FmRu-m_melaAve
Rou_teAps •IY ---t'g ' r
rc rol`
mf
LONG ISLAND SOUND W°`Pd • ,, J 3
g
j
4 y
0¢Q Orchard Fd
AQ we//S F '0 0.175 0.35 Miles
Fishers IslandSouthold oc Ave
J1
I , I
I
48
SOUTHOLD
ORIENTBAY
HARBOR
HOG
NECK
BAY
a
GREAT PECONIC BAY
Ye2
ROBINS
ISLAND LITTLE PECONIC BAY y
a
l9
@a IiiQTownofSoutholdArterialRoadLighthousesCemeteries
Q Greenport Village Major Collector Road Significant Trees Museums
Local Road BenjaminFranklin Mile Markers State/National Historic Register Districts and Properties z
0 -,0.175 0.35 Miles
Society forthe Preservation ofLongIslandAntiquities List Orient 9St O/dFarr 3d S°
NOTE:Map prepared by AKRF,Inc.forthe Town of Southold
June 20,2019 0 1 2 Miles
4
EXHIBIT 3
Even the most experienced land buyers may not
know all of the pros and cons of conservation
easements.
In fact, we didn’t know a lot of what is covered
below until we began researching this blog post!
But, to start with, a conservation easement is a
voluntary agreement that permanently
limits the use of the land to protect its
conservation values.
Placing a conservation easement on a piece of
land allows the owner to continue to control it
(but usually not develop it) and also take
advantage of a tax deduction.
This deduction is calculated according to
the value that the land would have had if
it had been developed.
14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020) You Should Knowhttps://gokcecapital.com/conservation-easements-pros-and-cons/
1 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM
or sold in a sale.
Now, conservation easements have gotten
quite a bit of notice in the past four years.
This is, in part, because of President Donald
Trump.
He created a conservation easement for his
Mar-A-Lago estate in 1993 and has popularized
this structure.
When the property was appraised at $25
million in 1993, he donated an easement
prevented him from selling antiques inside the
historic buildings or adding more buildings to
the compound.
This easement ultimately reduced the valuation
of Mar-a-Lago to $19.25 million.
President Trump received a tax deduction
for the difference of $5.75 million once the
easement was in place.
See the benefit?
This is reportedly a tried and true tactic of
the real estate tycoon turned politician.
Conservation easements alone have generated
$100 million in write-offs for President Trump.
If you’re looking for the same benefits for your
property, what are you waiting for?
Start by watching this video:
14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020) You Should Knowhttps://gokcecapital.com/conservation-easements-pros-and-cons/
2 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM
Then, you can read about the top conservation
easements pros and cons and decide if it’s for
you!
The main benefit of a conservation easement
(aside from protecting the land!) is the tax
deduction you’ll receive.
Typically, you can deduct 50% of your income
for 16 years up to the appraised value of the
easement.
So, if you make $60,000 a year, you can deduct
$30,000 for 16 years.
This results in total deductions of $480,000.
However, if the appraised value of the easement
is less than $480,000, the total deductions
14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020) You Should Knowhttps://gokcecapital.com/conservation-easements-pros-and-cons/
3 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM
Initially, conservation easements sound like
you’re giving up a lot of rights.
However, they’re not as inflexible as they may
sound.
You can entirely customize the easement
depending on your plans and goals for your
property.
The goal of the conservation easement is for
everyone to benefit – both you (as the owner)
and the land trust or government agency.
One big pro is that you’ll still have
flexibility and control over your
property.
Some landowners opt for public access as
a condition of their conservation easement.
However, this is a rare part of the process, and
it is not in any way a “rule of thumb.”
If you’re concerned about public access being
an obstacle in the conservation easement
process, it isn’t a requirement of a conservation
easement.
Ultimately, the easement will follow your
needs as the property owners.
14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020) You Should Knowhttps://gokcecapital.com/conservation-easements-pros-and-cons/
4 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM
Simply put, your land is still private land.
You’re just preventing future
development by foregoing future
development rights on the land you already
own.
You’re not in any way creating a public park or
other recreational space.
This is another common concern!
Just because you’re creating a conservation
easement, it doesn’t mean you’re giving the
government direct access to your land (in most
cases).
The majority of conservation easements
are held by a non-profit land trust.
Non-profit land trusts are 501(c)(3)
organizations designated by the IRS, so they
have a similar role that other NGOs and tax-
exempt companies do in that they provide
charitable work.
The instances where a government entity holds
an easement would be rare.
The most that would happen is that the
government would scrutinize or audit
your conservation easement transaction,
yet that could also occur if you worked with a
non-profit or made unusual changes to your
financial profile.
14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020) You Should Knowhttps://gokcecapital.com/conservation-easements-pros-and-cons/
5 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM
A conservation easement isn’t “signing your
land over to the government” by any stretch of
the imagination.
Some people shy away from conservation
easements because they profit off of the land in
the form of agricultural production or ranching.
However, this doesn’t mean you can’t have an
easement at all.
If your property is productive in its current
form, then you should absolutely keep it that
way; just be sure to work it into your easement.
Remember, conservation easements can
be flexible and work around your goals.
All the conservation easement does is
future development in other ways.
You can still work on the land in the way you’ve
already been doing so as long as it’s outlined in
your easement.
To qualify as a rancher or farmer, you must
receive more than 50 percent of your
gross income from the “trade or
business of farming.”
The following activities qualify as farming:
Cultivating the soil
Raising or harvesting any agricultural or
horticultural commodity
Handling, drying, packing, grading, or storing
14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020) You Should Knowhttps://gokcecapital.com/conservation-easements-pros-and-cons/
6 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM
only if the owner, tenant or operator of the
farm regularly produces more than one-half
of the commodity so treated)
Planting, cultivating, caring, and cutting
down trees for the market
If you meet this criterion and you want your
conservation easement to reflect it, then it
must contain a restriction requiring that
the land remain “available for
agriculture.”
It’s also worth noting that, if you qualify as a
rancher or farmer, you may be eligible to
receive tax deductions of up to 100% of
your income in exchange for the conservation
easement.
Even if your income isn’t high enough to justify
the tax benefits, you have options.
A conservation easement may still be a good
option for you.
If your parcel of land has high conservation
value, then a land trust may pay you for a
conservation easement.
There’s a great benefit to the public in
preventing land development in certain areas,
which is why land trusts may buy the
development rights from the landowner
using private donations or grants.
While you may not get a tax credit or deduction,
you’re getting cash in your pocket.
14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020) You Should Knowhttps://gokcecapital.com/conservation-easements-pros-and-cons/
7 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM
for cash.
This allows a landowner to monetize his
donation while also providing tax relief to high-
income third parties who are willing to
purchase the credits at a discount.
Both these routes are pros that you may want to
keep in mind if you’re interested in
conservation easements, but don’t necessarily
have a high enough income to receive tax
benefits.
Some people don’t like having people on their
land constantly.
The bad news is that your land trust will
need to physically inspect your land at
least once a year.
So, there will be a few inconveniences with a
conservation easement.
The hidden pro?
You can make it a condition of your
easement that your land trust doesn’t
visit you repetitively to review the condition
of the property.
Furthermore, most non-profits don’t have the
resources to visit multiple times.
14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020) You Should Knowhttps://gokcecapital.com/conservation-easements-pros-and-cons/
8 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM
If you’re sincerely worried about this, then be
sure to negotiate your expectations
upfront.
Otherwise, you’ll likely find that the once a year
inspection is more than enough for the land
trust and not all that inconvenient for you!
To claim the tax benefits for a conservation
easement (on both the state and federal level),
you must file forms to document the
transaction.
If the deduction is larger than $500,000, you
must provide an appraisal along with IRS Form
8283.
Now, agencies are paying closer attention
than ever before to ensure that values are not
intentionally or accidentally overstated.
When going through the conservation easement
process, you must have a defensible
appraisal of the land in question.
So, not only will you have to pay for an
appraisal of the property, but you’ll still have to
actively avoid overstating the value of your
conservation easement.
Both can cost you!
Did you know not everyone can take advantage
14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020) You Should Knowhttps://gokcecapital.com/conservation-easements-pros-and-cons/
9 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM
This is one of the largest cons of the entire
process.
You can only take advantage of this
easement if you meet one of these four
categories from a financial standpoint.
The following is found in the IRS Code, Section
1.170A-14(d).
You are preserving a relatively natural habitat
of wildlife, fish, or plants
You wish to preserve forests or agricultural
lands that have open spaces
You want to allow public access to a portion
of your land
You are protecting the property in response
to a clearly delineated government policy that
is identified in local open-space plans
In general, conservation easements must
provide public benefits.
“Public benefits” include water quality, farm
and ranchland preservation, scenic views,
wildlife habitat, protecting endangered species,
outdoor recreation, education, and historic
preservation.
Not all land trusts are created equal!
For every awesome land trust out there that will
work with you every step of the way, there are
equally awful land trusts.
Some land trusts want to create benefits that
14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020) You Should Knowhttps://gokcecapital.com/conservation-easements-pros-and-cons/
10 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM
Others are inflexible and confrontational
about your property.
This can put property owners in a tough
situation, especially when you’re not familiar
with the process.
Of all the conservation easements pros and
cons on this list, this is one you can
(hopefully) avoid based purely on
research.
Land trusts are non-profit organizations that
actively work to conserve land.
It is their job to ensure that all the restrictions
described in a conservation easement are
actually carried out.
The land trust will take legal action (if
necessary) to enforce the easement.
Thus, it’s important to select the right land trust
as you’ll work closely with them to ensure
you’ve come to the right agreement and can
move forward comfortably.
This is a big decision – don’t take it lightly!
First, choose a land trust that offers a
proven understanding of forestry
practices and agricultural issues.
After all, if this is their specialty, they should
show it through their practices.
Next, work with a non-profit that is certified
by the Land Trust Accreditation
Commission.
14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020) You Should Knowhttps://gokcecapital.com/conservation-easements-pros-and-cons/
11 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM
property owner!).
Doing your due diligence can pay off on this
one.
And for other due diligence tips, you can watch
our video below.
Sometimes you don’t know what you’ve got
until it’s gone, and this is exactly what property
owners realize when it comes to conservation
easements.
Over the years, landowners have
discovered that they’re unable to use
their property the way they want after
their conservation easement.
Even if you’re fully in control of the negotiation
process and able to see what you’re getting
14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020) You Should Knowhttps://gokcecapital.com/conservation-easements-pros-and-cons/
12 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM
comes.
Here are some examples of issues that have
occurred with conservation easements.
Restriction on wind turbines or other
economically viable technologies
Inability to use ATVs, snowmobiles, or other
recreational vehicles
No access to inspection records of your
property
Confidentiality breaches such as a public
petition for structures or other land uses
without your consent
Keep in mind that these issues are rare.
However, they do occur, which means they’re
worth acknowledging during the negotiation
process.
There are so many pros of conservation
easements.
However, the relationship that a landowner has
with a land trust often complicates the
process of selling the property.
As a result, you may find that your pool of
interested buyers is limited if you decide
that you’re ready to move on from the property.
In some cases, future owners may want to
develop the land, which won’t be possible.
14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020) You Should Knowhttps://gokcecapital.com/conservation-easements-pros-and-cons/
13 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM
Unfortunately, the banking community
does not always understand the nuances
of conservation easements nor
conservation easement pros and cons.
Just like buyers, lenders often view
conservation easements as a hurdle rather than
something that benefits the property as a
whole.
As a result, landowners have found that
it’s difficult to refinance their property if
it has an easement.
Or you may find that you have difficulty with
your appraisal or bank terms with your lending
agreement (if one is authorized at all).
Together, these obstacles make it
challenging to buy or sell the property.
They may also increase the cost of these actions
or make it hard to obtain future financing.
When you purchase land, you purchase
different types of rights.
You may have surface rights, oil and gas rights,
mineral rights, and even water rights.
14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020) You Should Knowhttps://gokcecapital.com/conservation-easements-pros-and-cons/
14 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM
When you create a conservation easement, you
may lose access to certain rights.
While you’ll likely retain certain surface rights
like farming and ranching, development is
almost always limited.
Furthermore, surface mining is almost
always off the table and the goal is to protect
the land overall.
This can be frustrating for some buyers and
even result in the value of your land decreasing
to nothing.
There you have it!
All of the conservation easements pros and
cons.
Overall, conservation easements allow
people to protect the land that they love
14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020) You Should Knowhttps://gokcecapital.com/conservation-easements-pros-and-cons/
15 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM
This process provides numerous advantages but
must be balanced with the specific
disadvantages of each property and landowner.
Doing your due diligence and finding the right
land trust are important parts of the process.
In the end, each property and conservation
easement is unique, and you’ll want to
thoroughly review the pros and cons to make
sure it is right for you.
Did we miss anything? Let us know in the
comments.
For more information on buying, selling, or
investing in vacant land, check out our other
resources below.
We’re here to help throughout the entire land
buying and selling process!
If you are looking to buy affordable land,
you can check out our Listings page.
If you are interested in land investing,
you can check out our article on How to Get
Started in Land Investing.
14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020) You Should Knowhttps://gokcecapital.com/conservation-easements-pros-and-cons/
16 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM
EXHIBIT 4
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application August 2020
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 2-11
property. It is accessed via several narrow dirt pathways that run through the property and
connect to the larger dirt roadway. A cleared dirt area approximately 3,000 square feet in size exists in the western section of the property. The cleared area is accessed via a narrow dirt pathway that runs south toward Orchard Street and connects to an access path on the adjacent property to the west.
2.4 Permits and Approvals The approval process can best be represented as a two-phase process. The first phase is approval of the subdivision map. The second phase is approval for constructing the improvements depicted on the subdivision map. Multiple approvals and permits are
required at the State, County and Local levels.
Phase 1- Subdivision Map Approval The project is subject to review by the Suffolk County Planning Commission. The Suffolk
County Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed project and determined it to be a matter for local determination (see Appendix E). The Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) must review and issue approval for the sub-division map (Suffolk County Department of Health Services 2018).
The project was originally submitted to the SCDHS circa 2013. Since the original submission, the project has been resubmitted to the SCDHS, with modifications, on multiple occasions. The latest SCDHS review notice issued December 13, 2018 is presented in Appendix F. In order to address many of the SCDHS comments and proceed to the Suffolk County Department of Health Services Board of review, the Applicant
prepared an updated subdivision map illustrating the information required by the SCDHS (last revised June 18, 2019 - see Appendix G) and refiled it with SCDHS. The updated subdivision map indicates the locations of the proposed sanitary systems and potable water supply wells. In addition the Applicant drilled two deeper potable water supply test wells that were subsequently sampled by the SCDHS. The results from the water sampling
necessitated the Applicant to obtain a variance from the SCDHS Board of Review as the water quality did not conform to minimum drinking water standards (discussed elsewhere in this document). A variance allowing development of a five residential lot subdivision as shown on the proposed subdivision map with sanitary system and water supply well locations (Appendix G) was approved by the SCDHS Board of Review on December 17,
2019. The SCDHS variance approval is provided in Appendix H. The Town of Southold must review and issue approval for the sub-division map (Town of Southold 2004). The project was originally submitted to the Town circa 2013. Since the
original submission, the proposed subdivision map has been modified multiple times to address concerns raised during the review process. As part of the Town review, a Positive
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application August 2020
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3-5
Potable Water Supply-
A public water supply is unavailable for the subject property. As such, private wells must be installed for each of the proposed parcels. In accordance with the requirements of the SCDHS, on September 30, 2015 two potable water supply test wells were installed on the
subject property. The well driller’s certification is included in Appendix J. Each well
extended to a depth of 46 feet. The location of the test wells is depicted on the subdivision map (see Appendix G). Test well #1 is located on proposed lot #1, at the extreme northwest corner of the subject property. Test well #2 is located on proposed lot #2 along the northerly property line of the subject property, approximately mid-width of the subject property. On
November 17, 2015 the test wells were sampled by the Suffolk County Department of
Health Services for the purpose of determining the suitability of the groundwater underlying the site for use as potable water. The SCDHS issued a report dated February 29, 2016 (see Appendix K) stating the groundwater underlying the subject property satisfied the criteria of the New York State Department of Health Standards for use as
drinking water and was determined to be suitable for potable use. However, the test well
depths were inadequate to provide the minimum 40 feet of water within each well as required by the SCDHS (Suffolk County Department of Health Services 1992), resulting in the SCDHS issuing a Notice of Incomplete application dated April 13, 2016 (see Appendix L). Failure to provide 40 feet of water within the test well results in a SCDHS
imposed restriction limiting development to one residential dwelling per two acres, or the
need to obtain a variance from the SCDHS Board of Review. Since development of one dwelling per two acres was not intended, and the Applicant did not wish to seek a variance from the SCDHS Board of Review to modify this requirement,
the Applicant had the two original water supply test wells re-drilled to provide the required
40 feet of water within each well casing. On June 3, 2017 both test wells were re-drilled to a depth of 65 feet (see Appendix M for test well driller’s logs). The depth to groundwater at the time of drilling was determined to be fourteen feet (14’). On August 17, 2017 the test wells were sampled by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services for the
purpose of determining the suitability of the groundwater underlying the site for use as
potable water. The SCDHS issued a report dated January 19, 2018 (see Appendix N). The sampling revealed the water in test well #1 exceeded the Suffolk County test well standard of 6 mg/l of nitrates, but did not exceed the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) permitted by Part 5 of the New York State Sanitary Code (The State of New York 2018). The water
in test well #2 exceeded the MCL for nitrates, Aldicarb Sulfoxide and Aldicarb Sulfone.
Each of these contaminants are commonly found in the groundwater surrounding the subject property and are most likely attributable to the former use of the subject property, and surrounding properties, as farmland.
Due to the test well sampling results, the Applicant filed for a variance from the SCDHS
Board of Review to seek permission to develop the proposed five residential lot subdivision with private water supply wells. The application included an engineering design plan depicting the location of the proposed sanitary systems and potable water supply wells for
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application August 2020
APPENDIX L
Suffolk County Department of Health Services Notice April 13, 2016
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application August 2020
APPENDIX H
Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Board of Review Variance Approval December 17, 2019
EXHIBIT 5
BOARD MEMBERS 9S0 -Southold Town Hall
Leslie Kanes Weisman,Chairperson 17 53095 Main Road•P.O.Box 1179
h®l0 Southold,NY 11971-0959
Patricia Acampora Office Location:
Eric Dantes sn ac Town Annex/First Floor,Capital One Bank
Gerard P.Goehringer
COQ
54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue)
Nicholas Planamento C®UNT`1 N Southold,NY 11971
http://southoldtownny.gov
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVE®
Tel.(631)765-1809•Fax(631)765-9064
FINDINGS,DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION L2 2017
MEETING OF JULY 20,2017 a
So old TownClerk
ZBA FILE: 7063
NAME OF APPLICANT: Eve MacSweeney and Veronica Gonzalez
PROPERTY LOCATION: 2050 Platt Road, Orient,NY SCTM No. 1000-27-1-9
SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this
application and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without
further steps under SEQRA.
SUFFOLK COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE: This application was referred as required under the Suffolk
County Administrative CodeSections A 14-14 to 23, and the Suffolk County Department of Planning issuedits
reply dated March 30, 2017 stating that this application is considered a matter for localdetermination as there
appears to be no significant county-wide or inter-community impact.
LWRP DETERMINATION: The relief, permit, or interpretation requested in this application is listed under the
Minor Actions exempt list and is not subject to review under Chapter 268.
SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD: The application was referred to the Southold Town PlanningBoard
for comments relating to the proposed subdivision. The PlanningBoard, in their June 27, 2017 memorandum
indicated that they do not support the area variance for reasons which included concerns with insufficientlot
widths, impact on groundwater and the sole source aquifer located under the Orient peninsula, and potable water
quality supply resulting from increase in residential density to this area. The memorandum included
recommendations relating to Suffolk County Department of Health development and consideration of innovative
and alternative onsite wastewatertreatment systems capable of reducing threats to potable water. Furthermore, the
Planning Board referred to a conforming yield plan for consideration that was submitted by the applicant, last
revised September 4, 2015,and depicted one of the two parcels resulting in a flag lot.
PROPERTYFACTS/DESCRIPTION: The subject property is a 4.2916 acre parcel located in R-80 Zoning
District. Theeasterly property line fronting Platt Road measures 300.00 feet, the northerly property line measures
637.79 feet, the westerlyproperty line measures 278.89 (recorded deed measures 279.30) and the southerly
property line measures 548.28 (recorded deed measures 548.20). Theparcel is vacant and described as fallow field
as depicted on subdivision map prepared by John T. Metzger,L.S. last revised August 26, 2015.
BASIS OF APPLICATION: Request for Variances under Article III, Section 280-14, and the Building Inspector's
January 17,2017 Notice of Disapproval basedon an application for a two lot residential subdivision, at: 1)
proposed two residential lots having less than the code required minimum lotwidth of 175 feet, at: 2050 Platt
Road, Orient,NY. SCTM#1000-27-1-9.
Page 2,July 20, 2017
7063, MacSweeney
SUM No. 1000-27-1-9
RELIEF REQUESTED: The applicant requests a variance to subdivide a 4.2916 acre parcel into two residential
lots in an R-80 Zoning District measuring 92,619 sq. ft. (Lot 1) and 94,324 sq. ft. (Lot 2) zone, both confirming in
size, but with proposed non-conforming road frontage of 150 feet lot width instead of the required 175 feet
according to Section 280-14 of the Southold Town Code, (Bulk Schedule).
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
As indicated in the memorandum from the PlanningBoard Chairman, the Planning Board had previously reviewed
a yield plan prepared by John T. Metzger, L.S. last revised September 4, 2015 depicting proposed lots; each of
which conform to the Southold Town Code (Bulk Schedule) and would notrequire Zoning Board of Appeals relief
for area variances. The applicant's attorney testified that the two owners wished to createthe two non-conforming
lots so that each would be of the same monetaryvalue, since flag lots are not considered as desirably as lots with
road frontage. At the hearing several nearby property owners objected to the variance, statingthat flag lots were not
uncommon in the areaand there was no need for a variancewhen conforming lots could be created as of right
through Planning Board approval. They also voiced concerns about setting a precedent that would appear to permit
more"suburban"non-conforming narrow lots in the future.
FINDINGS OF FACT/REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION:
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on July 6, 2017at which time written and
oralevidencewere presented. Based upon alltestimony, documentation, personal inspection ofthe property and
surrounding neighborhood, and otherevidence,the Zoning Board finds the following factsto be true and relevant
and makes the following findings:
1. Town Law &267-b(3)(b)(1). Grant ofthe variance will produce an undesirable change in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearbyproperties. Although, some of the surrounding parcels do not meet the
required lot width, creating additional non-conformity in the area, whenmost parcels are conforming to code
required lot widths would set an undesirableprecedent whereby other largelots in the area could be subdivideinto
long, narrow lots,which would diminish the rural quality ofthe existing area.
2. Town Law 4267-b(3)(b)(2). The benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for
the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Sincethe proposedlots meet required lot sizeand depth, the
applicant can pursue Planning Boardapproval for a subdivision consisting of one flag lot andone lot with street
frontage whichwould meet all zoning requirements.
3. Town Law §267-b(3)(b)(3). Thevariances requested are mathematically substantial, representing 16% relief
from the code for the lotwidth of each ofthe two proposed lots.
4. Town Law 4267-b(3)(b)(4) Evidence has been submitted to suggest that a variance inthis residential
community will have an adverse impact on the physical orenvironmentalconditions in the neighborhood. An
alternative subdivision yield plan utilizing the creation of a flag lot would notrequire a variance and would create
two conforming lots that are more characteristic of the area.
5. Town Law &267-b(3)(b)(5). The difficulty has been self-created. : The applicant purchased the parcel after the
Zoning Code was in effect and it is presumed that the applicant had actual or constructiveknowledge of the
limitations on the use of the parcel under the Zoning Code in effect prior to or at the time of purchase.
6. Town Law 4267-b. Grant of the requested relief for two lots with non-conforminglot widths resulting from a
subdivision is NOT the minimum action necessary and adequate to enablethe applicant to enjoy the benefit oftwo
single andseparate lots, while preserving and protecting thecharacter of the neighborhood and the health, safety
and welfare of the community.
Page 3,July20, 2017
7063, MacSweeney
SCTMNo. 1000-27-1-9
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under
New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offeredby Member Goehringer, seconded by MemberAcampora, and
duly carried,to
DENY as applied for,
Vote ofthe Board: Ayes:Members Weisman (Chairperson), Dantes, Goehringer, Planamentoand Acampora. This
Resolution was duly adopted (5-0).
IC
1rZ6
Leslie Kane Weisman
Chairperson
Approved for filing 71 ),l /2017
IZ611N ` ol4os83HOdV991••ZJO .A "OSVZCr`V6 _Z101 .,/BHVN0383HSHV3ddV321n1VNDS3SOHM
IvIS8373A IVVasVVd0A3AdnS3HL307Y3S03SS3Ydnl3H1YV36S31d00dodYnGIVS 1alv11OZZi• SAHOVz9zL,zJo * "OS ;IQU _ 1O-1Vg(..,/ • SNOLIVO-IUY3077VZ/NO1SIA108nS60ZL1N0003Se3dSV1d3OX3 606XOIQ .Odvv-.7VG1/
S9L (['9) Xd3
My7NOl1b'0n0331b'1S l2/O.( M3N3141 .060ZLNO1103S30 L6LI- OZOS-S9L (t'9) S980V91.6ZV=VBUV -ld.101. NOLLV701AVS1 (3ANnSSIHIOlNOLLIGGV &0NOUVY317VANV
0 'd `S80A3AdnS0/N003dlsuay40WoJJpau/04goolopWojjuopuosuoi4on.iasgoplayW04
Jou09-layUMoyssloodssaopuosllaM `ja70Mollgndjou0i40o01ayl
addHAO0?1d09ONIN07 Sad
410v3W 1N3mnNOWs19
p1
081dJ
1d011d001l1139MI9PA„ al01030N1383J383MV3N1-18nOlN008SNOIlba3l3
anlaak)1s33NvnHsor8cJNIl,3M0) IJNvnH -108VO -4/0/N
Ob (03/102ldddNlMOl) 332!113381S03SOal02ld=N'rM1031a3NNbYVIS)18313 '8183808 /O!NI ofQGvNveave3/lI
00'001 '""> (0330) 99'9b£ 4330) 39'661M .00.Lb,£5S
9M .OL£S.ISS % (1vn10t/b0£'6b£M .00.91,b5Sldn( l13YYti6'961 'M .9£.65,£5S
srlw - '" iN318010121SIa3611
T?
0
08380 =
1:)1j.lSI(7J'NNoZ
cl
0
L
0713UA390IOWQ
a•
cmoOrmM OomaiJSl-13M3!8`-4!0-4
o -$ Z10-1NN -iiivW0213WnWINIW ,05138OlS00dSS30 M
in
S8nlonls
v030VNIV8(l (INVSW3ISAS011d3SW08J ,O1
03 . 30WnWINIWV3801S3Nn631dMTV
2001A'N ')490,kAIE3NNdld101d1b01dAl 3AvON31S3MItb3 .9Z.Z.Z4N
Z33dZN09v01N00A
1Nv01lddv/83NM0se'ZiP9M .97-Z4.ZGs0V0d
IA10'11V.1
r3Zd30
OiWNlw
0F.. 1.-, OS nh
o
w 'sSIC0H1 "131101cr
U-)
3snoH i .3!0141S31W
MLL
o
Qzz
l
C13.4d03903
tzi33MIua3d08d
rslClinlov) '3 .00.99.15N 1OTA
vIs0330) 3 .0I.£5,19N1
6L'L£98ti19 'Old '01l '3'dSAN '3'd `183ld'lOA 'OSMOH
c9MI13A%a)
NA-1-13M3-1-13Ndr3/0/N31va
s31VGSIH! -40SV103-4-43N1SGdVGNVISNOLLOn2/1SN00S30M83SH17V3H -401N3n12/dd30
ZO1N(J00x/70-4-4nS3141Oln&o-4N00 `03SOdONdSV `S10777V `SNOI1/ON0083LVMONn0210ONV311S `710S3H1 .
4O .AnisHonoNoH1ONv7n-438VOvNOdn03sys 'No11032/l0 .(WN30Nn2403W .(603N91S3038
X30103ro2/dS1H1210-4 (S)W3lVSWSOdS/030dM3S80%NV (S)A7ddnS83LbH1LdHlA-ALY30A93Y3Hl
8T96bONv9HOr
1332121033214SlId13Q311t'f09QfVd:7b'NQ11V3WIQ11, QNb' NMOHS
QA-71338YOO3WSNOILISOddl3Qv,'4SIX3_7vhC; vmlsnH-LNMOHS
L/ SS1N3WnNOW33t/lVH13dn13b'O HOU-43QVWSVAIV7dNOISnI1T8n3'If11;1bM11', C1'1H33A9383H1
i44.1 0
adVGgDNINNdldNVW81VHJ
Ag
NO
TlOHinos -40NMOL3H1 -40Qdd099NINNdId3H1Ag
ttU3/108dc4VN339SVHIV7dNOISIAIM7S3H11VH1 .(-41183301SISIHL
tom+ tuofslnaa) SiQZ `9Z '6n'dMsOWSJWV00013NLdWo21s37vdN1amvM
91026Z -118c4V831Wkinvno1N3NUTAN3d0NOISWG '00133010
09 = » I =31d0Szz1 ---- ,9.1 '73
ftl31.73ciDG1S39"
MSONVS3SNN00aL3NI3NMOSS37W3000k2lViINVSUNnooN"10-4-4nS
009 -.I13lY3S601OS0103H1 (INVMVIH1-lV3HOnend3H1 -40SNOISIA02ldHIM30NV(18000V
NIA8310 )1NnO33Hl -40301-4303HiNISNV3ddV1N3W3S2100N3SIH!
d'v!W 13N60 - 10 - LZ
J-
OMH01HMNOdb'WSIH! -40ONIII-43Hl210-4N3A10A83213HSI1N3SN00
WN `NIIO.J /1OS3140SIH! .102lb'3Jl3N0NIH11M >183-10A1Nn003141HUM0311-4 .1in0
311SMS73ii89X01HUMONUS3SWWOl .3NUNM02I8SldVW1N3WdOl3A30/NOISIA108nSA11V3213Hi -41AINOOnVA
Q1v ' I^NI
n
IOS ON/ViO
38I1VHS1VA02lddVSIHI 'S02iVONV1S3SOHiOl1NVnS24ndS11W213d
3iV8Vd3SOl103r8nS32JV0N`dNOuonbUSN00 -403W113Hi1V
1N3180ld9z103JANISONVONV1SNOLLonaLSNO001V480JN00ismS3I1nIOV-4
7W17ISNM0?187VSOdSI039VM3S (INVS31lddnS831VM '31V03A08V3HiNO
Z3-1VZNOJYOON3A70MV07NMOYGHMYO ,
SL03A021ddVSVMSlOI -403V101VHilM
V1 ,Ver1 `i 3HlNI240-41N3Wd0-l3A30
HOZINONOISIAI08nSAIIV32103SOd02ld3Hi1VH1A-4112130OlSISIHI
NOISIAMenS
V.LV037014IS31d0
N '39n`dddn`dH
S301na3SHlld3H301N3VU8Yd30AiNn00 >i103inS
6 i A MAILING ADDRESS:
4-C PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS F SU(/P.O.Box 1179
W DONALD J.WILCENSKI V y®l® Southold,NY 11971
Chair OFFICE LOCATION:
WILLIAM J.CREMERS N
Town Hall Annex
PIERCE RAFFERTY G • oQ 54375 StateRoute 25
p JAMES H.RICH III cor.Main Rd. &YoungsAve.)
MARTIN H.SIDOR l C®UM Southold,NY
Telephone: 631765-1938
www.souiholdtow-xmy.gov
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
71t
MEMORANDUM RECEIVED
JUN 2 7 20V
To: Leslie Weisman, ZBA Chairperson
Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
From: Donald J. Wilcenski, Chairman
Members of the Planning Board
Date: June 27, 2017
Re: Request for Comments for MacSweeney and Gonzalez
SCTM# 1000-27-1-9 ZBA#7063
The Planning Board has reviewed the project and does notsupportthe Variance as requested
based upon the following:
1. The Planning Board has an inactive Standard Application for the subject parcel (figure 1).
On October 7, 2015 the Planning Board accepted a Yield Plan (last revised September 4,
2015) recognizing 2 lots where lot 1 was proposedat 90,341 square feet and lot 2 at
88,227 square feet (excluding flag). TheYield Plan met the dimensional lotrequirements of
the Residential 80 Zoning District (figure 2)
2. The Yield Plan was submitted in response to a Planning Board denial on August 7, 2015 on
a Yield Plan showing insufficient-lot widths that did not meet the Town Code §240-10 B.
3. The impact-on groundwater and the sole source aquifer under the Orient peninsula from
residential density is a large concerndue to sanitary systems, irrigation and property
maintenance. Although the residential density in the area is equal to or greater than 1
acre, the cumulative build out in this sensitive area could lead to greater impacts on
ground and surface waters.
Public water is not available in this area and the preservation of potable water qualityfrom
nitrogen impacts, saltwater intrusion, pathogens, pharmaceuticals, personal care products
and volatile organic compounds is a priority. It is these threats that have prompted the
Suffolk County Department of Health to develop the regulatory opportunities for the
RECEIVED
ii 2 '0
I
Harming Baal-(J
attn: Heather Lanza, Town Planning Director
TO: Southold Town Planning Board
DATE: 11/30/2020
RE: The Orchards Subdivision Application, Orient (2 pages)
To the Planning Board,
Thank you for your time and careful examination regarding the Orchards
subdivision proposal. Considering its proximity to the Orient Historic District
and to the Hallock Farm Complex, along with many other residents, I believe
that the development of this property should be much more limited in scope
and scale.
Two of the properties associated with the Hallock Farm are within 500 feet of
the proposed subdivision. These properties, along with several others just
outside of the 500' buffer, are indicated on figure 5.1 of the Southold
Comprehensive Plan as listed by the Society for the Preservation of Long Island
Antiquities. The Hallock Farm was an innovative and prosperous farm that
helped shape the community of Orient. The rural nature of the Orchard and
Halyoake corner is still mostly intact, and will be permanently spoiled by the
addition of four potentially massive houses. The 13.0 acre site is currently
guided by the area's R-80 zoning district and is also informed by its historical
context and the goals represented by the Village of Orient Historic District, with
its eastern boundary at Tabor Road, just 880 feet from the site.
The current plan shows five residential lots, as well as an agricultural building
and access road, utilizing R-40 zoning. Using R-40 and the split cluster
configuration does not achieve a rural, open space goal, nor does it preserve
the natural and scenic values of the Town and village.
We would like to see a full visual impact study showing maximum sized
homes and barn.
Another key issue is the lack of a thorough environmental impact study on
groundwater. The application requirement is for six new wells including an
irrigation well with DEC permit to pump 4 million gallons/year; anticipated
irrigation for turf grass; and five new standard residential sanitary systems.
The most critical shortcoming in the DEIS is the impact of the development
particularly its density) on both water supply aril iqualily. A putenlial impact
from the project would be depletion of the groundwater supply lying beneath
the property. There is no analysis regarding the severe limitations of Orient's
aquifer and groundwater supply. The proposed subdivision has the potential to
impact the fresh water supply for the whole village. What will the effects be on
neighboring properties quality and quantity of drinking water?
The overall impact of the additional demand for water has not been assessed
nor has the overall impact of wastewater. The DEIS does NOT address the
concerns for potential impacts to groundwater and adjacent properties of
discharge of pharmaceuticals, personal care products, VOCs, pesticides,
fertilizers or herbicides from the residential properties. The DEIS does not
propose the use of I/A sanitary systems, proposes a crop that requires an
abundance of fertilizer and pesticides and offers "turf grass" in the unfarmed
open space.
The applicant should be required to identify the salt water interface and
evaluate the impacts of pumping; and there is no mention of how the new
sanitary systems might mitigate the impact of any of the discharge.
As a resident of 35 years, thank you again for your consideration of both the
scope and negative impact of a proposal that falls short of Orient's conservation
goals.
Sincerely,
Christine Churchill
c1h is@scottmg(t n.cot
1220 Old Farm Road
Orient, NY 11957
Donald Wilcenski, Chairman 11/30/2020 PIb) ++LI
And members of Southold Planning Board pt,
m_....m.
54375 Route 25
Southold, N.Y., 11971
C ' 2020
RE: The Orchards Subdivision, 2595 Orchard St., Orient, N.Y.
SUM # 1000-21-7-3 stiuLhw,kl fo4rvn...__.
1la.nniii,)g li:3oai
From: Richard Johnson& Laura Santisi
1610 Platt Road
Orient, N.Y. 11957
We have been Orient residents since 2011 on Platt Road, on property which backs up to the proposed
Orchard Street development. We want to register our opposition to the plan as presented, based on
aesthetic and environmental concerns.
Aesthetically,there is a quality to Orient village and surrounds that is singularly unspoiled. It is miraculous
that it has not been degraded already. It is sad beyond imagining that irreversible damage may occur soon,
from this current project or from future ones related to creeping'luxury living' initiatives emanating from
New York City.
This appeal may sound like just another local protest against change, and it is that, but there is beyond that
something particular about Orient that is worth protecting.
The character of Orient seems to lie in some confluence and alchemy of low density, of the rural &farming
ambiances, of the colonial inflections in some of the architecture, of the continuing presence of multi-
generational families, of the 'edge of the continent geography' with no town to the east of Orient, of the
relative absence of commercial activity. At the heart of this confluence of gifts, however, it is probably the
qualities of casual low density and modest building structures that contribute most to making the village
what it is.
You cannot dilute this fragile alchemy very much without destroying it. The proposed Orchard St. project
unfortunately suggests some version of a rural/suburban housing project, maybe well-intentioned but a
terrible mismatch for what the Orient village and surrounds always have been and remain. It would set a
direction of sad, disfiguring dilution of several centuries of organic community aesthetic.
Villages, towns and cities world-wide are routinely degraded in the name of property rights and the demands
of commerce. Orient may inevitably surrender to that as well, but we hope as many people as possible will
speak against it. We certainly do.
Other local residents speak more knowledgeably than we can about the multiple damaging features in the
existing proposal, especially risks to water supply and water quality. We have read and we support these
carefully articulated cautions and alarms.The DEIS unfortunately does not appear to reckon with the multiple
aesthetic and practical risks embedded in this ill-advised project.
Thank you for your attention.
Laura Santisi & Richard Johnson
RriR'
aryl
iiw
III^ ,_..C , I E,D
I
Wil rrm lil
74/',ri ri i ri fl
f
F i ,p+ iArN l I N7 Y/i '"" "'`r NC dP a " G"Mr ,"14a"/ i/ % /
j% mHrN uii w9fM^ m. 9rwmnam w,w rwwwmmr wm mr«o iii/j//p i/i i/i/ /i i i %/ii%/%j///////////ip%/ iii
r r
J M r
l i
777,
r
xar„ wmw u"w w,.-, urs wurrrm 'wmrmw*amm a+a w mroxr Y ,wawa?nmw,wy+,r r ws+www+
P
mtllW wuWWmiWrrz;aaa+nmmP
From: joshua nefsky <jnefsky@verizon.net>
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:40 PM RECEIVED
To:Michaelis,Jessica
Subject: The Orchards Subdivision li, 20 `0
hxvn
i'[waml0ingptoaii,,11
Josh Nefsky
835 Halyoke Avenue
PO Box 11
Orient NY, 11957
November 30, 2020
Donald Wilcenski, Chairman
And members of the Southold Planning Board
54375 State Road 25
Southold, NY 11971
Re: 'The Orchards Subdivision
SCTM 9 1000-21-7-3
The Subdivision proposed for this site is simply TOO DENSE. It is too dense contextually at the corner of
Halyoake and Orchard, and it is too dense for the resources available.
Mr. Wilcenski, Chairman of the Planning Board put it best in a Memorandum dated June 27, 2017 in response
to a proposal to divide one lot into two on a neighboring property: "The impact on groundwater and the sole
source aquifer tinder the Orient peninsula from residential density is a large concern due to sanitary systems,
irrigation and property maintenance.
Although the residential density in the area is equal to or greater than 1 acre, the cumulative build out in this
sensitive area could lead to greater impacts on ground and surface waters.'
The Orchards subdivision is a 13.3 acre property and the proposal calls for 5 homes and farmland with an
irrigation permit to pump 4 million gallons/year.
This is equivalent to the water use of over 60 homes. The pace of build-out in Orient has accelerated of late
and we aregrateful to the Planning Board for recognizing that the protection of our potable water supply is a
priority. if dividing one lot into two is of concern, certainly the number
of logs in Orchards subdivision should be substantially reduced!
Sincerely,
Josh Nefsky
i
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT 2595 ORCHARD STREET Ppm 4
SCTM # 1000— 27—3) E I E
PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW I APPLICANT'S (DRAFT EIS
SOUTHOLD PLANNING DEPARTMENT
V'9 r°rw irk 1wt;a J
PUBLIC HEARING December 7, 20210—6 PM
rr.,.f
Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to the
Planning Department Laserfiche Subdivision Pending Application File;
h.,I':i.//244,38.28 220,40/Webi.in/0``/ oc(,: 1725,2iglla 1.
I have reviewed the Barbara Friedman Fetter dated November 2, 2020 and the Nancy
and Mark Ferraris submission dated November 23, 2020.
1 am in full support of their comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective
responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat last dated 7-8-2020. An
Alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to the
community.
Barbara BloomFullName.
ull Name F
I
rty Owner Yes No
Address: 5'95 Edwards Lane
int NY 11 957 t
dA tional,l Comments:
JN
1
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT 2595 ORCHARD STREET
SCTM # x.000 —27 —3)1 Co II r"UZJJ
PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW I APPLICANT'S DRAFT EIS VI:P1i'ald 6i krdPih
I"Iainii ig I3aard
SOUTHOLD PLANNING DEPARTMENT n
PUBLIC HEARING December 7, 2020— 6 PM
Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to the 1
Planning Department Laserfiche Subdivision Pending Application File;
I have reviewed the Barbara Friedman letter dated November 2, 2020 and the (Nancy
and Mark Ferraris submission dated November 23, 2020.
1 am in full support of their comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective
responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat last dated 7-8-2020. An
Alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to the
community.
Print Full Name: Richard Gluckman
t' •
w
Sign Full Name
Property Owner " S No
Local Address. 41630 Orchard Street, Orient, NY 11957
Additional Comments:
it should be the responsibility of the board to rigorously adher to the word of the law and the
intent of the objectives of the preservation of the land, water, views and subsurface conditionh
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT 2595 ORCHARD STREET
SCTM # 1000 — 27— 3) RECEIVED
PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW ( APPLICANT'S DRAFT EIS CSI C, ........1. 2-02
f
SOUTHOLD PLANNING DEPARTMENT
l"ait i uiig Booaua:tl
PUBLIC HEARING December 7, 2020 — 6 PM
Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to the
Planning Department Laserfiche Subdivision Pending Application File..
Iittl 8 4— -..28.22
a2040/
Webs, ijik/l:ll(locl6,.172_"02/P,,g..d:.LLIsli
have reviewed the Barbara Friedman Metter dated November 2, 2020 and the Nancy
and Mark Ferraris submission dated November 23, 2020.
1 am in full support of their comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective
responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat last dated 7-8-2020. An
Alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to the
community.
Print Full Name: Jeanne Markel
Sign Full Name
Property Owner es No
Local Address: 100 Harbor Road Orient NY 11957
Additional Comments:
I am concerned about the strain on our aquifer that this(level opr-hent will pose.All of the water used on
the North Fork is pumped frorn underground aquifers that are fed solely by our local rain and snownaelt.
Aquifer levels drop significantly in the,swurner months,during the tourism and farming season,which
are also the driest months of the year.
Peaking a term that refers to periods of heavy demand on our waster supply—occurs when a lot
of water is drawn from many locations during;the.sarne period of the day or season, sracl)as tArhen lawn
irrigation systems start simultaneously early on 5urmner-mornings.these peaks in dernand are costly:
water delivery costs rise as more holding,tanks and additional wells are needed to meet temporary highs.
The North Fork is also surrounded by saltwater.When our aquifers shrink or water is purnped heav-
ily;salt water moves into the:vacumn and contauninates freshwater swells.This is happening with more
frequency in our area.
MT
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT 2595 ORCHARD STREET IH-Lt
r
SCTM # 1000— 27 — 3)r _
illPRELIMINARYREVIEWPLATREVIEIAPPLICANT'S DRAFT EIS wf . r.` ;i
SOU'THOLD PLANNING DEPARTMENT PIanmriw ", ,... .
PUBLIC HEARING December '7, 2020— 6 PM
Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to the
Planning Department Laserfiche 'Subdivision Fending Application File:
i is r' k m 2 _2)40/ eb ii,il,,'iii/doe/6,17251[ a La
1 have reviewed the Barbara Friedman letter dated November 2, 2020 and the Nancy
and Mark Ferraris submission dated November 23, 2020.
1 am in full support of their comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective
responses to the Applicant's IDEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat Fast dated 7-8-2020. An
Alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to the
community.
Print Full Name: 'Mara Serra
Sign Full Name
Property Owner Yes No
Local Address: 4263 Orchard Street
We are landowners
Additional Comments:
We have privately purchased land in Orient to save it from development. I hope tlhe town of Southold Mill not allow
Landowners to create miniature suburbs with building clusters .
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT 2595 ORCHARD STREET
SCTM # 1000— 27 — 3)
PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW APPLICANT'S DRAFT EIS
SOUTHOLD PLANNING DEPARTMENT r,c
PUBLIC HEARING December 7, 2020— 6 PM
Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to the
Planning Department Laserfiche Subdivision Pending Application File:
in ,/O/`doc:/617215..2/p,ee l.e l
I have reviewed the Barbara Friedman letter dated November 2, 2020 and the Nancy
and Mark Ferraris submission dated November 23, 2020.
1 am in full support of their comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective
responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat last dated 7-8-2020. An
Alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to the
community.
Print Full Name: Keri Christ
Sign Full Name
Property Owner Yes No
Local Address: 22715 Main Road, Orient, NY 11957
Additional Comments:
Hydrogeological studies need to be done before a project of this size may be lawfully done.
Orient relies upon an aquifer already subject to farming operations, as well as the 2d largest prig
l-lydrogeological studies need to be done before a project of this size may be lawfully done,.
OnerO relies upon an aquifer already subject to fanning operations, as well as the 2d largest privately-owned ferry
olici,ttion in the country,whose environmental impacts have never been the subject of study, although it has massively
increased its operations in recent decades.
1404 datrrmCe
Pr
tV1mtVll. °mrau^nue
212)
a r°'
r rr
Irl Inrt Bc,:,1ul rf
Decemberrr ,2020
Ms. Heiither Lanza,Director
Towmmum Planning 11 epam.m.tmmmm mmt.
Town of Southold
Towii. Hall Amn,ex Building
54375 Rmite 25
PO l3ox 1179
Southold,NY 11971
Via I'mail:w
Of 4 9 err lXl wt„.,
R The Orchards Pm°ampamtred Subdivision in Orient
Dear Director Vl nzam.and Board Members:ers:
lAy wife and I own the residence at Q5 Ilam,lyoleze Ave,abutting thea proposed subdivision,
I have ul ,,views ei l the tmmmmupmmaued submission plan as Wua°a f l as the carefully written and
researched letteirs fio ram Barba ist Frmedrinawmm and time Fermi is.
I would tmm.aafm r that the land s mfr comm a ata tel l:' mmauatm.mm;lawped and tmmwamm m d ttu ammamimmt:am tm the
mope rnmma s of tame area and to preserve the quality an(] suustainaabili ly of the water suipply,
Hcaweveir,I rea,lize that:the land will likely be deivelqped ill Some way.
TI[°e facts seem to be (t) the town has a m:tarosire to aalhistm,u. lots in order to mut:mtam.iam nriore open
space for deveto mm"meim's fil+ti 'w thsand (2) 1 he specific, hmlid at issue has sensitive waat.er,
These a;mw'Icmm:aa'tmmmg ftwoconstraints.. a., a a",tau force m1R `°n than 'lll:Q„,aN plan ,.. on(- 1`aaflT. a 6 m1 a"m"m'a.a"k":am'"
tmm:ull.ur” potentially large residences on land that has sensifive N+a+"aalra`r 6 OIISal:ll.rrm.9ras. Not as 'good
idea.
The flan could ha.IT itiaadifit d tit .t...Iev that mwn<umdid h Ima°p + fmm i,.,d tma„I a...a mt
mm
mmmmnHm , D
to the owner. Cri wamau. ttm.e size of the, lot to be subdivided. minder ra modified t:allammm the
ae" a q)er could eaHy m H put the four or mn.: `alusteirad ” homes"aa'an W°"'mg 'mt amm',''IC"a"m"v mm'u„"ata",mm(
offour ama°u`es (one house per two Tacirr:s instead of one house per one acre) and still have
some muuaWtam'vmmtaatued ampere `pane ammmderas modified plan. However this rriodifi atio
mamatB, tam ll mnt the....town accommodate 1yfa solution ha...tm') 6m raatek.µ.adjusfin the
laal _„umt .m mt ;, ,µttat amt.
1404 Cedar Ifill Avenue
Dalays,Texas75208
212)920-7824
stefmii,ifeucrail:)e.ndt@yatioo.cowii
DIFIED PLAN.
Plaving resWed in the neighborhood for sorne time,I have no cloubt that the open space
feel of the new hornes being rnone q-)read ota in, this way woold feel more "open"' than
under the current proposed plan,even with to technically smalleT undeveloped open space.
While c1lustering certainly is a useful tool. in certain circumstances,specifically very Ilarge
developments, it just defies logic to apply the clustering concept to this particular
neighborhood for th'is size lot as it would in effect i-educe the open fee] of the
neighborhood,the exact opposite intent of the clustering concept.
g_Lqwn todLe1'() Lsr r,')n tLie..jL1.5terinLingit., ic ult
NVOUkk-hI]-L-—ht t,p w- jLaWPbA(-m"'
the 1, (lue concenh-ali of four--ry 'ilfl[
44 FITT F'RONI A 11 N,1F.1 V E-I "ILIJ) B EN111M-- k KM
It is undoubtedly true thal f0UY 11OUses on, two acres each are more valuable than four
bouses on oine acre each.
In conclusion, I WOUld SUggeSt YOU C0115ider that the water reSOUrces in this particular
loca6on coWd easily be exhausted or permanently 11hartned with the wrong pkin. Is theC
town prepared to corripensale, current residents in the event of irreparable hal-M to the
IM'd Mltff 1-eSOUII:CeS ShOldd the curreint. proposed pWi go forward? I rain stune,vwarp will
a cle'ZIT ITTOrA of,N, iti, ConcernsWjltvfljIldI'l theh
ql1oll V1 hich tum hipild the tcm n tn.jvctoble should a watQrAIyA,jfty issue arisein the
future
Thes,L are rny tpnouughp ts,,and I hope they are accepted in the sljphIt oftrying find to
C011SU'LWflMSOW6011 For the COMIYU111ity and for the develloper and for the town, 'Fhere
inust be one, Thank you.
Bes't
S 'anm'rilhendt
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT 2595 ORCHARD STREET
SCTM # 1000 — 27 — 3) UTi
PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW I APPLICANT'S DRAFT EIS I II ^ „ r
e III
SOUTHOLD PLANNING DEPARTMENTDEC 2 2D20 i
U C
PUBLIC HEARING December 7, 2020— 6 PM
IIf;r°7 ii ^ 1 CrraP
Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to the
Planning Department Laserfiche Subdivision Pending Application File:
littp //? 3, ' ,228.2'040/Wel )>1,ink/O/doc/61w752/Pa(=T,eI asp
I have reviewed the Barbara Friedman letter dated November 2, 2020 and the Nancy
and Mark Ferraris submission dated November 23, 2020.
1 am in full support of their comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective
responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat last dated 7-8-2020. An
Alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to the
community.
Print Full Name: Jessica Pepi Ginsberg Martin Crane
Sign Full Name
Y
Property Owner Yes No
Local Address: 1750 Platt Road, Orient, NY 11957
Additional Comments:
Page 3
PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT
kILA 6VL'AC"IIOi t
eTr
r v CPA N
T
N
r
y
o
n+
rte
rv7 1r 7 Ai' f u w,¢° lm /%rN % aG/r/)
rri /rlrr r v 'v'mi i M'iljy" ,.
e-„
U 1 /rlr r 1/ /r/, ,. , ,;, ,, ,,//'r;,
r //frii//y/ //lig r r/ li m %%
r" ri/rt, r'J ../P i/i//1Pi//fd"/lii %, '"'t ,hvv„c,o
r r,;r.
r ?1" ^ ,'qJ m r r/`j//!l`/fg,/Qr '; l r/,1 J a w it I ,I i+,i rv;',.
rE(°feuena 4., y / ////r` //f %(J'/H l%tri/jl`!/1 Ja' r;d r // % ,
11) u,yi ruj l v/> r/ r/rir !/!/r T/ //o,"/ ;tai/r,r////i,: '" % /11 i, ,
r , % I/ 1 li, . .-l ri// /,ulltN l JIn//I/%8 r/ r /j%"i//rl, r n /l
a " n r ,Jr!r
r/i/l i j%//tiw rr i lr yi/r /r/ / i% v tr/r/' d,,'.`4 'I l!r
vn.
9n"'`"w'r, 'a/,„1 i r / l r r r lt /
r//ir/';kll"°'fP r/ml"llr/'/ fury ,””Yui,. . /r/
r I arr'`i G If 'v`"/„I rA,f(/ 'J/% %% i/i ir r/1 %r/ //r/ <I
If
Woo
AN
Martin Crane and Jessica Ginsberg
1750 Platt Road
Orient, NY 11957
December 2, 2020
Donald Wilcenski, Chairman
And members of the Southold Planning Board
54375 State Road 25
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Orchards Subdivision
SCTM#1000-21-7-3
We are rather recent arrivals to Orient and live on 1750 Platt Road which abuts the proposed development. Our
attraction to the area was in large part due to the aesthetic of the land and the low-density, historic houses already
here.We are concerned that the Orchards would be jarringly out of character with the surrounding fabric of the
neighborhood.
We think of the area east of the historic district between Narrow River and Village Lane as a kind of informal walking
and biking district.What is left of the views of the water,the marshlands, and low density, historic housing feel to us
like a communal resource that significantly increases the quality of life for all of those who call Orient home, and have
for decades before we arrived.The corner of Orchard and Halyoke sits in the heart of that zone, and the proposed
development would dramatically alter the character of the surrounding streets in a negative way.Additionally,we are
concerned that an increase in traffic will adversely affect the neighborhood and residents of the homes adjacent to
the proposed development.
As the land in question is also one of the larger and last contiguous green spaces in Orient, we are deeply concerned
about the environmental effects on the water supply, its potential contamination and the disruption of a highly
cultivated and rich wildlife.We have had the opportunity to read all of the letters in opposition and wholeheartedly
support our fellow neighbors in their concerns about the negative impacts of this development on the land,the town
and all of its inhabitants.
Thank you so much for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Martin Crane and Pepi Ginsberg
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION T 2595 ORCHARD STREET
1 7 )
r Lc S C
PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW I APPLICANT'S FT EIS E%l f
SOUTHOLD PLANNINGEPA T T n r
PUBLIC HEARINGDecember 7,
Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to the
Planning Department Laserliehe Subdivision Pending Application File.
bl H k Z0 Joc/6 dpi 5/ilsl ?,a!
tM
1`,
I have reviewed the Barbara Friedman letter dated November 2, 2020 and the Nancy
and MarkFerraris submission datedNovember 23, 2020.
i am in full support their comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective
responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposedreli in r la last dated 7-8-2020. n
Alternative design scheme is a mustin order to addresse adverse impacts to the
community.
Printll c` C-F
Sign Full Name
Property ner
LocalAddress: S
AdditionalComments:
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT 2595 ORCHARD STREET
SCTM # 1000—27—3)
PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW I APPLICANT'S DRAFT EIS y l
h
U
t
SOUTHOLD PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC HEARING December 7, 2020— 6 PM r
Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to the
Planning Department Laserfiche Subdivision Pending Application File:
1 have reviewed the Barbara Friedman letter dated October 31, 2020 and the Nancy and
Mark Ferraris submission dated November 23, 2020.
1 am in full support of their comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective
responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat last dated 7-8-2020. An
Alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to the
community.
Print Full Name: 4 e y
Sign Full Name
Property Owner Yesl No --ULL TINE R—IJfi S WCC
Local Address:
12-000
P0 BaZ ffitaf, Q1s
Additional Comments:
From: James Haag <jamesfhaag@yahoo.com>z.
Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 9:42 AM
To:Michaelis,Jessica
Cc:Lanza, Heather; Yahoo A 2 1
Subject: The Orchards—concerned comment on this proposal.
Dear Jessica, Heather and the Southold Planning Board:
Would you please confirm receipt of this? Thanks.
My name is James Haag and I have been in Orient since the late 1980s and have owned
in Orient since 1994. 1 love the community—the essential rural character of Southold
Town is one of the main reasons for being here. The other is the warmth of the people and
their passionate desire to maintain the beauty of what they have created. I do everything
in my power to be kind to the people, the land and the environment in which we live.
Over the past decade there has been pressure on the Town to keep its character in
check—especially with the emerging popularity of the north fork. I have spoken and
corresponded with Supervisor Russell from time to time and encouraged him to do the
right thing when it comes to maintaining its character since that is why people want to
come here in the first place.
am asking you now to seriously consider what is proposed for The Orchards subdivision
in Orient. You all know what a jewel Orient is and this proposal has the potential to greatly
compromise this town.
The expanse of open land in question along Orchard Street is a godsend for the
community. It is a reminder of the past with its Hallock Farm roots and a gift to the present
in terms of groundwater protection, fresh air, wildlife habitat, and rural character. It is right
at the border of our historic district and will bring suburbia clustering into the midst of this
timeless community.
This is your one chance to preserve our character. This opportunity will never be in
front of us again You are our voice— please do the right thing and save Orient from
becoming a typical suburban community.
On a personal note, many of us have suffered salt water intrusion into our wells at one
time or another. That phenomenon renders homes uninhabitable and there is nothing to
be done about it once it happens. With rising sea levels we need to do everything possible
to protect our groundwater. We cannot have millions of gallons of fresh water a year taken
from us by a suburban cluster subdivision. It will destroy a beloved community that has
fought continuously to preserve Southold Town for the future.
1.
I beg you to please consider this very seriously. It will mean a lot to people who
desperately care about the Southold which you have helped preserve.
Please see additional specific comments below.
Thank you and best regards,
James Haag
Specifically-
The current plan shows five residential lots, as well as an agricultural building and
access road, utilizing R-40 zoning. Using R-40 and the split cluster configuration does not
achieve a rural, open space goal, nor does it preserve the natural and scenic values of the
Town and village.
We would like the DER include a full visual impact study showing maximum sized
homes and barn.
The proposed subdivision has the potential to impact the fresh water supply for the
whole village. What will the effects be on neighboring properties quality and quantity of
drinking water? The overall impact of the additional demand for water has not been
assessed and the overall impact of wastewater has not been assessed.
The applicant should be required to identify the salt water interface and evaluate the
impacts of pumping.
The DEIS does NOT address the concerns for potential impacts to groundwater and
adjacent properties of discharge of pharmaceuticals, personal care products, VOCs,
pesticides, fertilizers or herbicides from the residential properties. The DEIS does not
propose the use of I/A sanitary systems, proposes a crop that requires an abundance of
fertilizer and pesticides and offers "turf grass" in the unfarmed open space.
There is no mention of how the new sanitary systems might mitigate the impact of any
of the discharge.
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
i
1.;
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT-2595 ORCHARD STREET
Sam # 10004 27
ri //r; ,o
PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW. APPLICANT'S
SOUTHOLD PLANNING
PUBLIC HEARING Decemberl,,7 202q"/7
Available Using the',rLinlc``BelowtoFullDocunl.nts
Planning Department Laserfiche Subdtysaori"Pend4
ID
the Barbara Friedman letter dated November2,2020 nadIhavereviewed
and Mark Ferraris submission dated November,23, 2020
I am in full support of their comments and critical concerns expressedn their respective,
responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat last dated,?
Alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to;,thei
community.
r
1r
v
rr
Print Full Name:
Sign Full Name
Property Owner NoYeses
Local Address:
Additional Comments:
r A
FORTHEEAS i'i
Protecting the nature of the place you love
December 6, 2020
Donald Wilcenski, Chairman
Southold Town Planning Board
54375 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
RE: DEIS Comments - The Orchards Subdivision - 13.3 Acres at 2595
Orchard Street, Orient
Dear Chairman Wilcenski:
On behalf of Group for the East End, I offer the following comments and
recommendations regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for
The Orchards" proposed subdivision.
Summary Statement:
The Town's recently adopted Southold Town Comprehensive Plan could not be clearer
in its vision and goals to protect town character, its environment and aesthetic so
that, "Southold retains much of its small-town charm" (Goal Five: Protect the Town
Character). In order to truly fulfill this vision and achieve these goals for Southold's
future, every development proposal should be met with the highest level of scrutiny
and the willingness to collaboratively arrive at appropriate mitigation measures to
create the best possible development outcome.
Given this, we find the DEIS tol e i jat e in a number of key sections Dertainino
to chr. (ter anm m d er resoLc ss and call on the Planning Board to ensure that both
the shared visions and goals of the Town are met and that the full extent and
provisions provided within SEQRA be utilized to arrive at the best possible
development proposal that minimizes potential permanent impact.
Impacts to Water Resources:
With regard to wastewater, the DEIS summarizes that the impacts to ground and
surface water quality are negligible based on the the fact that the subdivision map
could provide a density of thirteen homes when only five are proposed. This
reasoning completely disregards the actual impact of wastewater on water quality by
relying on a circumstance of what could have been. This logic is detrimental and
should be addressed within the DEIS by requiring an analysis of the actual impacts the
proposed five homes will impart on water resources.
It is notable that the Town of Southold, in its Positive Declaration (July 2015),
specifically called out impacts of proposed sanitary systems on nearby surface waters
of the greater Peconic Estuary systems, which continues to experience the deleterious
effects of excess nitrogen loading emanating from standard, single-family sanitary
systems. The DEIS is inadequate in addressing these impacts.
Recommendations:
In light of these continuing circumstances and the shared, critical importance of
protecting and preserving the region's water resources, the DEIS should be amended
to incorporate a comparative analysis of the impacts of the use of the proposed
standard sanitary systems for the five homes versus the use of of I/A OWTS. As a
point of mitigation, the DEIS explore the required use of these systems.
It's important to note that on October 6, 2020, Suffolk County passed legislation
modifying its Sanitary Code to require the incorporation of the alternative systems for
all new construction throughout the County. The County's regulations take effect in
July of 2021, but should be required for any new construction that could potentially
impact water resources now.
This recommendation is bolstered by the Town of Southold's recently adopted,
Southold Town Comprehensive Plan recommendations:
Bullet 5 - "Require the use of(/A OWTS or future technologies to achieve the
highest level of effluent treatment in new construction projects" (page 15).
It would be irresponsible to omit this consideration from the DEIS given the the above-
mentioned circumstances.
House Size and Scale
The DEIS uses the term "modest" when discussing the proposed home's size and scale.
However, "modest" is a relative term. The DEIS does not provide analysis of the size
and scale of homes in the adjacent areas to determine what "modest" might consist
of and how the size of the proposed homes could have a negative impact on
community character, aesthetic and the preservation of viewsheds. Additionally, the
DEIS makes zero mention of the Orient community's desire to maintain such character„
These desires are explicitly called out in adopted Town studies and community-driven
endeavors. The DEIS should address how the proposed home size and scale conform to
the following statements.
The Southold Town Comprehensive Plan (one of the Orient community's main goals)
F. Ensure future residential development in the hamlet is in keeping with and
at a scale consistent with the hamlet's character. This goal can be met, in
part, through the implementation of this chapter's Goal 2, which contains a
subsection on updating regulations for Residential Uses including home sizes
Page 41).
It is important to note that the Orient community strongly favors the protection of
community character through the use of limitations on building sizes. The Orient Plan
Propositions (May 2020), noted,
No construction shall be permitted that would result in overall housing size
usable square footage) that is out of scale with the existing housing in the
immediate neighborhood; this provision shall be in addition to zoning
requirements, including lot coverage, setback, height and other limitations."
Recommendations:
The DEIS should provide an analysis of area home sizes and scales. As a form of
mitigation, to ensure that the proposed homes do not create negative impact on
community character, the DEIS should discuss a required covenant that specifies
maximum allowable home sizes of a certain scale.
Conclusion:
We believe strongly that the DEIS did not fully achieve a level of analysis that
provided an honest assessment regarding the impacts of the proposal and therefore, is
deficient in providing mitigation measures that would help to create the best possible
development outcome for this property. We urge the Planning Board to heavily weigh
the Town's Comprehensive Plan and the Orient community's strong desire to protect
its character and environment and to require the recommended mitigation measures.
Thank you for taking the time to review our comments. Should you have any
questions or concerns, please feel free to reach me at your convenience. I can be
reached at "hartltna l(,Deastendenvironrnent.oro.
Sincerely,
e4e Kifor f"arb
Jenn Hartnagel
Senior Environmental Advocate
Group for the East End I PO Box 1792 1 Southold, NY 11971 1
GroupfortheEastEnd.org 1 631.765.6450
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT 2595 ORCHARD STREET
SCTM # 1000— 27 — 3)
PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW I APPLICANT'S DRAFT EIS
SOUTHOLD PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC HEARING December 7, 2020— 6 PM
Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to the
Planning Department Laserfiche Subdivision Pending Application File:
Iti ld -gym ""l 228:2 "IO/W bI ir'k/O/` ')c/(il752/1'mcI--asm
I have reviewed the Barbara Friedman letter dated November 2, 2020 and the Nancy
and Mark Ferraris submission dated November 23, 2020.
1 am in full support of their comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective
responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat last dated 7-8-2020. An
Alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to the
fcommunity.
i
i
Print Full Name:I S
Sign Full Name J,
Property Owner Yes No
Local Address: Wo vk,L 00 s
Additional Comments:
ii 0 S
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT 2595 ORCHARD STREET
SCTM # 1000 - 27 -3)
PRELIMINARY PLATREVIEW APPLICANT'S DRAFT EIS "
1
f
SOUTHOLD PLANNING DEPARTMENTP
f
PUBLIC HEARING December 7, 2020— 6 PM r
Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to thee°
Planning Department Laserfiche Subdivision Pending Application File:
I have reviewed the Barbara Friedman letter dated November 2, 2020 and the Nancy1
and Mark Ferraris`submission dated November,23, 2020
am in full support of their,comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective
responses to the Applic'ant's,p pp DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat last dated 7-8-2020. An
Alternative design scheme is a must in order to addres'sthe adverse impacts to the,
community.
Print Full Name: ; Fv c+2n fiN
Sign Full Name,
Property Owner'
Local Address: 6a!C7: ;G.r.'%%,r°;:,ce'; ; ;, 7
w
Additional Comments
C 4"M'-,,
t,,,,f 1Uri in t
v,.a/l!/i/fit/%l/l %/i/ii//IAM/%ij%ri/iGro i/io r: /„
i... if%/ /..//i,//1 ii ,.,//i,fir% /1i>%..//, %/I////iii//p i ////,', /
iti ///i/i:%/%,. //Gp./i///i //.i / 11 /„/
From: Anne Hopkins <anne.hopkins2@icloud.com>
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 6:07 PM
To:Michaelis,Jessica f
Subject: The Orchards Subdivision in Orient rt ,
r
To: Donald Wilcenski and members of the Planning Board
I am writing in opposition to the proposed Orchards Subdivision in Orient, SCTM #1000-21-7-3.My views
have been very well presented in the letter from my neighbor Barbara Friedman. As a member of the Orient
Association since its founding in 1985 and resident at 380 Platt Road I am well aware of the threats to our
water supply and the danger of salt water intrusion especially at the location of this proposed project. The
subdivision should not be allowed to proceed as planned.
Sincerely,
Anne S Hopkins
380 Platt Road
Orient, NY 11957
Sent from my Wad
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
From: Christine Lauber <lauber.christine@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 12:32 PM
To:Michaelis, Jessica
Subject: Liserfiche Subdivision Pending Application
I have reviewed the Barbara Friedman letter dated October 31,
2020 and the Nancy and Mark Ferraris submission dated November
23, 2020.
As a forty-year resident and owner at 4090 Orchard Street, I am
concerned about the impact on my residence of the proposed
subdivision. I am in full support of the comments of those named
above, as well as the critical concerns expressed in their respective
responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plan
last dated 7-8-20. An alternative design scheme is a must in order
to address the adverse impacts to the community.
Joel Lauber
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT 2595 ORCHARD STREET
SCTM # 1000— 27 — 3)
PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW I APPLICANT'S DRAFT EIS
SOUTHOLD PLANNING DEPARTMENT r
PUBLIC HEARING December 7, 2020— 6 PM
Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to the
Planning Department Laserfiche Subdivision Pending Application File:
littta_ll .38,2 .22 2040/We Liill</O/doc/617252/ a lei asp
I have reviewed the Barbara Friedman letter dated November 2, 2020 and the Nancy
and Mark Ferraris submission dated November 23, 2020.
1 am in full support of their comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective
responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat last dated 7-8-2020. An
Alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to the
community.
Print Full Name: C
Sign Full Name
Property Owner Yes No
Local Address:
Additional Comments:
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDIX F
Summary of Comments
Summary of Written Public and Town Staff Comments
Comment IDNature of CommentCommenter ID
DEIS Section
Applicable
FEIS
Section
C‐1 Will change community character P‐1;P‐9;P‐17;P‐20 4.44.4.1
C‐2 Traffic understatedP‐1;P‐17 4.24.2.1
C‐3 Code compliance with open space requirementP‐2;P‐4;P‐5 2.12.1.1
C‐4 Code compliance for flag lot designP‐2;P‐4;P‐5 2.12.1.2
C‐5 Impact to downgradient surface water P‐2;P‐21 3.23.2.21
C‐6 Impact on groundwaterP‐2;P‐7;P‐8;P‐9;P‐17;P‐21 3.23.2.24
C‐7 Availability of groundwater for irrigation useP‐2;P‐5;P‐6 3.23.2.7
C‐8 Saltwater intrusion due to wellsP‐2;P‐8;P‐20;P‐24 3.23.2.9
C‐9 Could impact freshwater water for the entire VillageP‐2 3.23.2.24
C‐10 SCDHS not evaluating impact on Orient.; focused on County wideP‐2 3.23.2.21
C‐11 Impact due to discharge of pharmaceuticals, VOCS, etc P‐2;P‐8 3.23.2.25
C‐12 Impact due to fertilizer and pesticidesP‐2;P‐5;P‐7;P‐8 3.23.2.26
C‐13 I/A sanitary systems P‐2;P‐8;P‐21 3.23.2.4
C‐14 Turf grassP‐2;P‐8 3.43.4.3
C‐15 Impact due to the demand for additional waterP‐2;P‐7;P‐8;P‐9;P‐17;P‐21 3.23.2.7
C‐16 Overall impact of wastewater P‐2;P‐8 3.23.2.23
C‐17 Conserved area does not meet 60% minimumP‐2 2.12.1.4
C‐18 Conserved area not conducive to agricultural useP‐2 2.22.2.1
C‐19 DEIS suggest spec housesP‐2 2.12.1.5
C‐20 Visual impact of potentially large homesP‐2;P‐21 4.44.4.2
C‐21 The houses can be unlimited in size based on Town codeP‐2;P‐5 4.44.4.3
C‐22 Landscape buffers, hedges and shrubs not shownP‐2 4.44.4.4
C‐23 Barn on axis with Old Farm RdP‐2 4.44.4.5
C‐24
Rural nature of Orchard and Halyoake spolied by four potentially massive
homes P‐2;P‐8 4.44.4.6
C‐25 Safe guards to limit house sizesP‐2 4.44.4.7
C‐26 Full visual impact studyP‐2;P‐5;P‐8;P‐20 4.44.4.8
C‐27 House design should be limitedP‐2 4.44.4.9
C‐28 Sell land to trust to preserve 100%P‐2 6.26.2.2
C‐29 Orient does not need this type of housingP‐2 2.22.2.2
C‐30 Tax revenue increase is positiveP‐2 2.22.2.3
C‐31 Could be negative impacts from filtering out AldicarbP‐2 3.23.2.27
C‐32 SLOSH zoneP‐2 3.13.1.1
C‐33 No endangered species but deer nuisanceP‐2 3.53.5.3
C‐34 Location of street treesP‐2 2.12.1.6
C‐35 Subdivision should be deniedP‐2 2.12.1.7
C‐36 Horowitz property should serve as guideline for The OrchardsP‐3 2.12.1.8
C‐37 Introduction of farming use questionable due to water usageP‐3 4.14.1.4
C‐38
Over‐development impacting groundwater, and nitrogen/chemical run‐
off to the bayP‐4 3.23.2.21
C‐39
Proposed plat is clear disregard to Town's vision statement, County and
State conservation planningP‐7 4.14.1.5
C‐40 Plan inconsistencies aboundP‐7;P‐19 2.12.1.9
C‐41 Seeking SCDHS approval is presumptuous and confusingP‐7 3.23.2.28
C‐42
Applicants reluctance and impatience should not lessen Planning Board's
authorityP‐7 2.12.1.10
C‐43 Project informed by the Historic Village in close proximity to the siteP‐7;P‐8 4.44.4.10
C‐44 Neighborhood character and lot sizes 1.5 acres to 6 acresP‐7 4.44.4.11
C‐45 Questioning if cluster development is best way to goP‐7;P‐8;P‐20 2.12.1.11
C‐46 Homeowners will build to the maximumP‐7 2.42.4.3
C‐47 The building lots may be predisposed to ZBA waiversP‐7 2.42.4.4
C‐48 Full build out would negate historical reference to Hallock Farm approachP‐7 4.44.4.12
C‐49
House, barn, driveway and deer fence all interrupt scenic view across
proposed lot 1P‐7 4.44.4.13
C‐50
Allowing larger residential lot, barn and access road is excessive and
unacceptableP‐7 2.12.1.12
C‐51
Proposed preliminary plat clearly demonstrates benefits to Applicant far
exceeds nominal tax revenue increaseP‐7 2.22.2.4
C‐52 Cherry picking results while ignoring Orient's fragile water supplyP‐7 3.23.2.29
C‐53
SCDHS density allows 13 homes to be constructed and benefit of
filtration to remove contaminantsP‐7 3.23.2.30
C‐54 Planning Board should require a second DEISP‐7 2.42.4.5
C‐55 Sample Open Space Conservation Easement not applicable to the projectP‐7 4.44.4.14
C‐56 Development is too denseP‐10 2.12.1.13
C‐57
Commenter signed form supporting comments of commenters P‐2
and/or P‐7
P‐11;P‐12;P‐13;P‐14;P‐15;P‐
17;P‐18;P‐19;P‐22;P‐23;P‐
25;P‐26;P‐27;P‐28 ‐‐
C‐58
Hydrologic study needs to be done before a project of this size can be
lawfully doneP‐15 3.23.2.31
C‐59
Would prefer the land remain undeveloped and unused to maintain
openness and preserve water supplyP‐16 6.26.2.3
C‐60 Plan could be modified to be beneficial to developer and communityP‐16 2.12.1.14
C‐61
If Town would forbear on clustering it would reduce the stress on the
water supplyP‐16 2.12.1.15
C‐62 Should have covenant limiting home sizesP‐21;P‐28 2.12.1.16
C‐63
Determing availability of groundwater in the area through hydraulic
testing P‐29 3.23.2.32
C‐64 Use Open Space Conservation Easement to set limits on cropsP‐29 4.14.1.6
T‐1 SCDHS approval for the siting and preliminary design of sanitary systemsTown Staff 3.23.2.1
T‐2 Reduction of groundwater contaminationTown Staff 3.23.2.2
T‐3 Groundwater contamination reduction not voluntary Town Staff 3.23.2.3
T‐4 Why I/A OWTS not proposedTown Staff 3.23.2.4
T‐5 Planning Board requires I/A OWTS for all new subdivisionsTown Staff 4.14.1.1
T‐6 Analysis of conventional vs. I/A OWTSTown Staff 3.23.2.5
T‐7 Discuss recent SCDHS I/A OWTS regulationTown Staff 2.42.4.1
T‐8 Provide discussion of sole source aquiferTown Staff 3.23.2.6
T‐9 Aquifer's capcity to Support the proposed usesTown Staff 3.23.2.7
T‐10 What is the water budget for proposed actionTown Staff 3.23.2.8
T‐11 What mitigation to prevent salt water intrusionTown Staff 3.23.2.9
T‐12 Clarify density of homes permittedTown Staff 3.23.2.10
T‐13 Clarify water supply for surrounding areaTown Staff 3.23.2.11
T‐14 Planning Board disagrees with SCDHS variance approval implicationTown Staff 3.23.2.12
T‐15
Planning Board believes SCDHS would have granted variance even if
adverse impact to water supply was expectedTown Staff 3.23.2.13
T‐16 What is projected gallons of water used per dayTown Staff 3.23.2.14
T‐17 What is projected zone of influence from well headTown Staff 3.23.2.15
T‐18 What are potential impacts to private wells surrounding the areaTown Staff 3.23.2.16
T‐19 What are mitigation measures for potential impacts Town Staff 3.23.2.17
T‐20 Identify alternate permitted open space use in lieu of farming cropsTown Staff 4.14.1.2
T‐21 How will up‐coning of salt water be preventedTown Staff 3.23.2.18
T‐22 What are drought patterns for this locationTown Staff 3.23.2.19
T‐23 Specific best management practices to conseve water for crops Town Staff 3.23.2.20
T‐24 What is action plan if chloride found in wellTown Staff 2.42.4.2
T‐25
Planning Board believes Article 6 of SCSC is outdated and does not
account for curent conditionsTown Staff 3.23.2.21
T‐26
Planning Board disagrees that building less homes is not nitrogen
mitigationTown Staff 3.23.2.22
T‐27 Provide detailed nitrogen budget for parcel and usesTown Staff 3.23.2.23
T‐28 Assess impact to nearby Significant Natural Community Town Staff 3.43.4.1
T‐29
Determine if NYS Natural Heritage Program protected vegetation species
occur on siteTown Staff 3.43.4.2
T‐30 Discuss eastern box turtleTown Staff 3.53.5.1
T‐31 Discuss Northern long‐eared batTown Staff 3.53.5.2
T‐32 Calculate agricultural land lostTown Staff 5.15.1.2
T‐33 Address Preservation of land statement in DEISTown Staff 6.26.2.1
T‐34 Address Town Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2020Town Staff 4.14.1.3
T‐35 Address future flooding due to SLOSHTown Staff 3.13.1.1
T‐36 Four separate driveway not permissibleTown Staff 2.12.1.3
T‐37 Flag lot designTown Staff 2.12.1.2
T‐38
Insufficient mitigation for groundwater depletion, saltwater intrusion and
groundwater pollutionTown Staff 3.23.2.24
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDIX G
Town Engineering Letter
March 6, 2015
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDIX H
Town Zoning Code 280-97
Farmland Bill of Rights
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDIX I
Town Yield Map
July 10, 2013
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDIX J
Town Bulk Schedule Residential Districts
ZONING
280 Attachment 3
Town of Southold
Bulk Schedule for Residential Districts
[Added 1-10-1989 by L.L. No. 1-1989]
Column No.i ii iii iv v vi vii ix x xi xii
District A-C R-40 R-80 R-120 R-200 R-400 HD RR RO
Residential Unit
Where
Community
Water and
Sewer Available
2-Family
Detached
Dwellings
in R-80
District
Minimum requirements for 1-family detached
dwellings1
Lot size (square feet)80,000 40,000 80,000 120,000 200,000 400,00 20,000 20,000 40,000 10,000 160,000
Lot width (feet)175 150 175 200 270 270 75 75 150 60 270
Lot depth (feet)250 175 250 300 400 400 120 120 175 80 400
Front yard (feet)60 50 60 60 60 60 35 35 50 30 60
Side yard (feet)20 15 20 30 30 30 15 15 15 15 30
Both side yards (feet)45 35 45 60 60 60 30 30 35 30 60
Rear yard (feet)75 50 75 85 100 100 35 35 50 30 85
Livable floor area (square feet per dwelling unit)850 850 850 850 850 850 8502 8503 850 850 850
Maximum permitted dimensions:
Lot coverage (percent)20 20 20 10 5 5 25 25 20 25 10
Building height (feet)35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
Number of stories 2½2½2½2½2½2½2½2½2½2½2½
NOTES:
1 See text of chapter and Density and Minimum Lot Size Schedules for applicable districts.
2 Except one-bedroom or studio in multiple dwelling may have 600 square feet. Minimum floor area may be reduced up to 200 for moderate- and/or lower-cost dwellings.
3 Except one-bedroom or studio in multiple dwelling may have 600 square feet.
280 Attachment 3:1 05 - 01 - 2006
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDIX K
Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Article 6 Amended December 1, 2020
Suffolk County Sanitary Code – Article 6
Page 6-1
ARTICLE 6
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES, REALTY SUBDIVISIONS,
DEVELOPMENTS AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
§760-601 Declaration of Policy
Water is the single most significant resource, which Suffolk County and its residents bear the
responsibility to protect and preserve. The County has long recognized the importance of
managing and protecting its water resources, has, over time, developed and implemented
groundwater and surface water management regulations and has instituted changes to these
regulations as evolving circumstances dictate. Water resource management and protection are of
utmost importance in the County, since residents rely upon Long Island’s Federally-designated
sole source aquifer to supply their drinking water needs. The surface water quality of Suffolk
County’s freshwater streams and marine waters are directly impacted by policies to protect
groundwater and drinking water supplies, since groundwater provides stream base-flow and
discharges to surrounding coastal waters. Therefore, Suffolk County intends to facilitate the best
available wastewater management policies and technologies, to minimize and prevent the
impacts of water pollution from nitrogen and other constituents (such as pharmaceuticals,
personal care products, and volatile organic compounds) in sanitary wastewater to protect public
health and water resources. Suffolk County’s intent is also to investigate the use of wastewater
management practices and technologies, which permit the re-use of wastewater, such as for
agricultural irrigation and fertilization, in a manner that protects public health and preserves
water resources.
§760-602 Statement of Intent and Purpose
It is the intent and purpose of this Article to promote public health and safeguard the water
resources of Suffolk County. The County’s drinking water must meet strict quality standards to
protect public health. Elevated levels of contaminants in the County’s groundwater raise serious
concern. Many of the County’s rivers, estuaries and bays are impaired as the result of
eutrophication. Nitrogen, which primarily emanates from Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems,
Cesspools, and fertilizer impacts drinking water supplies and causes hypoxia, harmful algal
blooms, diminution of sea and shellfisheries, and degradation of the County’s protective natural
infrastructure. Sea level rise is projected to raise groundwater levels, thus further compromising
on-site wastewater treatment infrastructure.
Properly designed, sited, installed, managed, and maintained wastewater treatment infrastructure
provides a cost-effective and environmentally sound means of protecting Suffolk County’s water
resources and improving public health protection. To promulgate the use of Community
Sewerage Systems and improve the effectiveness of Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems, the
intent and purpose of this Article is to:
a) Continue the lot size and Population Density Equivalent requirements of this Article.
b) Require Innovative and Alternative Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (I/A OWTS)
for New or Expanded Single-Family Residences and New Other Construction Projects,
which are permitted to use an Individual Sewerage System or Subsurface Sewerage
Disposal System.
Suffolk County Sanitary Code – Article 6
Page 6-2
c) Establish requirements for the retrofit and replacement of Cesspools and Subsurface
Sewage Disposal Systems.
d) Establish requirements for the use of I/A OWTS for pre-existing Other Construction
Projects which exceed the Population Density Equivalent requirements of this Article.
e) Permit the use of Transfer of Development Rights in accordance with this Article to
allow growth while protecting the water resources of the County.
§760-603 Definitions
As used in this Article, unless the context otherwise requires:
1. Absorption Area means the area of a Leaching Structure that allows the effluent wastewater
to infiltrate the surrounding soil.
2. Cesspool means any buried chamber, including, but not limited to any perforated metal tank,
perforated concrete or block vault or hollow excavation, which receives direct discharges of
wastewater from a building sewer for the purpose of collecting solids and discharging liquid
to the surrounding soil.
3. Clustered Realty Subdivision means a realty subdivision consisting of one or more
relatively undersized parcels, which is designed in such a manner so as to allow a substantial
unimproved portion of the Tract to stand open and uninhabited.
4. Commercial or Industrial Center means a Realty Subdivision, Development, or Clustered
Realty Subdivision to be used for non-Single-Family Residence purposes.
5. Community Sewerage System means a system utilized for the collection and disposal of
Sewage or other waste of a liquid nature, including the various devices for the treatment of
such wastes, serving more than one parcel, whether owned by a municipal corporation,
private utility, or otherwise.
6. Community Water System means a source of water and necessary appurtenances together
with a distribution system serving more than one parcel, whether owned by a municipal
corporation, private utility, or otherwise.
7. Construction Project means a Single-Family Residence or Conventional Single-Family
Residential Subdivision or Development to be used for Single-Family Residence purposes.
8. Conventional Septic System or Conventional Onsite Wastewater Treatment System
(OWTS) means an onsite sanitary system consisting of a septic tank and any associated
interconnecting piping, a leaching structure(s) and any associated interconnecting piping that
does not have any active or mechanical means of treatment or any supplemental filtration
components.
9. Conventional Single-Family Residential Subdivision or Development means a Realty
Subdivision, Development or Clustered Realty Subdivision to be used for Single-Family
Residence purposes.
Suffolk County Sanitary Code – Article 6
Page 6-3
10. Density Load means the quantity of Sewage expected to be discharged from existing and/or
proposed permanent structure(s) on a parcel, excluding Kitchen/Gray Load, expressed in
gallons per day per applicable unit and utilized to evaluate the need for Sewage treatment
when compared to the Population Density Equivalent for the project.
11. Density Loading Rate means the flow factor established by Department standards to
determine the Density Load of an Other Construction Project parcel based on the use(s) of
the parcel.
12. Department means the Suffolk County Department of Health Services.
13. Design Sewage Flow means the sum of the Hydraulic Load(s) from all uses of a building(s)
on an Other Construction Project parcel and utilized to determine the size of the Sewage
disposal system(s).
14. Developer means any person or group of persons, or any legally cognizable entity or entities
or any combination of the foregoing, that:
1. is undertaking or participating in the establishment of a Construction Project or Other
Construction Project:
a. either individually, or
b. pursuant to a common scheme, plan or venture, or
2. owns, acquires, possesses, controls or creates a Construction Project or Other
Construction Project.
15. Development means two, three or four contiguous parcels located wholly or partially within
the County of Suffolk, or any Tract of land located wholly or partially within the County of
Suffolk which has, is or will be divided into two, three, or four identifiable parcels.
16. Development Rights is defined in the same way as under Section 261-a (1) of the Town Law
(McKinney's, 1995).
17. Failed System means any Cesspool or Individual Sewerage System that does not adequately
treat and/or disperse wastewater so as to create a public or private nuisance or threat to public
health or environmental quality, as evidenced by and including, but not limited to, one or
more of the following conditions:
1. Continued failure to accept wastewater into the building sewer;
2. Continued discharge of wastewater to a basement, subsurface drain, stormwater
collection, conveyance or treatment device, or watercourse unless expressly permitted by
the Department;
3. Wastewater rising to the surface of the ground over or near any part of an OWTS or
seeping from the Absorption Area at any change in grade, bank or road cut;
Suffolk County Sanitary Code – Article 6
Page 6-4
4. Where pumping of the Cesspool, septic tank, I/A OWTS, or Leaching Structure is
required four or more times per year due to the infiltration of groundwater into the
system, a collapsed Leaching Structure, or clogged Absorption Area which does not
allow effluent to infiltrate the surrounding soils. This condition excludes grease trap
maintenance or commercially reasonable, regular/scheduled preventative maintenance of
a Cesspool, septic tank, I/A OWTS, or Leaching Structure. The Department may
promulgate Standards pursuant to this Article defining commercially reasonable,
regular/scheduled preventative maintenance;
5. Where groundwater seeps into a septic tank, Cesspool, pump tank/basin, distribution
box/manhole, or Leaching Structure after it is pumped;
6. Any structural damage or deterioration that has caused structural damage to the
Individual Sewerage System, as determined by a NYS Licensed Design Professional or a
contractor/Developer holding an active Liquid Waste License pursuant to Suffolk County
Code Chapter 563, Article VII (Septic Industry Businesses) through the Suffolk County
Department of Labor, Licensing and Consumer Affairs. A determination of structural
damage or deterioration that causes structural damage by a NYS Licensed Design
Professional (registered architect or licensed professional engineer) shall supersede a
Liquid Waste License holder’s determination.
18. Groundwater Management Zone means any of the areas delineated in Suffolk County by
the "Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan (L.I. 208 Study)," as
revised by the "Long Island Groundwater Management Plan," and subsequent revisions
adopted by the Board identifying differences in regional hydrogeologic and groundwater
quality conditions. The boundaries of the Groundwater Management Zones are set forth on a
map adopted by the Board, filed in the Office of the Commissioner.
19. Hydraulic Load means the sum of the Density Load and Kitchen/Gray Load for a particular
use of a building on a parcel expressed in terms of gallons per day per applicable unit.
20. Individual Sewerage System means any onsite sanitary system consisting of a septic tank
and/or I/A OWTS tank(s) with any associated interconnecting piping, a leaching structure(s)
and any associated interconnecting piping. OWTS and I/A OWTS are classified as Individual
Sewerage Systems.
21. Individual Water Supply System means a single system of piping, tanks, or other facilities
together with a source of water intended to supply only a single parcel.
22. Innovative and Alternative Onsite Wastewater Treatment System(s) (I/A OWTS) means
an onsite decentralized wastewater treatment system(s) that, at a minimum, is designed to
reduce total nitrogen in treated effluent to 19 mg/l. An I/A OWTS can serve more than one
parcel, but shall not be considered sewering, Community Sewerage Systems, or Modified
Subsurface Sewage Disposal (denitrification) by the Department under this Article of the
Code.
Suffolk County Sanitary Code – Article 6
Page 6-5
23. Kitchen/Gray Load means the volume of Sewage discharged from food preparation and
service areas, or other gray water uses from Other Construction Projects (excluding uses
from residential parcels such as, but not limited to, condominiums, Two Family Residences,
Multi-Family Housing) expressed in terms of gallons per day per applicable unit, which has
been omitted from the Density Load.
24. Leaching Structure means a perforated structure placed below grade, conforming to
Department standards, from which septic tank and/or IA OWTS effluent will infiltrate the
surrounding soil.
25. Major Reconstruction means to re-build or modify an existing Construction Project or
Other Construction Project permanent structure(s) located on a parcel of land where the cost
of the reconstruction is more than 50 percent of the market value of the existing permanent
structure(s) as determined by a New York State certified real estate appraiser. Market value
pertains only to the existing permanent structure itself, and does not pertain to the land,
landscaping, or detached accessory structures on the parcel of land. Items to be excluded
when calculating reconstruction costs or market value include, but are not limited to, plans,
specifications, survey costs, permit fees, and outside costs such as landscaping, sidewalks,
parking lots, swimming pools, fences, detached structures, irrigation systems, exterior
drainage structures, and exterior utilities. Market value and reconstruction cost (cost of work)
shall be calculated in accordance with Sections 4.4 and 4.5 of the United States Federal
Emergency Management Agency publication “Substantial Improvement/Substantial Damage
Desk Reference,” FEMA P-758/May 2010.
26. Modified Subsurface Sewage Disposal System means an onsite Sewage Treatment System
or Treatment Works, which includes processes capable of meeting applicable discharge
standards and where the designed Sewage treatment capacity of the system shall not exceed
30,000 gallons per day.
27. Multi-Family Housing means dwelling units designed for occupancy by more than two
single-family units.
28. New or Expanded Single-Family Residence means the construction of a Single-Family
Residence, the addition or modification to an existing Single-Family Residence requiring the
addition or modification of Sewage disposal facilities, construction of an accessory structure
for a new or existing Single-Family Residence requiring the addition or modification of
Sewage disposal facilities, or the addition of one or more bedrooms to an existing Single-
Family Residence that exceeds the number of bedrooms previously approved by the
Department’s Office of Wastewater Management. Bedrooms shall be defined in accordance
with Department Standards.
29. New Other Construction Project means the construction of a detached permanent structure
used for an Other Construction Project that requires Sewage disposal facilities; the addition
to and/or expansion of an existing Other Construction Project which requires the installation
of new Sewage disposal facilities or increased capacity of the existing Sewage disposal
facilities; or the change of use of an Other Construction Project which requires the
Suffolk County Sanitary Code – Article 6
Page 6-6
installation of new Sewage disposal facilities or increased capacity of the existing Sewage
disposal facilities.
30. Non-Residential Parcel means any parcel that is not a residential parcel.
31. Other Construction Project means a project other than a Single-Family Residence, or
Conventional Single-Family Residential Subdivision or Development, including, but not
limited to condominiums, Two-Family Residences, Multi-Family Housing, and Commercial
or Industrial Centers, whether or not there is a division of land involved.
32. OWTS Replacement means the abandonment and/or removal of an existing Individual
Sewerage System or Cesspool and installation of a new Individual Sewerage System.
Applications for OWTS Replacement shall not propose any change of use, new Construction
Project, Other Construction Project, or change the amount of Sewage discharged from a
permanent structure.
33. OWTS Retrofit means the modification or alteration of an existing Cesspool or Individual
Sewerage System. Such modification or alteration shall include, but not be limited to: the
replacement or addition of a septic tank, grease trap, components of an I/A OWTS, lift
station, pump station, distribution box or manhole to an existing Sewage disposal system;
replacement or addition of new leaching structures to an existing Sewage disposal system; or
replacement, addition, or re-configuration of Sewage disposal system piping, control panel,
pumps or other appurtenances. Applications for OWTS Retrofit shall not propose any change
of use, new Construction Project or Other Construction Project, or change the amount of
Sewage discharged from a permanent structure.
34. Population Density Equivalent means the maximum Density Load permitted to be
discharged from a parcel utilizing an Individual Sewerage System in the absence of a
Community Sewerage System, a Sewage Treatment System or a Modified Subsurface
Sewage Disposal System, based on the calculated population per unit area expressed in
gallons per day.
35. Property Owner means the holder of the legal and/or equitable title to real property.
36. Realty Subdivision means a realty subdivision as defined in Section 1115 of the Public
Health Law of the State of New York and Section 17-1501 of the Environmental
Conservation Law of the State of New York as such statutes may be amended from time to
time.
37. Residential Parcel means any parcel of land of five (5) acres or less located wholly or
partially in the County of Suffolk, any point on the boundary line of which is less than
one-half mile from any point on the boundary line of another such lot in the same Tract,
unless any such lot may not legally be used for residential purposes. Without limiting the
generality of the foregoing, the term residential shall include temporary, seasonal and
permanent residential use.
Suffolk County Sanitary Code – Article 6
Page 6-7
38. Sewage means water-carried human or animal wastes from residences, institutions,
businesses, commercial buildings and establishments, and industrial buildings and
establishments or a combination thereof, together with Kitchen/Gray Load. Industrial wastes
or other wastes shall not be considered Sewage for purposes of this Article unless otherwise
stated. "Industrial wastes" and "other wastes" have the meanings as defined in Environmental
Conservation Law Sections 17-0105(5) and (6).
39. Sewage Collection System means the structures, devices and processes installed for the
purposes of collecting Sewage and sludge.
40. Sewage Treatment System means a Sewage disposal system consisting of a Sewage
Collection System and Treatment Works.
41. Single-Family Residence means a single dwelling unit, i.e. one or more rooms with
provision for living, cooking, sanitary and sleeping facilities arranged for the use of one
family.
42. Subsurface Sewage Disposal System means a Sewage disposal system designed to treat and
dispose of septic tank, I/A OWTS or other treatment facility effluent, in the absence of a
Community Sewerage System, Sewage Treatment System or Modified Subsurface Sewage
Disposal System, by application of the effluent to a soil surface at a depth below the surface
of the ground.
43. Tract means any real property, including contiguous parcels of land, which is held, owned,
controlled or possessed, either singularly, jointly, commonly or otherwise, by a person or
group of persons, or any legally cognizable entity or entities, or any combination of the
foregoing, who are acting with reference to such body of land in concert or as part of a
common scheme, plan or venture.
44. Transfer of Development Rights means the process by which Development Rights are
transferred from one lot, parcel or area of land to another designated lot, parcel or area where
increased density development is permitted by the Code.
45. Treatment Works means a facility designed for the purposes of removing certain
components from Sewage by mechanical, chemical or biological means, and stabilizing and
disposing of Sewage.
46. Two-Family Residence means a dwelling unit designed for occupancy by two separate
single-family units.
§760-604 Department Approval of Plans for Construction Projects or Other
Construction Projects
A. No Developer or Property Owner shall, after the effective date of this Article:
1. engage in the creation of a Realty Subdivision, or sell, rent, offer for sale or lease any
parcel in a Realty Subdivision unless prior Department approval has been obtained for
Suffolk County Sanitary Code – Article 6
Page 6-8
the existing or proposed water supply and Sewage disposal facilities in the Realty
Subdivision;
2. engage in the creation of a Development, or lease, rent, give, devise, or otherwise dispose
of any parcel in a Development, or erect or cause to be erected any permanent building
on any parcel in the Development unless prior Department approval has been obtained
for the existing or proposed water supply and Sewage disposal facilities in the
Development;
3. engage in the creation of a New or Expanded Single-Family Residence or New Other
Construction Project, or erect or cause to be erected any permanent building unless prior
Department approval has been obtained for the existing or proposed water supply and
Sewage disposal facilities for the New or Expanded Single-Family Residence or New
Other Construction Project.
B. A Tract of land which is divided shall constitute either a Development or Realty Subdivision
notwithstanding:
1. the method or purpose of such division, or the allowable types of use applicable to such
Tract, whether commercial, residential, industrial, or other authorized use under local
ordinances;
2. the method used to describe such Tract whether by metes and bounds, or by reference to
a map of the property, or otherwise.
§760-605 Licensing Requirements and Department Approval of Retrofits and
Replacements
A. After July 1, 2018, contractors or Developers:
1. holding an active Liquid Waste License pursuant to Suffolk County Code Chapter 563,
Article VII (Septic Industry Businesses) through the Suffolk County Department of
Labor, Licensing and Consumer Affairs must report all pumping of septic tanks, I/A
OWTS, Cesspools, grease traps, and Leaching Structures to the Department in
accordance with standards established by the Department.
2. holding an active Liquid Waste License pursuant to Suffolk County Code Chapter 563,
Article VII (Septic Industry Businesses) through the Suffolk County Department of
Labor, Licensing and Consumer Affairs must report all OWTS Replacements or OWTS
Retrofits to the Department in accordance with standards established by the Department.
B. After July 1, 2019:
1. no Property Owner, contractor, or Developer shall engage in an OWTS Replacement or
an OWTS Retrofit of an existing Cesspool or Individual Sewerage System for any
permanent structure unless Department approval is obtained for the proposed OWTS
Retrofit or OWTS Replacement of the Individual Sewerage System. This requirement
Suffolk County Sanitary Code – Article 6
Page 6-9
shall exclude parcels located within a proposed sewer district as approved by the
Commissioner in accordance with Department standards.
2. an OWTS Replacement or an OWTS Retrofit shall comply with the Department’s current
standards and the minimum State requirements as set forth in 10 New York Code of
Rules and Regulations (“NYCRR”), Part 75, to the extent applicable to Suffolk County.
This requirement shall exclude parcels located within a proposed sewer district as
approved by the Commissioner in accordance with Department standards.
C. No contractor or Developer shall:
1. engage in the OWTS Replacement of a Cesspool or Individual Sewerage System with a
new Individual Sewage System for any permanent structure unless said contractor or
Developer holds an active Liquid Waste License pursuant to Suffolk County Code
Chapter 563, Article VII (Septic Industry Businesses) through the Suffolk County
Department of Labor, Licensing and Consumer Affairs.
2. engage in the OWTS Retrofit of a Cesspool or Individual Sewerage System for any
permanent structure unless said contractor or Developer holds an active Liquid Waste
License pursuant to Suffolk County Code Chapter 563, Article VII (Septic Industry
Businesses) through the Suffolk County Department of Labor, Licensing and Consumer
Affairs.
3. engage in the installation of a new Individual Sewerage System for any new Construction
Project or Other Construction Project unless said contractor or Developer holds an active
Liquid Waste License pursuant to Suffolk County Code Chapter 563, Article VII (Septic
Industry Businesses) through the Suffolk County Department of Labor, Licensing and
Consumer Affairs.
§760-606 Applications for Approval
A. Applications for Department approval of existing and/or proposed water supply and Sewage
disposal facilities, as required by Sections 760-604 and 760-605 above, shall:
1. conform with the standards and regulations prescribed in this Code; and
2. conform with all other Department bulletins, regulations, and requirements; and
3. be made on forms provided by the Department; and
4. be accompanied by such maps, plans, reports, specifications, and data as the Department
may require or direct.
B. Plans other than those for a Community Water System, Community Sewerage System, and/or
an I/A OWTS shall indicate water and/or sewerage systems located upon each parcel.
Suffolk County Sanitary Code – Article 6
Page 6-10
C. Plans other than those for a Community Water System, Community Sewerage System, and/or
an I/A OWTS shall not propose to furnish water to more than one parcel and/or dispose of
Sewage from more than one parcel.
D. Where a Developer proposes to obtain and furnish water supply and/or sewerage facilities for
a Construction Project or Other Construction Project by connection to an existing
Community Water System, Community Sewerage System, and/or I/A OWTS, the Developer
shall supply the Department with a certification in writing by the owner of the utility that
such facilities shall be furnished and kept available in good operating condition for the
Construction Project or Other Construction Project.
E. The Department, in its discretion, may require the Developer to furnish a performance bond
to the owner of such utility conditioned upon the Developer's making connection to the
utility within a specified reasonable period of time.
F. The Department shall have the authority to promulgate procedures, protocols and standards
as necessary for the implementation of wastewater management practices and technologies
which permit the re-use of wastewater, such as for agricultural irrigation and fertilization, in
a manner that protects public health and preserves water resources in accordance with this
Code. Water re-use proposals shall require Department approval in accordance with the
established procedures, protocols and standards.
§760-607 Filing Requirements
Every Developer that obtains Department approval of a Realty Subdivision or Development, as
required by Section 760-604, shall thereafter file a map of such Realty Subdivision or
Development, as the case may be, bearing the stamp of approval of the Department, in the Office
of the Clerk of the County of Suffolk within one (1) year of the date of approval of the
Department.
§760-608 Sewage Facilities Requirements for Construction Projects (Single-Family
Residences and Conventional Single-Family Residential Subdivisions or
Developments)
A. A Community Sewerage System method of Sewage disposal is required when any of the
following conditions are present:
1. the Construction Project or any portion thereof, is located within an existing sewer
district. This requirement shall apply in the absence of proof satisfactory to the
Department that the Developer cannot effect arrangements for the installation and/or
connection of the sewerage system to the existing sewer district;
2. the Construction Project is located in an area where the subsoil or groundwater conditions
are not conducive to the proper functioning of Individual Sewerage Systems;
3. the Construction Project is located outside of Groundwater Management Zones III, V and
VI, and the Construction Project parcels are less than 20,000 square feet in area, unless
the Realty Subdivision or Development meets the Population Density Equivalent
Suffolk County Sanitary Code – Article 6
Page 6-11
requirements of paragraph B.1.a. of this Section. This condition does not apply to a
Construction Project that has an exemption pursuant to Section 760-612 of this Article; or
4. the Construction Project is located within Groundwater Management Zones III, V or VI,
and the Construction Project is less than 40,000 square feet in area, unless the Realty
Subdivision or Development meets the Population Density Equivalent requirements of
paragraph B.2.a. of this Section. This condition does not apply to a Construction Project
that has an exemption pursuant to Section 760-612 of this Article.
B. Individual Sewerage Systems may be approved by the Department as to the method of
Sewage disposal provided the following conditions are met:
1. For Construction Projects located outside of Groundwater Management Zones III, V, and
VI;
a. the Construction Project consists of parcels which have an area of at least 20,000
square feet; or the Realty Subdivision or Development has a Population Density
Equivalent equal to or less than that of a Realty Subdivision or Development of
Single-Family Residences in which all parcels consist of an area of at least 20,000
square feet; or the Construction Project has an exemption pursuant to Section
760-612 of this Article; and
b. the Construction Project, or any portion thereof, is not located within an existing
sewer district and is located in an area where subsoil and groundwater conditions
are conducive to the proper functioning of Individual Sewerage Systems; and
c. Individual Sewerage Systems comply with the Department’s current standards
and the minimum State requirements as set forth in 10 New York Code of Rules
and Regulations (“ NYCRR”), Part 75, to the extent applicable to Suffolk County;
and
d. the requirements of Section 760-609 hereof are complied with.
2. For Construction Projects located within Groundwater Management Zones III, V, or VI;
a. the Construction Project consists of parcels which have an area of at least 40,000
square feet; or the Realty Subdivision or Development has a Population Density
Equivalent equal to or less than that of a Realty Subdivision or Development of
Single-Family Residences in which all parcels consist of an area of at least 40,000
square feet; or the Construction Project has an exemption pursuant to Section
760-612 of this Article; and
b. the Construction Project, or any portion thereof, is not located within an existing
sewer district and is located in an area where subsoil and groundwater conditions
are conducive to the proper functioning of Individual Sewerage Systems; and
Suffolk County Sanitary Code – Article 6
Page 6-12
c. the Individual Sewerage Systems comply with the Department’s current standards
and the minimum State requirements as set forth in 10 NYCRR, Part 75, to the
extent applicable to Suffolk County; and
d. the requirements of Section 760-609 hereof are complied with.
3. Realty Subdivisions or Developments may have parcels of less than 20,000 square feet in
areas within Groundwater Management Zones I, II, IV, VII or VIII with the use of
Transfer of Development Rights in conformance with standards established by the
Department.
4. Realty Subdivisions or Developments may have parcels of less than 40,000 square feet in
areas within Groundwater Management Zones III, V or VI with the use of Transfer of
Developments Rights in conformance with standards established by the Department.
§760-609 Water Facilities Requirements for Construction Projects (Single-Family
Residences and Conventional Single-Family Residential Subdivisions or
Developments)
A. A Community Water System method of water supply is required when any of the following
conditions are present:
1. the Construction Project, or any portion thereof, is located within an existing water
district or water service area; or
2. the Construction Project is reasonably accessible to an existing water district or water
service area. This requirement shall apply in the absence of proof satisfactory to the
Department that the Developer cannot effect arrangements for the installation and/or
connection of the water system to the existing water district or water service area
facilities; or
3. individual wells cannot provide an average yield of five (5) gallons per minute of fresh,
potable water; or
4. groundwaters in the area are nonpotable or potentially hazardous; or
5. the parcels of the Construction Project are less than 40,000 square feet in area. Parcels
less than 40,000 square feet in area, however, may not require a Community Water
System method of water supply if the Construction Project has an exemption pursuant to
Section 760-612 of this Article and the Construction Project does not meet the conditions
of paragraphs A.1. to A.4. of this Section.
B. The following are minimum requirements for Community Water Systems:
1. they shall be capable of delivering water at an average rate of 100 gal/capita/day when
service connections are unmetered, or 75 gal/capita/day when service connections are
metered;
Suffolk County Sanitary Code – Article 6
Page 6-13
2. they shall be designed to deliver water meeting the quality requirements of the New York
State Sanitary Code;
3. they shall provide for continuity of water service to the satisfaction of the Commissioner;
4. they shall have at least two (2) separate wells as a source of supply; and
5. they shall have at least one day's available storage at design average consumption.
6. the relevant provisions of Part 5 of the New York State Sanitary Code and Bulletin 42 of
the New York State Department of Health entitled "Recommended Standards for Water
Works" will be the basis upon which all plans, specifications and reports for Community
Water Systems will be reviewed for approval by the Department.
C. Individual Water Supply Systems may be approved by the Department as the method of
water supply for a Construction Project, provided all of the following conditions are met:
1. the Construction Project consists of an area of at least 40,000 square feet; Clustered
Realty Subdivisions must have a Population Density Equivalent equal to or less than that
of a Realty Subdivision or Development of Single-Family Residences in which all parcels
consist of an area of at least 40,000 square feet, and all Residential Parcels in the
Clustered Realty Subdivision must consist of an area of at least 20,000 square feet each.
These conditions do not apply to a Construction Project that has an exemption pursuant to
Section 760-612 of this Article; and
2. the Construction Project, or any portion thereof, is not located within an existing water
district or water service area and is not reasonably accessible thereto, and individual wells
can provide an average yield of five (5) gallons per minute of fresh potable water; and
3. the Individual Water Supply Systems comply with the Department's current standards
and the minimum State requirements as set forth in 10 NYCRR, Part 75, to the extent
applicable to Suffolk County.
§760-610 Sewage Facilities Requirements for Other Construction Projects (Other
Than Single-Family Residences and Conventional Single-Family
Residential Subdivisions or Developments)
A. A Community Sewerage System method of Sewage disposal is required for Other
Construction Projects when any of the following conditions are present:
1. the Other Construction Project is located within Groundwater Management Zones III, V
or VI, and the Population Density Equivalent is greater than that of a Realty Subdivision
or Development of Single-Family Residences in which all parcels consist of an area of at
least 40,000 square feet; or
2. the Other Construction Project is located outside of Groundwater Management Zones III,
V and VI, and the Population Density Equivalent is greater than that of a Realty
Suffolk County Sanitary Code – Article 6
Page 6-14
Subdivision or Development of Single-Family Residences in which all parcels consist of
an area of at least 20,000 square feet; or
3. the Other Construction Project, or any portion thereof, is located within an existing sewer
district. This requirement shall apply in the absence of proof satisfactory to the
Department that the Developer cannot effect arrangements for the installation of the
sewerage system to the existing sewer district; or
4. the Other Construction Project is located in an area where the subsoil or groundwater
conditions are not conducive to the proper functioning of Individual Sewerage Systems or
Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems.
B. Individual Sewerage Systems or Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems may be approved by
the Department as to the method of Sewage disposal for Other Construction Projects
provided the following conditions are met:
1. For Other Construction Projects located outside of Groundwater Management Zones III,
V and VI;
a. the Population Density Equivalent is equal to or less than that of a Realty Subdivision
or Development of Single-Family Residences in which all parcels consist of an area
of at least 20,000 square feet; and
b. the Other Construction Project, or any portion thereof, is not located within an
existing sewer district and is located in an area where subsoil and groundwater
conditions are conductive to the proper functioning of Individual Sewerage Systems
or Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems; and
c. the Individual Sewerage System or Subsurface Sewage Disposal System complies
with the Department’s current standards and the minimum State requirements as set
forth in 10 NYCRR, Part 75, to the extent applicable to Suffolk County.
2. For Other Construction Projects located within Groundwater Management Zones III, V or
VI;
a. the Population Density Equivalent is equal to or less than that of a Realty Subdivision
or Development of Single-Family Residences in which all parcels consist of an area
of at least 40,000 square feet; and
b. the Other Construction Project, or an any portion thereof, is not located within an
existing sewer district and is located in an area where subsoil and groundwater
conditions are conducive to the proper functioning of Individual Sewerage Systems or
Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems; and
Suffolk County Sanitary Code – Article 6
Page 6-15
c. the Individual Sewerage System or Subsurface Sewage Disposal System complies
with the Department’s current standards and the minimum State requirements as set
forth in 10 NYCRR, Part 75, to the extend applicable to Suffolk County.
C. Modified Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems.
I. Modified Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems may be approved by the Department as a
method of Sewage disposal for a Construction Project or Other Construction Project,
provided all of the following conditions are met:
1. the construction project is located either:
a. within Groundwater Management Zones III, V, or VI, and the Population Density
Equivalent is greater than that of a Realty Subdivision or Development of Single
Family Residences in which all parcels consist of an area of at least 40,000 square
feet; or
b. outside of Groundwater Management Zones III, V, or VI, and the Population Density
Equivalent is greater than that of a Realty Subdivision or Development of Single
Family Residences in which all parcels consist of an area of at least 20,000 square
feet; and
2. the Construction Project or Other Construction Project, or any portion thereof, is not
located within an existing sewer district, or does not have the ability to connect to an
existing sewer district as shown by proof satisfactory to the Department that the
Developer cannot effect arrangements for the connection of the project to the existing
sewer district; and
3. the subsoil and groundwater conditions are conducive to the proper functioning of a
Modified Subsurface Sewage Disposal System; and
4. the Construction Project or Other Construction project is provided with a Community
Water System; and
5. the Modified Subsurface Sewage Disposal System is capable of producing a discharge of
no more than 10 mg/l total nitrogen in the effluent stream where the designed Sewage
treatment capacity of the system does not exceed 30,000 gallons per day; and
6. if an application for approval is received by the Department after February 9, 1989, two
irrevocable letters of credit are issued by a bank located in New York to the Department
in accordance with the following conditions:
a. the total amount of the two letters of credit shall equal the estimated cost of the
Modified Subsurface Sewage Disposal System (the "system"), as certified by the
professional engineer who designed the system and accepted by the Department as a
reasonable estimated cost (the "estimated cost"); and
Suffolk County Sanitary Code – Article 6
Page 6-16
b. the first letter of credit shall be in an amount equal to 65% of said estimated cost,
("construction letter of credit”); and
c. the second letter of credit shall be in an amount equal to 35% of said estimated cost
("second construction letter of credit") until the final Modified Subsurface Sewage
Disposal System is approved by the Department, and thereafter shall be known as the
"modification letter of credit;" and
d. the construction letter of credit and the second construction letter of credit shall be
callable by the Department simultaneously upon terms and conditions satisfactory to
the Department to assure that the system is properly constructed; and
e. if the construction letter of credit and/or the second construction letter of credit are
called by the Department, the proceeds thereof shall not be released until the system
is completed and approved by the Department (except nothing contained herein shall
prevent application of the proceeds by the Department for a lawful purpose requested
by the Department and authorized by a court of law); and
f. the construction letter of credit shall be released only upon approval by the
Department of the completed system and proof satisfactory to the Department that the
second construction letter of credit has been converted to a modification letter of
credit; and
g. the modification letter of credit shall serve as security to assure that any required
modification of the installed system is achieved, and said letter of credit shall be
released only upon a showing certified by a professional engineer, and accompanied
by findings of a certified testing laboratory reasonably consistent with any
independent findings of the Department, that, for a period of three consecutive
months, the monthly average effluent total nitrogen, based on no fewer than
bi-weekly samples, did not exceed 10 mg/l, and building occupancy averaged over
three months was not less than 80% of floor space, and actual flow was not less than
50% of design flow; and
7. A one-time non-refundable payment by the Developer equal to $1.00 per gallon of total
daily design Sewage flow (kitchen and sanitary) is deposited into an interest-bearing
account maintained by the Department, which monies are to be used by the Department
exclusively for the following purposes:
a. to undertake all necessary environmental reviews of a proposed permanent
amendment to the Code which, if adopted, will give express authorization to the
Department to approve Modified Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems, which review
is necessitated by the Board's positive declaration pursuant to the State Environmental
Quality Review Act on January 17, 1989. (Upon completion of the environmental
review process and payment of all costs associated therewith, the above one-time
non-refundable payment shall be reduced to $0.50 per gallon of total daily design
Suffolk County Sanitary Code – Article 6
Page 6-17
Sewage flow [kitchen and sanitary] for all applications pending or received after the
reduction to $0.50.); and
b. to provide maintenance, sampling, and analysis of samples required by applicable
standards or permits at facilities in Suffolk County serviced by a Modified Subsurface
Sewage Disposal System, where, despite written notice to the owner and/or operator
of the facility from the Commissioner that said maintenance, sampling, or analysis
must be performed by a specified date, the owner and/or operator of the facility fails
to comply (Owners or operators of facilities with Modified Subsurface Sewage
Disposal Systems that exist as of the effective date of this subparagraph 7. shall pay
the sum required by this subparagraph 7. upon renewal of the State Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (“SPDES”) permit for the facility.); and
8. the Construction Project or Other Construction Project provides for an unpaved and
uncovered area for expansion of the Modified Subsurface Sewage Disposal System that,
at the option of the applicant, is either equal in size to 150% of the area of the installed
Modified Subsurface Sewage Disposal System or is sufficient to allow for the installation
of a Sewage treatment plant in the event that the Modified Subsurface Sewage Disposal
System fails to meet the requirements of its SPDES permit. (This requirement is
applicable to all applications received after February 9, 1989; applications pending as of
February 9, 1989 must provide for an unpaved and uncovered area for expansion of the
Modified Subsurface Sewage Disposal System that is equal in size to 50% of the area of
the installed Modified Subsurface Sewage Disposal System.); and
9. the Modified Subsurface Sewage Disposal System complies with the Department's
current standards and the minimum State requirements as set forth in 10 NYCRR,
Part 75, to the extent applicable to Suffolk County.
10. there shall be no Realty Subdivision or Development of a parcel of land or Tract of land
served by a Modified Subsurface Sewage Disposal System unless all parcels created by
the Realty Subdivision or Development are served by the Modified Subsurface Sewage
Disposal System.
II. Enforcement of Directives issued by the Commissioner pursuant to Section 760-610.C.7.
Whenever the owner or operator of a Modified Subsurface Sewage Disposal System fails to
comply with a written directive issued by the Commissioner pursuant to Section 760-610.C.7
to provide any maintenance, sampling, or analysis required by applicable standards or
permits, the Commissioner may provide said maintenance, sampling or analysis with funds
contained in the interest-bearing account described in Section 760-610.C.7, and may
thereafter bring a civil action to recover said sums expended plus interest from the owner
and/or operator of the facility where the Modified Subsurface Sewage Disposal System is
located.
a. The obligation imposed upon the owner and/or operator of a facility with a Modified
Subsurface Sewage Disposal System by any applicable standard or permit to provide
maintenance, and to take and analyze samples, is a continuing obligation.
Suffolk County Sanitary Code – Article 6
Page 6-18
b. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to require the Commissioner or the
Department to provide maintenance, sampling, or analysis of any system. The failure of
the owner or operator to comply with the requirements of applicable standards or permits
with regard to maintenance, sampling, or analysis shall be subject to Section 760-218.2 of
this Code. Each day or part of a day the required maintenance, sampling, or analysis is
not performed shall constitute a separate violation and may further subject the owner
and/or operator of the facility to additional civil penalties under any applicable law, code,
statute, or regulation.
D. An Other Construction Project within Groundwater Managements Zones III, V or VI may
have a Population Density Equivalent to a Conventional Single-Family Residential
Subdivision or Development with parcels less than 40,000 square feet in area using Transfer
of Development Rights in conformance with standards established by the Department.
E. An Other Construction Project within Groundwater Management Zones I, II, IV, VII or VIII
may have a Population Density Equivalent to a Conventional Single-Family Residential
Subdivision or Development with parcels less than 20,000 square feet in area using Transfer
of Development Rights in conformance with standards established by the Department.
§760-611 Water Facilities Requirements for Other Construction Projects (Other
than Single-Family Residences and Conventional Single-Family
Residential Subdivisions or Developments)
A. A Community Water System method of water supply is required when any of the following
conditions are present:
1. the Other Construction Project, or any portion thereof, is located within an existing water
district or water service area; or
2. the Other Construction Project is reasonably accessible to an existing water district or
water service area. This requirement shall apply in the absence of proof satisfactory to the
Department that the Developer cannot effect arrangements for the installation and/or
connection of the water system to the existing water district or water service area
facilities; or
3. individual wells cannot provide a sufficient yield of freshwater meeting Department
requirements or standards; or
4. groundwaters in the area are nonpotable or potentially hazardous; or
5. the Other Construction Project has a Population Density Equivalent that is greater than
that of a Realty Subdivision or Development of Single-Family Residences in which all
parcels consist of an area of at least 40,000 square feet, or any parcel of the Other
Construction Project has an area of less than 20,000 square feet. Parcels that have a
Population Density Equivalent that is greater than that of a Realty Subdivision or
Development of Single-Family Residences in which all parcels consist of an area less
than 40,000 square feet may not require a Community Water System method of water
Suffolk County Sanitary Code – Article 6
Page 6-19
supply if the Other Construction Project has an exemption pursuant to Section 760-612 of
this Article and does not meet the conditions of paragraphs A.1. to A.4. of this Section.
B. The following are minimum requirements for Community Water Systems:
1. they shall be capable of delivering water at an average rate of 100 gal/capita/day when
service connections are unmetered, or 75 gal/capita/day when service connections are
metered; and
2. they shall be designed to deliver water meeting the quality requirements of the New York
State Sanitary Code; and
3. they shall provide for continuity of water service to the satisfaction of the Commissioner;
and
4. they shall have at least two (2) separate wells as a source of supply; and
5. they shall have at least one day's average storage at design average consumption.
6. the relevant provisions of Part 5 of the New York State Sanitary Code and Bulletin 42 of
the New York State Department of Health entitled "Recommended Standards for Water
Works" will be the basis upon which all plans, specifications, and reports for Community
Water Systems will be reviewed for approval by the Department.
C. Individual Water Supply Systems may be approved by the Department as the method of
water supply for an Other Construction Project provided all of the following conditions are
met:
1. the Population Density Equivalent of the Other Construction Project is equal to or less
than that of a Realty Subdivision or Development of Single-Family Residences in which
all parcels consist of an area of at least 40,000 square feet, and all parcels in the Other
Construction Project consist of an area of at least 20,000 square feet each. Parcels that
have a Population Density Equivalent that is greater than that of a Realty Subdivision or
Development of Single-Family Residences in which all parcels consist of an area less
than 40,000 square feet may be permitted to use an Individual Water Supply System if
the Other Construction Project has an exemption pursuant to Section 760-612 of this
Article and meets the conditions of paragraphs C.2. and C.3. of this Section; and
2. the Other Construction Project, or any portion thereof, is not located within an existing
water district or water service area and is not reasonably accessible thereto, and
individual wells can provide sufficient yield of fresh, potable water meeting Department
requirements and standards; and
3. the Individual Water Supply Systems comply with the Department's current standards and
the minimum requirements of the New York State Sanitary Code.
Suffolk County Sanitary Code – Article 6
Page 6-20
§760-612 Variances, Waivers and Exemptions
A. Variances and Waivers. The Commissioner, in his/her discretion, may grant or deny a
variance or waiver from this Code and/or standards promulgated pursuant to this Code in
accordance with the provisions of Section 760-220 of this Code. After a written
recommendation is prepared by the designated Department staff or Board of Review, in
accordance with Section 760-220 of this Code, the Commissioner may grant a variance or
waiver if it will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Code to protect
groundwater, drinking water supplies, surface water and other natural resources, and public
health, safety and welfare.
1. The recommendation and determination of whether the variance or waiver will be in
harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Code shall be made upon findings
relating to the criteria below. The recommendation and determination shall include
written findings and facts, prepared in accordance with Section 760-220 of this Code, that
address each of the following criteria if applicable to the variance or waiver request:
a. Whether the use is in general conformity with this Code;
b. Whether the uses of groundwater, surface water, and drinking water supplies will be
impaired, taking into account the direction of groundwater flow;
c. Whether the application of the proposed variance or waiver to other parcels within the
same Groundwater Management Zone will unreasonably impair groundwater, surface
water, and/or drinking water supplies;
d. Whether the application is in general conformity with the latest version of the Suffolk
County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan;
e. Whether granting the proposed variance or waiver will adversely affect the design of
an adequate on site water supply and/or Sewage disposal system, taking into account
soil conditions, depth to groundwater, direction of groundwater flow, and site specific
physical conditions;
f. Whether the amount of Sewage flow from the project based upon Sewage flow design
criteria will adversely affect groundwater, surface water and/or drinking water
supplies;
g. Whether the application can be modified so that the project will not violate the Code;
h. Whether an application for a variance or waiver can be made to another municipal
entity that would obviate the need for consideration of the variance or waiver
application before the Department, and if it can, has such application been made and
negatively ruled upon;
3. Economic injury and/or self-imposed hardship may not provide the sole basis for a
variance or waiver from this Code.
Suffolk County Sanitary Code – Article 6
Page 6-21
4. In all applications for relief from the specific sections of this Code, the burden of proof of
demonstrating that a variance or waiver should be granted shall be on the applicant.
5. The Commissioner, designated Department staff, or the Board of Review, in their
discretion, may consider any other factor which has been deemed necessary to consider in
order to determine or recommend whether the granting of a variance or waiver will be in
harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Code, provided that the application is
given notice of the additional factors and reasonable opportunity to present evidence to
the Department in accordance with the provisions of Section 760-220 with regard thereto.
6. Development Rights originating from an existing Other Construction Project parcel(s)
which exceeds the Population Density Equivalent requirements of this Article shall not be
transferred to a Construction Project or Other Construction Project by the Board of
Review through a variance or waiver.
B. Exemptions. Minimum lot size and/or Population Density Equivalent requirements shall not
apply to the following:
1. Realty Subdivisions which have previously been approved by the Department or the New
York State Department of Health that have been filed in the Office of the Clerk of the
County of Suffolk;
2. Developments which have previously been approved by the Department;
3. Other Construction Project parcel(s) with only a single-tenant permanent structure(s)
which have previously been approved by the Department’s Office of Wastewater
Management meeting all of the following criteria:
a. The permanent structure(s) has had an active, continuous use for the same purpose
from the time of a previous Office of Wastewater Management approval to the time
of submission of the current application to the Department for approval of water
supply and Sewage disposal facilities in accordance with Section 760-606 of this
Article.
b. The permanent structure(s) has not been vacant for a period of two (2) or more years
immediately prior to the submission of the current application to the Department for
approval of water supply and Sewage disposal facilities in accordance with Section
760-606 of this Article.
c. There is no increase in the proposed Density Load from the permanent structure(s) at
the time of submission of an application to the Department compared to a previous
Office of Wastewater Management approval.
d. For applications submitted to the Office of Wastewater Management on or after
January 1, 2018 for approval of water supply and Sewage disposal facilities in
accordance with Section 760-606 of this Article, there is less than a 10% increase in
Suffolk County Sanitary Code – Article 6
Page 6-22
the footprint or gross floor area, whichever is greater, of the permanent structure, but
in no event exceeding a total increase in area of 1,000 square feet. For purposes of
determining the percentage of increase, the Office of Wastewater Management shall
compare the footprint or gross floor area of previous applications submitted to the
Office for the same permanent structure.
e. Applications submitted to the Office of Wastewater Management prior to January 1,
2018 for such approvals shall be governed by Section 760-609 of the Suffolk County
Sanitary Code as it existed on December 31, 2017.
f. The Other Construction Project does not involve the total replacement of a permanent
structure(s) or Major Reconstruction of a permanent structure(s);
4. Other Construction Project parcel(s) with multi-tenant permanent structure(s) which have
previously been approved by the Department’s Office of Wastewater Management
meeting all of the following criteria:
a. The multi-tenant permanent structure(s) has not had more than 50% of the tenant
spaces vacant for a period of more than two (2) years immediately prior to the time of
submission of the current application to the Department for approval of water supply
and Sewage disposal facilities in accordance with Section 760-606 of this Article.
b. There is no increase in the proposed Density Load from the permanent structure(s) at
the time of submission of an application to the Department compared to a previous
Office of Wastewater Management approval.
c. For applications submitted to the Office of Wastewater Management on or after
January 1, 2018 for approval of water supply and Sewage disposal facilities in
accordance with Section 760-606 of this Article, there is less than a 10% increase in
the footprint or gross floor area, whichever is greater, of the permanent structure, but
in no event exceeding a total increase in area of 1,000 square feet. For purposes of
determining the percentage of increase, the Office of Wastewater Management shall
compare the footprint or gross floor area of previous applications submitted to the
Office for the same permanent structure.
d. Applications submitted to the Office of Wastewater Management prior to January 1,
2018 for such approvals shall be governed by Section 760-609 of the Suffolk County
Sanitary Code as it existed on December 31, 2017.
e. The Other Construction Project does not involve the total replacement of a permanent
structure(s) or Major Reconstruction of a permanent structure(s).
5. Developments, other than Realty Subdivisions, which have been approved by a town or
village planning or zoning board of appeals prior to January 1, 1981, and which met the
requirements of the Department in effect at that time;
Suffolk County Sanitary Code – Article 6
Page 6-23
6. A Single-Family Residence on a parcel which appeared as separately assessed on the
Suffolk County Tax Map as of January 1, 1981, which presently constitutes a buildable
parcel under applicable municipal zoning ordinances and which met the Department
requirements in effect on January 1, 1981. No automatic exemption of these
requirements of this Article shall be granted where five (5) or more of such parcels are
owned by a Developer.
§760-613 I/A OWTS Sewage Facilities Requirements for Existing Other
Construction Projects
A. At the time an application is made to the Department for approval of water supply and
Sewage disposal facilities in accordance with Section 760-606 of this Article, an I/A OWTS
shall be required by the Department as the method of Sewage disposal for an Other
Construction Project which has existed prior to January 1, 2018, if all of the following
conditions exist:
1. The Other Construction Project meets the following criteria:
a. There is no increase in the current Density Load established by a previous approval
using current Department Density Loading Rates and such previous approval shall
have included either:
I. Permits issued by the Department’s Division of Environmental Quality;
II. Permits which have been previously issued by the Department’s Division of
Public Health for temporary residences or food establishments; or
III. Town or village approvals which were granted prior to January 1, 1981, and
which met the requirements of the Department in effect at that time.
2. The existing permanent structure must be habitable according to current building codes at
the time of application for Department of approval of water supply and Sewage disposal
facilities in accordance with Section 760-606 of this Article.
3. The existing Other Construction Project meets one (1) of the following criteria at the time
of current application to the Department for approval of water supply and Sewage
disposal facilities in accordance with Section 760-606 of this Article:
a. the Other Construction Project is located within Groundwater Management Zones III,
V or VI, and the Population Density Equivalent is greater than that of a Realty
Subdivision or Development of Single-Family Residences in which all parcels consist
of an area of at least 40,000 square feet without the use of Transfer of Development
Rights in conformance with standards established by the Department; or
b. the Other Construction Project is located outside of Groundwater Management Zones
III, V and VI, and the Population Density Equivalent is greater than that of a Realty
Subdivision or Development of Single-Family Residences in which all parcels consist
of an area of at least 20,000 square feet without the use of Transfer of Development
Rights in conformance with standards established by the Department.
Suffolk County Sanitary Code – Article 6
Page 6-24
4. The Other Construction Project has previously been approved by the Department or
approved by a town or village planning or zoning board or appeals board prior to January
1, 1981 and does not meet the criteria for an exemption as stated in Section 760-612 of
this Article.
5. The Other Construction Project, or any portion thereof, is not located within an existing
sewer district and is located in an area where subsoil and groundwater conditions are
conducive to the proper functioning of Individual Sewerage Systems or Subsurface
Sewage Disposal Systems.
B. Section 760-613 paragraph A. shall apply to Other Construction Projects which exceed the
current Population Density Equivalent based on a Density Load established by Department or
town/village approvals prior to January 1, 1981 without the use of Transfer of Development
Rights but propose to increase the established Density Load with the use of Transfer of
Development Rights in conformance with the standards established by the Department.
C. For multi-tenant structures, the requirements of Section 760-613 paragraph A. shall apply to
the tenant space(s) for an Other Construction Project that requires Department approval of
water supply and Sewage disposal facilities in accordance with Section 760-606 of this
Article.
D. I/A OWTS shall comply with the Department's current standards and the minimum State
requirements as set forth in 10 NYCRR, Part 75, to the extent applicable to Suffolk County.
§760-614 Requirements for I/A OWTS as method of Individual Sewerage Systems or
Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems for Construction Projects or Other Construction
Projects
A. Construction Project applications submitted to the Office of Wastewater Management on or
after July 1, 2021 for approval of water supply and Sewage disposal facilities in accordance
with Section 760-606 of this Article shall include the installation of an I/A OWTS as the
method of Sewage disposal if all of the following conditions exist:
1. The Construction Project is a New or Expanded Single-Family Residence or Major
Reconstruction; and
2. The Construction Project is permitted to install an Individual Sewerage System or
Subsurface Sewage Disposal System in accordance with Section 760-608 or 760-612 of
this Article.
B. Other Construction Project applications submitted to the Office of Wastewater Management
on or after July 1, 2021 for approval of water supply and Sewage disposal facilities in
accordance with Section 760-606 of this Article shall include the installation of an I/A
OWTS as the method of Sewage disposal for the Density Load if all of the following
conditions exist:
Suffolk County Sanitary Code – Article 6
Page 6-25
1. The Other Construction Project is a New Other Construction Project; and
2. The Other Construction Project is permitted to install an Individual Sewerage System or
Subsurface Sewage Disposal System in accordance with Section 760-610 or 760-612 of
this Article.
C. The requirement of Section 760-614.A and 760-614.B shall exclude Construction Project or
Other Construction Project parcels located within a proposed sewer district as approved by
the Commissioner in accordance with Department standards.
D. An existing New or Expanded Single-Family Residence shall be exempt from the provisions
of Section 760-614.A, provided it meets all of the following criteria:
1. The Construction Project is not a Major Reconstruction.
2. the Construction Project does not include an addition of one or more bedrooms to an
existing Single-Family Residence exceeding the number of bedrooms previously
approved by the Department’s Office of Wastewater Management; and
E. An existing New or Expanded Single-Family Residence shall be exempt from the provisions
of Section 760-614.A, provided that it is not a Major Reconstruction, there is no change in
square footage or building footprint, and the total number of bedrooms does not exceed five
(5). In all cases where bedrooms are added to New or Expanded Single-Family Residences,
at a minimum, a conforming Conventional Septic System is required.
F. The installation of an I/A OWTS in accordance with 760-614.A to serve a modified existing
Single-Family Residence, where the hydraulic capacity and setbacks of the I/A OWTS have
been maximized to the greatest extent possible compared to Department Standards, shall be
deemed to comply with Department Standards without the need for a variance or waiver from
the Department per Section 760-612.A, at the discretion of the Department and provided the
following criteria are met:
1. The installation of a new or modification of an existing Individual Sewerage System or
Subsurface Sewage Disposal System replaces a Conventional Septic System or Cesspool
with an I/A OWTS;
2. The separation distances from the Individual Sewerage System or Subsurface Sewage
Disposal System to onsite and neighboring Individual Water Supply Systems comply
with Department Standards or are not less than the existing separation distances; and
3. The Construction project cannot be modified to comply with Department Standards.
Adopted 11/19/1980; Amended 4/15/1981, 6/3/1981, 6/24/1981, 1/12/1983, 4/9/1986, 6/25/1986, 1/14/1987, 3/4/1987, 3/8/1989, 5/24/1989,
1/24/1990, 9/30/1992, 6/28/1995, 1/01/2018, 12/1/2020
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDIX L
Excerpt for New York State Drinking Water Standards
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDIX M
Settlers at Oysterponds Subdivision Map
H7HMDemores! D Sons
S 130531101E
BD53
46453'
S7 r E . v Naeo t
323.93'395.00'
m
142.59'
150 1 y
jEb813000+ 3 Purr ROAD
LOT 3
POND S
h 50' AREA- 26 / li, NARs021430E RIVER ROAD
m q mWm6,7/08 ACRES z 0
55005. ,i lao0• 16s.oG' W K)6 25 n'w
h
O b lei 16 • L` 8/.le ' Yp <s`
r !
rzn'
mi I 782 IZ 0
O 0
0 LOT 2 zao. 38 00 P v-3icszisMPOND6fi ° j0E p- y.
V AREA=S 0596 ACRES m I - e oo /
r 9.87 x
2.21 J r 'p,ie /, L:197.92f.
eta
2.1)0,)2956
Y p p0
re NOy} T H
LOT I R=/25.00' 6% B 5,11 RIGH IC
T N0.5
N 2 ONCNARO 9TNEET
rtT / s180 TOF WAY FOR PATION i
AREA 5.H03 ACRES R: 6. 130 E. / L:1! 50 H/GNWAY O£D csiio°,isern
zeoe' '
I/
v, L.26ae% 50.3°S6 7L I- r"Soo
FUTURE
2. 1) y L-AZ55'LOCATION MAPLH. BO.00' R•740.G 'O 3- ' 1 55.19' R°I
r NO / e?e 016.9 Sss SCALE
yse
553%2'E. /80.00' en R=761• 00'
L is'rY TH z 600
0 S9 2.49' C5/' izeS l9 N06
F/N/SHED GRgOE
ryh/L ry OQ/p OJ6' 6122 N:110. 0°• 1 0 0 OT 4 m_0.
1 0 6 25.06' 4 SO' i
W e/ ° P"/e*
IIDe
i m W AREA l 0636 ACRES I
W U 5 2
r a2 GAL.
g 1 O 4 2 N o
4/
1 STORAGE
O r0 I b O i s o
lam.
yy
b m
TANK
l bQ. rry
U M I - _
Do
Mm0
S 2 I L 1 b0 6b. GROUND WATER _I ExisHNG amts 00
y
roo' r_
a. txisnvc eGDcs.
y4' y 4/ 0 / l N.54°2730"W.
lo°'
L' sti 0y 1/57.3/'
ri r fi y r
L /e'/ e L-1LC r S
FIN/SHED GRADE
8 SUBMERS/BLEBE" ) AREA=50 5
PLMP SG PM.
344.53' L I L_
Jr
acct' 05 JB3 ACRE.SS4Grc' B 2i B/ M/N.PLATT 5798 v SB 52i ___I Exlsr/NC GGDcg M O oo'
2'MAX.N50°2Y50W 025/'J ,a O'
Sti `ti0
TYPICAL WELL DETAILROADmob
ryyo' WOo1
r N W yrAREA- LOT 9
ES 2 u o k'
R=/00.00' 50/R7 ACR pL.G>S3' 2,91 i x
11 POSA
EPTIC TANKLOT5
MIN, AFEA=/0.5760 ACR ESWEL6WELLpImm25/
300AWCS/DE WALL AREA
q y, -` k LEACHIM7 POOLN49°/71O'µ. W N
TYP/CAL SEWAG
LL
SYSTEM
w-3BI.4J' O T
b M' THE WATER H rH-- T4N SEWAGE BSPOSAL FAC/LIT/ES FOR 0./1 IDTS/N IH/S OEVEL OPME7 TqCOMPLYWITHTHESTANDAROSAMREOU/REMEN/5'0 THE SUFFOLK OUNTYDEPARTMENTOF HEALTH 1O '"" "' r • „- u• n,
HOUSE HOUSE E of Np rn c•. rmv un u., ,.r. ., . .
2 O M/N
rN I N.54°2T30'W. 948.00' r"p`r r ,, - 0iiHOWARDWYOUNN.Y.S.L .L/C.NO. 45993 D O n '•`a x,u o.
O l '3' G O say ;n u .uor x corleuDOFLH. fSEPTICTANKSEPT/C TANK j o NO 4 V
i HEREBY CERT/FY THAT TN/S MAFWAS MADE BY US FROM ACTUAL SURVEYS COMPLETED 4423-83 AND THAT ALL ONCRETE MONUMENTS SHOWN THUS: HEREON ACTUALLYCESSPOOLCESSPoOLNnhfX/STAND THE/R POSIT/ONS ARE ORRECTLY SHOWN ND ALC D/MENS/ONAL ANO GEODE?/C n,env.,m.,DETA/LS ARE CORRECT. 4RLi.
O ar.15'MN.
HOWARD W. YOUN.L.S. L/C.N0.458936
STREETLOT 7 v i o TH/S l5 TO CERT/FY THAT TH/S SUI/V/S/ON PLAN NAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE PLANN/NG BOARD OWNER: CHARLES B. HOROW/TZOFTNFTOWNOFSOUTHOLDBYRE/LUT/ON OF APPROVAL DATED 27 WINDM/LLCANETYPICALPLOTPLANAREA=S.aooOACREs WW/2'71 W 1LOT $ BYDATE
SOUTHAMPTON, N.Y. //968
x AREA=9./049 ACRES cHRMAN, PLANN/NG BOARD
p Q TOTAL AREA= 67.6523 ACRES
j W W' S 2s15
TH£LOT L/NES OFSUBD/V/5/ON M.LS ASF/LEO, CANNOTBE ALTERED W/TROUT PERM/SS/pY FROMTESTNOLES4hNaWpryTHEPLANN/NG BOARD, AND LOT MUST BE SOLD AS SHOWN ON THE SUBD/V/S/ON MAP.
NO.S0.0 aoIr IIrot SOILTHrOPsacr02SomSA,wr NOdS.O GOAD
rEm
4.0 SAND a A° 1
SANDY GRAVEL CROWDLOAMTH/SSUB0/1 P/ON WILL APPEAR/ND/STRICTJ000 OQ y
K r ' SECTION 09 /N BLOCK 02 OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY TAI MAP, r I UBQ/ V/C/Q /J pP OFOGROUNDrGGROUND
J F-1
wlrER wlrER N
fe /2./ HND/
pFSUTAXMAPPARCEL
NUMBERS RVICE,OBY SETTLE ?S AT OYSTERPO/VigSa9C70' 386.00'
Y
PEATY TAXSERV/CE,fiENLY..B2L90,j?./ IUNTI OTES rAOLKREAARCE
o N54°2730°W
I1
AT"OR/E/VT
e ORCHARD STRE T
y RE L PROPERTY TAX SERV/CE AGENCY A`
VWN OF SOUTHOLD
J
0.0
SNOOY`
O.O $
NDYm
0.
0R
OI SO/L
o
f.,.
tits__ = w w
00
10F1
f
LK COUNTY, NEW YORKNO.I NO'S NO.!
1
3 542
TOP
PSU !
SCALE / /00'
LOAN
r-''
III LOAM !.S o 17 K, c '?
AD
4.0 40 4.
0ANO)
GRAVEL NTB
a - '
t, ' i N'+ ryj' .2.} 3/ i..
J
I Ey
a O°roo
aonGRWNDGROUNDROUNDIAI1 f
WATER WATER ATER
M1 Jy
tARI ds y
q
IAyh
syULIEfi- ,
Ik;,Aunty I 1.
BI y
JAN. 17, 1994 YOUNG B YOUNG, LAND SURVEYORS
DCL 12, 1983, ALDEN W. YOUNG, N.YA RE.BL.S.L/C.N0.12845DATE' AUG. 2, /983' : HOWARDTW, YOUNG, SUGIS. C C.RNoAISB93
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDIX N
Ferraris Town Property Card
{o
{2
o.rl
(aoC{
-oF
E'
!voUmf,{
V ,-m lr
f|ior
[41r{ila4 )
v
Ir/,(,
)
.YtoF=mpo{zmv(i)Joqo{E.6-fo-3ooCLo{6':o-IIlnID!6-{og
-nFoz-{
om
oz
{
-lmF
o?
=o?
=r
:oeo
C)
U1-t:_
(nCtr
{Lh\l.)
t
*.-+*
!-
TI
n3
f+''>'AJj --t3,dJJI*
9?
o(r
o
c4
Jdo;ot,fd 'o4ri4 _*t;.q..w t{lo,*ss
.C,
(o
co
6Loo
tL
.9
.gtl-
L
.9
o)
c
(E(l)I
.9
oo
IL
6
EooE
oo
lJ-
1CcN
6
Eoo
ctr
,,J
.d
-4
d
*1,
L
e{
C
.9
Fro'tf,
C:,OII
{Jco
E
E(I,
m
o
E
=vxu
o)ooC
o).:tr
ooo.
I
oo-
(\'
3G'.:
O
I
I $
q
h
(})
6
h(
*ri4
t-p
rt\
"o1r}t,\r
l^}
Li.
s',
o.:t
Jos:
A
ctr
ry
ev
!3.
!
s
t*
€CId+c'a
uiry.sft")dy
]o{ "q
ot{s
$4
tl:t, r.lt\l <
**
OC,
o
F.l
'.go
*rI
ss*
(.
cr)
>a
c{,
+
d\_,Ia
vr
rN
Ud
d,3mj
co'6cq)
xul
c
c
.96c0)
x
r.lJ
daw
co
oL
.Voo)o
(!
3o)Nq)
OJ
co
o)(n(!
(t,0
)
d
..t6o(\-111
\o
o\
alI.II
r--cl
_ -,i$.
,(
I
h$L(!\
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDIX O
SLOSH Map for Orient
ORIENT SLOSH MAP
SLOSH
1
2
3
4
Hamlets
March 3, 2021
0 0.35 0.70.17 mi
0 0.6 1.20.3 km
1:16,000
Web AppBuilder for ArcGIS
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDIX P
SLOSH Map for Subject Property Area
ArcGIS Web Map
Search Results: Tax Map Number Search
Override 1
SLOSH
1
2
3
4
Parcel Data
December 20, 2017
Web AppBuilder for ArcGIS
0 0.075 0.150.0375 mi
0 0.075 0.150.0375 km
1:4,000
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDIX Q
FEMA Firmette
USGS The National Map: Orthoimagery. Data refreshed April, 2019.
National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250Feet
Ü
72°18'5.36"W
41°8'26.74"N
72°17'27.90"W 41°7'59.64"N
SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT
SPECIAL FLOODHAZARD AREAS
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)Zone A, V, A99With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
Regulatory Floodway
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areasof 1% annual chance flood with averagedepth less than one foot or with drainageareas of less than one square mile Zone X
Future Conditions 1% AnnualChance Flood Hazard Zone XArea with Reduced Flood Risk due toLevee. See Notes.Zone XArea with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D
NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X
Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D
Channel, Culvert, or Storm SewerLevee, Dike, or Floodwall
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance17.5 Water Surface ElevationCoastal Transect
Coastal Transect BaselineProfile BaselineHydrographic Feature
Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
Effective LOMRs
Limit of StudyJurisdiction Boundary
Digital Data Available
No Digital Data Available
Unmapped
This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from theauthoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This mapwas exported on 5/29/2019 at 4:20:53 PM and does notreflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date andtime. The NFHL and effective information may change orbecome superseded by new data over time.
This map image is void if the one or more of the following mapelements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels,legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers,FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images forunmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used forregulatory purposes.
Legend
OTHER AREAS OFFLOOD HAZARD
OTHER AREAS
GENERALSTRUCTURES
OTHERFEATURES
MAP PANELS
8
1:6,000
B 20.2
The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDIX R
Aquifer Characterization
Appendix R
Geologic Setting
The geologic setting for The Orchards proposed development property (the “Site”) and
surrounding area consist of a bedrock layer that is overlain by a series of unconsolidated deposits
of glacially-derived sediment.
Based on information obtained from the “Hydrogeologic Framework of the North Fork and
Surrounding Areas, Long Island, New York” (2004) prepared by the US Geologic Survey, the
bedrock in the Site vicinity consists of metamorphic rock of Paleozoic and Precambrian age. In
the area beneath the Site, the bedrock occurs at a depth of approximately 550 feet below grade
and slopes gently to the south.
Overlying the bedrock are Upper Cretaceous and Pleistocene-aged sediment deposits consisting
primarily of sand, silt, and clay. The soils beneath the Site are part of outwash plain deposits.
Based on the field survey by John C. Ehlers, L.S. and elevation data shown on the proposed
subdivision map dated June 18, 2019 (see Appendix G of the DEIS), the elevation of the Site
above mean sea level ranges from approximately 19.4 feet (which corresponds to NAVD 88
elevation of 18 feet) at the southwest corner of the site to approximately 11.4 feet (which
corresponds to NAVD 88 elevation of 10 feet) at the southeast corner of the site.
Hydrogeologic Setting
All municipal and private potable water supplies on Long Island are supplied by Long Island’s
sole source aquifer. Groundwater in the Site area consists of multiple aquifers. The deepest
aquifer is the Lloyd Aquifer, which overlies the bedrock. The Lloyd Aquifer is overlain by the
Raritan confining clay unit. The Magothy Formation and corresponding Magothy Aquifer
overlie the Raritan unit. The Upper Glacial Formation and corresponding Upper Glacial Aquifer
overlie the Magothy Formation and represent the upper hydrogeologic unit in the Site area. Some
clay layers of limited areal extent may exist within the Upper Glacial formation in the Orient
area.
The Upper Glacial Aquifer is an unconfined aquifer. The lower confining unit of the Upper
Glacial Aquifer is the Glacial Lake Clay layer. The upper surface of the Glacial Lake Clay layer
is estimated to be at a NAVD 88 elevation of -71 feet. The Upper Glacial Aquifer is expected to
have a hydraulic conductivity rate of approximately 200 feet per day and, therefore, the Upper
Glacial aquifer beneath the Site is expected to be highly productive.
Based on test wells installed on site, the water table elevation at the Site area is at a NAVD 88
elevation of approximately +2 feet.
Groundwater at the Site and throughout Long Island exists as a freshwater lens that floats above
the zone of saltwater that exists beneath the freshwater lens. According to the U.S.G.S.,
freshwater in the Orient flow system lies above the lower confining unit, i.e. the Glacial Lake
Clay layer. The vertical hydraulic conductivity through the Glacial Lake Clay layer is very low
(estimated at 0.1 feet per day). The clay layer acts as a physical barrier between the freshwater
lens above the layer, and the saltwater below. In addition, even if the freshwater and saltwater
layers were not physically separated by the clay layer, due to the density differential the two
layers would not mix appreciably. Instead of a clear line of separation between the freshwater
and saltwater, there is a zone of diffusion that exists between the freshwater and saltwater zones.
Therefore, in the lower portion of the freshwater lens, the chloride concentrations will slowly
increase with depth as the saltwater zone is approached.
The depth to the saltwater interface at the Site can be estimated using the Ghyben-Herzberg
Ratio which states that for every foot of groundwater (freshwater) that exists above mean sea
level, there is approximately 40 feet of fresh water below mean sea level. At the Site, the
groundwater water table is presently at an elevation that is approximately 3.4 feet above mean
sea level (which corresponds to a NAVD 88 elevation of +2 feet). Therefore, the depth to the
saltwater interface is estimated to be at a depth of 136 feet below mean sea level (which
corresponds to NAVD 88 elevation -134 feet). Results from on-site test wells indicate the
groundwater underlying the Site at a NAVD 88 elevation of approximately -53 feet has an
average chloride concentration of 33 mg/l1.
1 Appendix N of DEIS
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDIX S
Crop Irrigation Water Estimate
APPENDIX S Proposed Crop with Highest Irrigation Demand: Corn
Proposed Planted Acreage Requiring Irrigation: 7.5 acres out of 7.983 acres of open space
Date of Planting: May 15th1 Growing Season: 18 weeks (126 days) to reach maturity2
Cumulative Water required to Reach Maturity: 25.9 inches3 11 Year Average Precipitation during period May – September: 15.89 inches4 Least Precipitation during Growing Season (during the last 11 years): 2020 @ 8.78 inches
Irrigation Water Required (Year with most precipitation: 2011) = 25.9” required – 26.7” precipitation = 0” deficit * Precipitation exceeded crop demand
Irrigation Water Required (Year with 11 year average precipitation) = 25.9” required – 15.89” precipitation = 10.01” deficit
10.01” x (1 ft/12”) x 7.5 acres x (43,560 sf/acre) = 272,522 CF 272,522 CF x (7.48 gals/CF) = 2,038,466 gallons
Irrigation Water Required (Year with least precipitation: 2020) = 25.9” required – 8.78” precipitation = 17.12” deficit
17.12” x (1 ft/12”) x 7.5 acres x (43,560 sf/acre) = 466,092 CF 466,092 CF x (7.48 gals/CF) = 3,486,368 gallons
1 https://agfax.com/2015/01/12/new-york-corn-early-can-plant-now/
2 University of Nebraska Nebguide G1850 https://extensionpublications.unl.edu/assets/pdf/g1850.pdf 3 University of Nebraska Nebguide G1850 https://extensionpublications.unl.edu/assets/pdf/g1850.pdf
4 Cornell Cooperative Extension- Suffolk County. Data from observation site closest to subject property was used (Laurel) except for 2018 where Jamesport was used because Laurel data was invalid
Page 2 Appendix S
Notes:
1. This analysis does not include irrigation water demand reduction that could be realized by selection of a hybrid corn seed that has a shorter maturity period.
2. This analysis is based on the use of corn. Alternate crops will be rotated with corn. The alternate crops are anticipated to have a lower irrigation water demand.
3. Cornell Cooperative precipitation data: 2010 11.1”;2011 26.7”; 2013 17.31”; 2014 8.77”;
2015 13.2”; 2016 9.58”; 2017 19.70”; 2018 20.69”; 2019 18.09”; 2020 8.78”
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDIX T
Nitrogen Budget Analysis for Proposed Action
Appendix T
Response 3.2.23-
The purpose of this analysis is to approximate the amount of nitrogen reaching the Upper Glacial aquifer that is attributable to the subject property.
Project Nitrogen Sources:
Nitrogen will be generated at the subject property from the following sources-
I. Sanitary wastewater from five residential homes using conventional sanitary system treatment
II. Pet waste from the five residential homes
III. Irrigation water for the five residential homes
IV. Fertilization of turf grass at the five residential homes
V. Irrigation water for the farmland
VI. Fertilization of farmland
VII. Precipitation falling upon the total land area
Parameters for Analysis: The following data extracted from the final “Suffolk County Subwatersheds Wastewater Plan”
dated July 2020 (unless otherwise noted) shall be used for the nitrogen budget analysis:
1. N released per person per year: 10 lbs/person/year
2. Nitrogen attenuation in septic tank: 6%
3. Nitrogen attenuation in leaching pool effluent: 10%
4. Leaching rate for residential turf fertilizer: 30%
5. Leaching rate for agricultural fertilizer: 40%
6. Nitrogen use for sweet corn & vegetables: 80 lb. N/acre/year
7. Nitrogen use for lawn fertilization: 2.04 lb. N/1,000 SF/year
8. Number of dogs per household: 1.4 dogs
9. Nitrogen load per dog: 4.29 lbs./year
10. Percent N in dog waste lost to volatilization: 50%
Page 2 Appendix T
11. N from atmosphere leaching rate on natural vegetation: 25%
12. N from atmosphere leaching rate on turf: 30%
13. N from atmosphere leaching rate on agricultural land: 40%
14. N from atmospheric (wet and dry) deposition: 0.103 lbs. N/1,000 SF/year
15. Recharge from impervious surfaces as a percentage of precipitation1: 80%
Notes:
• Gaseous loss of fertilizer is not included in this analysis, thus producing a more conservative estimate of the nitrogen reaching the aquifer.
• Credit for potential denitrification within the aquifer is not included in this analysis, thus producing a more conservative estimate of the nitrogen reaching the aquifer.
• For this analysis, cats were considered as indoor pets with litter box waste disposal, and therefore do not contribute to the on-site nitrogen load.
• The nitrogen load associated with the agricultural use reflects implementation of BMPs recommended by Cornell Cooperative Extension to mitigate fertilizer demand while maximizing plant uptake.
Project Specific Data for Analysis: The following data extracted from the DEIS and FEIS shall be used for the nitrogen budget analysis:
a. Number of persons per household: 2.3 [DEIS pg. 4-8]
b. Number of residential households: 5 [DEIS pg. 4-8]
c. SF of residential turf grass: 71,874 SF [FEIS 3.2.8]
d. SF of impervious land & bldgs.: 48,748 SF [DEIS pg. 1-2]
e. SF of other vegetated areas on residential land: 111,119 SF [DEIS pg. 1-2]
f. SF of planted crop land area: 326,700 SF [FEIS App. S]
g. SF of pervious agricultural land not planted: 21,039 SF [FEIS App. S]
h. Existing concentration (avg.) of total N in groundwater2: 9.25 mg/l3 [DEIS App. N]
i. Turf grass irrigation water: 1,093,155 gals. [FEIS 3.2.8]
j. Ag irrigation water, minimum required: 0 gals. [FEIS app. S]
k. Ag irrigation water, average required: 2,038,466 gals. [FEIS app. S]
l. Ag irrigation water, maximum required: 3,486,368 gals. [FEIS app. S]
1 Runoff coefficient for Rational Formula from table 3-1 of “Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 22, Third Edition”, U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Publication FHWA-NHI-10-009
2 Based on Nitrate and nitrite concentrations only, as established by the New York State Drinking Water standards 3 9.25 mg/l is equivalent to 0.000077195 lbs/gal
Page 3 Appendix T
Nitrogen Loading Calculations for Project as Proposed:
I. Calculation of N loading attributable to sanitary waste:
5 homes x 2.3 persons/home x (10 lbs. N/person/year) = 115 lbs. N per year (gross)
- Conventional Sanitary system consisting of septic tank and leaching pools causes
reduction of N loading as follows:
Septic tank effluent: 115 lbs N/year x 94% = 108.1 lbs/year
Leaching pool effluent: 108.1 lbs/year x 90% = 97.3 lbs/yr (net)
II. Calculation of N loading attributable to pet waste:
5 homes x 1.4 dogs/home x (4.29 lbs N/dog/year) x 50% volatilization loss = 15.0 lbs/yr
III. Calculation of N loading attributable to residential turf grass fertilization:
71,874 SF x (2.04 lbs N/1,000 SF/yr) x 30% leaching rate = 44.0 lbs/yr
IV. Calculation of N loading attributable to atmospheric deposition on turf grass:
71,874 SF x (0.103 lbs. N/1,000 SF/year) x 30% leaching rate = 2.2 lbs/yr
V. Calculation of N loading attributable to atmospheric deposition on impervious surfaces:
48,748 SF x (0.103 lbs. N/1,000 SF/year) x 80% leaching rate = 4.0 lbs/yr
VI. Calculation of N loading attributable to atmospheric deposition on natural vegetation:
111,119 SF x (0.103 lbs. N/1,000 SF/year) x 25% leaching rate = 2.9 lbs/yr
Page 4 Appendix T
VII. Calculation of N loading attributable to agricultural fertilization:
7.5 acres x (80 lbs N/acre/yr) x 40% leaching rate = 240 lbs/yr
VIII. Calculation of N loading attributable to atmospheric deposition on planted Ag land:
326,700 SF x (0.103 lbs. N/1,000 SF/year) x 40% leaching rate = 13.5 lbs/yr
IX. Calculation of N loading attributable to atmospheric deposition on non-planted Ag land:
21,039 SF x (0.103 lbs. N/1,000 SF/year) x 40% leaching rate = 0.7 lbs/yr
X. Calculation of N reduction attributable to irrigating turf grass: The proposed domestic
wells will draw water from the Upper Glacial aquifer laying beneath the subject property.
SCDHS groundwater quality testing demonstrates the groundwater lying beneath the site has elevated concentrations of nitrogen. Fertigation is the process whereby a portion of the nitrogen necessary for plant growth is provided by the irrigation water, as opposed to fertilizer. As the nitrogen rich irrigation water is applied, a certain percentage of nitrogen
in the water will be consumed by the plant, with the remaining portion returning to the
aquifer below. A reduction in nitrogen in the aquifer can be realized through fertigation.
(1,093,155 gals/yr) x (0.000077195 lbs/gal) x 70%4 N consumption rate = - (59.1 lbs/yr)
XI. Calculation of N reduction attributable to irrigating planted Ag land: The proposed
irrigation well will draw water from the Upper Glacial aquifer laying beneath the subject
property. SCDHS groundwater quality testing demonstrates the groundwater lying beneath the site has elevated concentrations of nitrogen. Fertigation is the process whereby a portion of the nitrogen necessary for plant growth is provided by the irrigation water, as opposed to fertilizer. As the nitrogen rich irrigation water is applied, a certain
percentage of nitrogen in the water will be consumed by the plant, with the remaining
portion returning to the aquifer below. A reduction in nitrogen in the aquifer can be realized through fertigation.
Minimum Irrigation Year-
(0 gals/yr) x (0.000077195 lbs/gal) x 60%5 N consumption rate = - (0 lbs/yr)
4 A 30% leaching rate applies to turf lawn 5 A 40% leaching rate applies to agricultural land
Page 5 Appendix T
Average Irrigation Year-
(2,038,466 gals/yr) x (0.000077195 lbs/gal) x 60%6 N consumption rate = - (94.4 lbs/yr)
Maximum Irrigation Year-
(3,486,368 gals/yr) x (0.000077195 lbs/gal) x 60%7 N consumption rate =
- (150.5 lbs/yr)
Summary of Nitrogen Budget for proposed project during minimum Ag irrigation year:
Sanitary Waste 97.3 lbs/year
Pet waste 15.0 lbs/year
Turf lawn fertilization 44.0 lbs/year
Turf lawn atmospheric deposition 2.2 lbs/year
Impervious surface atmospheric deposition 4.0 lbs/year
Natural vegetation atmospheric deposition 2.9 lbs/year
Farmland fertilization 240 lbs/year
Farmland (planted) atmospheric deposition 13.5 lbs/year
Farmland (unplanted) atmospheric deposition 0.7 lbs/year
Turf lawn irrigation reduction - (59.1 lbs/year)
Farmland irrigation reduction - (0 lbs/year)
Total Nitrogen Load + 360.5 lbs/year
6 A 40% leaching rate applies to agricultural land 7 A 40% leaching rate applies to agricultural land
Page 6 Appendix T
Summary of Nitrogen Budget for proposed project during average Ag irrigation year:
Sanitary Waste 97.3 lbs/year
Pet waste 15.0 lbs/year
Turf lawn fertilization 44.0 lbs/year
Turf lawn atmospheric deposition 2.2 lbs/year
Impervious surface atmospheric deposition 4.0 lbs/year
Natural vegetation atmospheric deposition 2.9 lbs/year
Farmland fertilization 240 lbs/year
Farmland (planted) atmospheric deposition 13.5 lbs/year
Farmland (unplanted) atmospheric deposition 0.7 lbs/year
Turf lawn irrigation reduction - (59.1 lbs/year)
Farmland irrigation reduction - (94.4 lbs/year)
Total Nitrogen Load + 266.1 lbs/year
Page 7 Appendix T
Summary of Nitrogen Budget for proposed project during maximum Ag irrigation year:
Sanitary Waste 97.3 lbs/year
Pet waste 15.0 lbs/year
Turf lawn fertilization 44.0 lbs/year
Turf lawn atmospheric deposition 2.2 lbs/year
Impervious surface atmospheric deposition 4.0 lbs/year
Natural vegetation atmospheric deposition 2.9 lbs/year
Farmland fertilization 240 lbs/year
Farmland (planted) atmospheric deposition 13.5 lbs/year
Farmland (unplanted) atmospheric deposition 0.7 lbs/year
Turf lawn irrigation reduction - (59.1 lbs/year)
Farmland irrigation reduction - (150.5 lbs/year)
Total Nitrogen Load + 210.0 lbs/year
Page 8 Appendix T
Nitrogen Loading Calculations for 100% Farmland Use:
The subject site is agricultural land. As stated in the “Farmland Bill or Rights” contained in section 280-97 of the Town Code, the subject property could be fully developed solely for agricultural use. The nitrogen analysis shown below illustrates the nitrogen budget for that as-of-right development scenario:
I. Calculation of N loading attributable to agricultural fertilization:
12.55258 acres x (80 lbs N/acre/yr) x 40% leaching rate = 401.7 lbs/yr
II. Calculation of N loading attributable to atmospheric deposition on planted Ag land:
546,787 SF x (0.103 lbs. N/1,000 SF/year) x 40% leaching rate = 22.5 lbs/yr
III. Calculation of N loading attributable to atmospheric deposition on non-planted Ag land:
32,693 SF x (0.103 lbs. N/1,000 SF/year) x 40% leaching rate = 1.3 lbs/yr
IV. Calculation of N reduction attributable to irrigating planted Ag land9: The proposed
irrigation well will draw water from the Upper Glacial aquifer laying beneath the subject
property. SCDHS groundwater quality testing demonstrates the groundwater lying beneath the site has elevated concentrations of nitrogen. Fertigation is the process whereby a portion of the nitrogen necessary for plant growth is provided by the irrigation water, as opposed to fertilizer. As the nitrogen rich irrigation water is applied, a certain
percentage of nitrogen in the water will be consumed by the plant, with the remaining
portion returning to the aquifer below. A reduction in nitrogen in the aquifer can be realized through fertigation.
Minimum Irrigation Year-
(0 gals/yr) x (0.000077195 lbs/gal) x 60%10 N consumption rate = - (0 lbs/yr)
8 It is estimated that three quarters of an acre of the total land area will be unplanted area
9 The crop irrigation water estimate is based on Appendix S of the FEIS. In that irrigation water estimate 7.5 acres of land area was to be irrigated. For this analysis 12.5525 acres of land shall require irrigation, thus the irrigation water
demand shown in Appendix S of the FEIS shall be scaled up using a factor of 1.67. 10 A 40% leaching rate applies to agricultural land
Page 9 Appendix T
Average Irrigation Year-
(3,404,238 gals/yr) x (0.000077195 lbs/gal) x 60%11 N consumption rate =
- (157.7 lbs/yr)
Maximum Irrigation Year-
(4,000,000 gals/yr)12 x (0.000077195 lbs/gal) x 60%13 N consumption rate =
- (185.3 lbs/yr)
11 A 40% leaching rate applies to agricultural land
12 Maximum yearly water pumpage based on current NYSDEC agricultural well permit 13 A 40% leaching rate applies to agricultural land
Page 10 Appendix T
Summary of Nitrogen Budget for 100% farmland use during minimum Ag irrigation year:
Farmland fertilization 401.7 lbs/year
Farmland (planted) atmospheric deposition 22.5 lbs/year
Farmland (unplanted) atmospheric deposition 1.3 lbs/year
Farmland irrigation reduction - (0 lbs/year)
Total Nitrogen Load + 425.5 lbs/year
Summary of Nitrogen Budget for 100% farmland use during average Ag irrigation year:
Farmland fertilization 401.7 lbs/year
Farmland (planted) atmospheric deposition 22.5 lbs/year
Farmland (unplanted) atmospheric deposition 1.3 lbs/year
Farmland irrigation reduction - (157.7 lbs/year)
Total Nitrogen Load + 267.8 lbs/year
Summary of Nitrogen Budget for 100% farmland use during maximum Ag irrigation year:
Farmland fertilization 401.7 lbs/year
Farmland (planted) atmospheric deposition 22.5 lbs/year
Farmland (unplanted) atmospheric deposition 1.3 lbs/year
Farmland irrigation reduction - (185.3 lbs/year)
Total Nitrogen Load + 240.2 lbs/year
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDIX U
Land Use Ecological Services Report
March 5, 2021
Lahti Engineering- The Orchards FEIS (Town of Southold)
2595 Orchard Street, Orient (SCTM#: 1000-27-1-3)
1/4
570 Expressway Drive South, Suite 2F, Medford, NY 11763
Phone: (631)-727-2400 Fax: (631)-727-2605
To: Town of Southold Planning Board Office (attn: Mr. Donald Wilcenski, Chair)
From: William P. Bowman, PhD (Land Use Ecological Services)
Date: March 5, 2021
Re: FEIS for Proposed Standard Subdivision The Orchards
The following addresses limited comments related to Endangered/Threatened/Special Concern species and Significant Natural Communities for The Orchards DEIS provided by the Town Planning Board Office dated January 29, 2021.
Comment 10 (pgs 25-27):
No significant adverse impacts to the New York State-protected species or significant natural community identified by the Town Planning Board from the New York State Environmental Resource Mapper are expected to result from the Proposed Action.
Significant Natural Communities The New York State Environmental Resource Mapper (https://gisservices.dec.ny.gov/gis/erm/) identified a
significant natural community, i.e. marine back-bay lagoon complex associated with Long Beach Bay, in proximity the project site. Tidal wetlands and surface waters associated with Long Beach Bay are located approximately 2,000 feet to the east (Narrow River) and south (Gids Bay). Environmental threats to Long Beach Bay, its habitats and wildlife, include activities that would degrade water quality, disrupt tidal patterns, increase sedimentation, or eliminate wetlands (NYSDOS, 2002). Potential impacts to fish and wildlife habitat identified by the New York State Department of State include water pollution, increased turbidity, waste disposal (including boat wastes), and stormwater and road runoff. The proposed upland subdivision does not include any of the direct impacts to the marine lagoon and its wetlands such as disruptions to tidal patterns, filling, excavation, or construction in wetlands, operation of vessels or in-water equipment, or direct discharges of pollutants to surface waters.
Development within surrounding watersheds can contribute to declines in surface water quality due to nutrient and pollutant discharge from sanitary systems and stormwater from impervious surfaces. As described in Section 3.2 (Water) of the DEIS, groundwater beneath the subject property flows in a southeast direction towards Long Beach Bay. The subject property is located within the 10 to 25 year contributing area to this surface water body. The proposed project is limited to constructing five (5) single family residential homes. Construction of the proposed sanitary system and water supply well for each parcel will require approval by the
Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS). As each parcel is developed, the owner will be required to prepare design plans and conform to SCDHS development standards.
Stormwater from the impervious surfaces of the proposed dwellings and accessory structures shall be managed using stormwater leaching pools. The construction of the dwellings on the individual parcels will require building permits from the Town of Southold. The design of the stormwater management systems shall
be in accordance with Town Code will be included in the Town’s review of the building permit applications submitted for each parcel.
Lahti Engineering- The Orchards FEIS (Town of Southold)
2595 Orchard Street, Orient (SCTM#: 1000-27-1-3)
2/4
570 Expressway Drive South, Suite 2F, Medford, NY 11763
Phone: (631)-727-2400 Fax: (631)-727-2605
Potential stormwater impacts to Long Beach Bay during construction of proposed dwellings shall be minimized by the development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), as well as an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Review and approval of the SWPPP would be conducted by the Town
engineering department, the SWPPP becomes part of the Planning Board’s subdivision approval and Town
approval is issued to the NYSDEC to enable issuance of the NYSDEC permit. Compliance with Suffolk County Department of Health Services regulations and permitting requirements for
sanitary systems and New York State and Town of Southold design standards for management of stormwater (during construction and under built conditions) will minimize potential water quality impacts to nearby the wetlands and surface waters of Long Beach Bay.
Historic Records of Endangered/Threatened Species Historical records of ten protected or rare plants and animals were identified for Orient Point by the New York Natural Heritage Program, according to the January 29, 2021 Town letter, including woodland agrimony (Agromonia rostellata, New York State-Threatened) in 1932; marsh fimby (Fimbristylis castanea, New York State-Threatened) in 1938; small-flowered pearlwort (Sagina decumbens ssp. decumbens, New York State-Endangered) in 1910; marsh straw sedge (Carex hormathodes, New York State-Threatened) in 1926; sea pink (Sabatia stellaris, New York State-Threatened) in 1910; Northern Barrens Tiger Beetle (Cicindela patruela
patruela, Unprotected) in 1944; large grass-leaved rush (Juncus biflorus, New York State-Threatened) in 1928; scotch lovage (Ligusticum scoticum ssp. scoticum, New York State-Endangered) in 1980; golden dock (Rumex
feuginus, New York State-Endangered) in 1926; and short fruit rush (Juncus brachicarpus, New York State-Endangered) in 1940. Woodland agrimony is a New York State-threatened plant of rich mesic forests, forested gorges, forested
slopes and streambanks, forested limestone benches, dry oak woods, wooded pastures on rich soil, shrub thickets, and other mesic sites that are typically wooded and on calcareous soils (New York Natural Heritage Program, 2021a). The New York Natural Heritage Program indicates that presence of woodland agrimony in
successional old fields and shrublands is probable, but not confirmed. Growing season surveys for this species were not performed. Historical observation of woodland agrimony from the Orient area is reported from 1932 by the New York Natural Heritage Program. Due to the absence of rich mesic forests or calcareous
geological conditions, the relatively recent abandonment of agricultural uses on the property in the early 2000s, and the historical nature of the existing Heritage Program record (1932), woodland agrimony is not expected to be found on the site nor are impacts to this species expected. The remaining species inhabit various tidal and freshwater wetlands, maritime communities, and pine barrens habitats including high salt marshes and salt shrub habitats (e.g. marsh fimbry, marsh straw sedge, sea pink, scotch lovage, and golden dock), dredge spoil maritime shores and wetlands (e.g. small-flowered pearlwort), maritime beaches and dunes (e.g. marsh straw sedge, scotch lovage, and golden dock), coastal plain pondshores (e.g. large grass-leaved rush, and golden dock), emergent marsh and wet meadows (short-fruit rush), and native upland pine or oak forests (large-grass leaved rush and scotch lovage) (New York Natural Heritage Program, 2021b-i). The rare barrens tiger beetle inhabits dry, sandy or rocky sites with pitch pine and scrub oak (New York Natural Heritage Program, 2021j). Due to the absence of tidal or freshwater wetlands, maritime beaches or dunes, or native upland pine or oak-dominated forests, none of the New York State-protected species historically observed in Orient will be adversely impacted by the Proposed Action.
Comment 12 (pgs 27-28):
Eastern Box Turtle (Terrapene carolina) Eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina) is a New York State Species of Special Concern that may be found in a wide variety of habitats including in open deciduous forests, woodlands, forested bottomlands, open field and
field edges, thickets, marshes, bogs, and stream banks. The eastern box turtle are known to inhabit successional old fields and successional shrublands (NYSDEC, 2013) and are expected to be found on-site. Eastern box turtles are threatened by development of their habitat, mortality on roadways, mortality from
Lahti Engineering- The Orchards FEIS (Town of Southold)
2595 Orchard Street, Orient (SCTM#: 1000-27-1-3)
3/4
570 Expressway Drive South, Suite 2F, Medford, NY 11763
Phone: (631)-727-2400 Fax: (631)-727-2605
mowing of lawns and early successional habitats, predation of nests by raccoons and foxes, and collection as pets. The project would result in a loss of approximately 13.3 acres of habitat for eastern box turtle that has
developed since the abandonment of agricultural uses. The proposed conditions will provide poor habitat for eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina) due to potential mortality from mowers in maintained lawn areas and vehicles in roads. Box turtles are expected to be found on and to utilize the successional old field and
successional shrubland habitats on site. However, the proposed action is not likely to pose a significant impact to this species due to the regional abundance of suitable habitat. Furthermore, the abundance of box turtles on the subject property is likely limited by 1) the recent development of the on-site suitable habitat (since
abandonment of agricultural uses in the early 2000s), 2) the presence of many adjacent and nearby properties that are not high-quality habitat for box turtles due risk of mortality from mowing and mortality on adjacent roads, and 3) the difficulty for colonization of new habitats by box turtles due to their modest dispersal capabilities and long duration to sexual maturity (5-10 years) (Gibbs et al, 2007)
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) Northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) are typically associated with mature interior forest (Carroll et al, 2002) and tend to avoid woodlands with significant edge habitat (Yates and Muzika, 2006). Successional old fields and successional shrublands are not listed among the more than thirty habitat types (nearly all forest and woodland communities) identified as being utilized by northern long-eared bat by the New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP, 2021k). During the growing season, northern long-eared bat during the day in tree cavities, underneath bark, and in crevices or hollows of both live and dead trees and/or snags typically ≥3 inches in diameter (USFWS, 2014). The absence of forest or woodland habitat and low abundance of trees greater than >3 inches in diameter indicates that the site does not provide suitable summer foraging habitat or
roosting sites for northern long-eared bat and that the proposed project will not have any adverse impact to this species.
Literature Cited Carroll SK, TC Carter, and GA Feldhamer. 2002. Placement of nets for bats: effects on perceived fauna. Southeastern Naturalist 1:193-198.
Gibbs JP, AR Breisch, PK Ducey, G Johnson, JL Behler, and RC Bothner. 2007. The amphibians and reptiles of New York state. Oxford University Press, New York. 422 pp. New York State Department of State. 2002. Long Beach Bay Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Form. New York State Department of State. Albany, New York 7 pgs. www.dos.ny.gov/opd/programs/consistency/Habitats/LongIsland/Long_Beach_Bay.pdf New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2013. Woodland Box Turtle- Species Status Assessment. 14 pgs.https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/sgcnwoodlandboxturtl.pdf New York Natural Heritage Program. 2021a. Online Conservation Guide for Agrimonia rostellata. Available from: https://guides.nynhp.org/woodland-agrimony/. Accessed March 4, 2021. New York Natural Heritage Program. 2021b. Online Conservation Guide for Fimbristylis castanea. Available from: https://guides.nynhp.org/marsh-fimbry/. Accessed March 4, 2021. New York Natural Heritage Program. 2021c. Online Conservation Guide for Sagina decumbens ssp. decumbens. Available from: https://guides.nynhp.org/trailing-pearlwort/. Accessed March 4, 2021. New York Natural Heritage Program. 2021d. Online Conservation Guide for Carex hormathodes. Available
from: https://guides.nynhp.org/marsh-straw-sedge/. Accessed March 5, 2021. New York Natural Heritage Program. 2021e. Online Conservation Guide for Sabatia stellaris. Available from: https://guides.nynhp.org/sea-pink/. Accessed March 5, 2021. New York Natural Heritage Program. 2021f. Online Conservation Guide for Cicindela patruela patruela. Available from: https://guides.nynhp.org/northern-barrens-tiger-beetle/. Accessed March 5, 2021. New York Natural Heritage Program. 2021g. Online Conservation Guide for Juncus biflorus. Available from:
https://guides.nynhp.org/large-grass-leaved-rush/. Accessed March 5, 2021. New York Natural Heritage Program. 2021h. Online Conservation Guide for Ligusticum scoticum ssp. scoticum.
Lahti Engineering- The Orchards FEIS (Town of Southold)
2595 Orchard Street, Orient (SCTM#: 1000-27-1-3)
4/4
570 Expressway Drive South, Suite 2F, Medford, NY 11763
Phone: (631)-727-2400 Fax: (631)-727-2605
Available from: https://guides.nynhp.org/scotch-lovage/. Accessed March 5, 2021. New York Natural Heritage Program. 2021i. Online Conservation Guide for Rumex fueginus. Available from: https://guides.nynhp.org/golden-dock/. Accessed March 5, 2021. New York Natural Heritage Program. 2021j. Online Conservation Guide for Juncus brachycarpus. Available
from: https://guides.nynhp.org/short-fruited-rush/. Accessed March 5, 2021. New York Natural Heritage Program. 2021k. Online Conservation Guide for Myotis septentrionalis. Available from: https://guides.nynhp.org/northern-long-eared-bat/. Accessed March 5,
2021. US Fish and Wildlife Services. 2014. Northern long-eared bat Interim Conference and Planning Guidance (USFWS Regions 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6)
https://www.fws.gov/northeast/virginiafield/pdf/NLEBinterimGuidance6Jan2014.pdf Yates M and R Muzika. 2006. Effect of forest structure and fragmentation on site occupancy of bat species in Missouri Ozark forests. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:1238-1248.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDIX V
Guadagno Subdivision Map Approved March 7, 2012
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDIX W
Orient HALO Map
oo
m
f 0 iJn03c
LJ 0 0 0na0003CD4JCD3aQgn
l Jo3CD0Colcc
000IIIno
g l III s0CoIIIaCoo
Q i0Cl
z
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDIX X
NYS OPRHP CRIS Search Results
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDIX Y
Town Register of Historic Landmarks
TOWN REGISTER OF HISTORIC LANDMARKS
UPDATED: 10/18/2017
HISTORIC NAMEDATE BUILTSTREET ADDRESSHAMLET
Moore Lizewski House/Barn180029205 Main Rd.Cutchogue
Hamid House181030325 Main RoadCutchogue
The Old Place1680525 New Suffolk Rd.Cutchogue
Honeymoon Cottage175028230 Main Rd.Cutchogue
Cutchogue Diner 27850 Route 25Cutchogue
Richard Hallock Housepre-18384595 Skunk LaneCutchogue
Benjamin M. Young HouseBefore 186025425 Route 25Cutchogue
W. Wickham Old Early Settlement Farmhouse164927320 Main RoadCutchogue
Wickham Farmhouse (Village Green)170027320 Main RoadCutchogue
Ind. Congregational Church C-NS Library186227550 Main Rd.Cutchogue
Tuthill Wickham House17981555 New Suffolk RdCutchogue
Einstein House19201255 West Cove RoadCutchogue
Hurricane Hall17005195 Skunk LaneCutchogue
Asip House8255 Bridge LaneCutchogue
Early Colonists House181537130 Main Rd.Cutchogue
Buckingham Case Richmond184536960 Main Rd. Cutchogue
Deacon William Tuthill House9000 Route 25East Marion
Race Rock Lighthouse1878off SW end FI - The RaceFishers IslandYoungs Guerlain Coyle House1688675 Champlin PlaceGreenport
Frank J. Macintosh ResidenceLate 17th Cen2345 Main RoadGreenport
Raff Cleaves Keuster House1699540 Franklinville Rd.Laurel
Ellsworth Tuthill Property Judge Tuthill House5170 Wicham AvenueMattituck
Cox/Forman House182950 Breakwater RoadMattituck
Cox/Forman Carriage House340 Breakwater RoadMattituck
Reeve Pim Housemid-1800s1705 New Suffolk Ave.Mattituck
Wells Lyons House 1766 House176613250 Main RoadMattituck
Stewart-Roache House185815505 Route 25Mattituck
Ira Tuthill House184118200 Route 25Mattituck
Jesse Tuthill House179918200 Route 25Mattituck
New Egypt School184618200 Route 25Mattituck
Reeve-Wickham House17662600 New Suffolk Ave.Mattituck
Octagon Building50 Love LaneMattituck
The Golder House1920s?1305 New Suffolk AvenueMattutuck
Old Harbor Housemid-1700s220 Old Harbor RoadNew Suffolk
Methodist Mission New Suffolk Schoolpre-1858405 King StreetNew Suffolk
Poquatuck Hall1160 Village LaneOreint
Nathan B. Seidman Residencepost-187229215 Main RoadOrient
Terry Mulford House163930675 Main RoadOrient
22045 Route 25Orient
179022135 Route 25Orient
22260 Rt 25 Orient
21920 Rt 25 Orient
21920 Rt 25 Orient
450 Racketts CourtOrient
265 Racketts CourtOrient
22040 Route 25Orient
Petty Homestead171622495 Main RoadOrient
Edward Brown House22415 Route 25Orient
Rackett House22325 Route 25Orient
Edwards House/Buttonwood Inn22715 Route 25Orient
Orient Congregational Parsonage23045 Route 25Orient
Orient Congregational Church171823045 Main RoadOrient
Orlando Starr King HouseAfter 187324145 Main RoadOrient
22350 Rt 25 Orient
22950 Rt 25 Orient
23100 Rt 25 Orient
200 Tabor Rd.Orient
165 Oysterponds La Orient
22420 Rt 25 Orient
Captain Hubbard/Edwards House22540 Route 25Orient
Captain Marcus Brown HouseEarly 19th Cent130 Village LaneOrient
Hale HouseEarly 1800s200 Village LaneOrient
Tabor House (2)195 Village LaneOrient
Tabor House55 Village LaneOrient
22842 Rt 25 Orient
Terrywold163936505 Main Road Orient
310 Oysterponds La Orient
Joseph L. Glover House 1875640 Skippers LaneOrient
20 Harbor River Rd Orient
390 Oysterponds La Orient
460 Oysterponds La Orient
510 Oysterponds La Orient
580 Oysterponds La Orient
680 Oysterponds La Orient
790 Oysterponds LaneOrient
Gibb Terry House1000 Oysterponds LaneOrient
530 Skippers LaneOrient
675 Skippers LaneOrient
650 Bay LaneOrient
600 Bay LaneOrient
460 Bay LaneOrient
1440 Village La Orient
1490 Village LaneOrient
Captain Fredrick King HouseBefore 18241570 Village LaneOrient
W.L. Beebe House - On 1858 Chace MapBefore 17561620 Village LaneOrient
King Terry Brodrick HouseBefore 18581700 Village LaneOrient
1890s1740 Village LaneOrient
1780 Village LaneOrient
Occupied by Capt. David EdwardsLate 19th Cent.505 SkippersOrient
300 Bay Ln Orient
220 Bay LaneOrient
The Franklin HouseBefore 18731800 Village LaneOrient
Shaw House17301970 Village LaneOrient
225 Bay LaneOrient
225 Bay LaneOrient
2072 Village LaneOrient
Orient Wharf2110 Village LaneOrient
James Henry Young House1850435 Skippers LaneOrient
Francis R. Young House1889355 Skippers LaneOrient
H. Alexander Holmes House1876225 Skippers LaneOrient
1420 Village LaneOrient
295 Harbor River RoadOrient
680 Bay LaneOrient
Captain Daniels House290 Skippers LaneOrient
Lukeman HouseBefore 1858500 Village LaneOrient
Dorman House560 Village LaneOrient
640 Village LaneOrient
C.B. Havens Place690 Village LaneOrient
Young HouseBefore 1858750 Village LaneOrient
King Horne HouseEarly 19th Cent800 Village LaneOrient
Norklun's Office880 Village LaneOrient
Orient Country StoreAfter 1850950 Village LaneOrient
1000 Village La Orient
Wasilewski House & Barber Shop1100 Village LaneOrient
795 Oysterponds La Orient
160 Skippers LaneOrient
Captain WR Beebe220 Skippers LaneOrient
Captain Rackett House145 Skippers LaneOrient
Stanton House Old Post Office1210 Village LaneOrient
1240 Village LaneOrient
1270 Village La Orient
Latham House18th Cent?1380 Village LaneOrient
1270 Village LaneOrient
655 Oysterponds La Orient
585 Oysterponds La Orient
475 Oysterponds La Orient
1873?385 Oysterponds La.Orient
Francis R. Young HouseBefore 1850330 Village LaneOrient
Rackett-Webb HouseBefore 1850420 Village LaneOrient
Samuel Watson Youngs Grand HouseBefore 1858265 Orchard StreetOrient
Orient Methodist Church ParsonageBefore 1858585 Orchard StreetOrient
Benjamin M. Young House675 Orchard StreetOrient
845 Orchard StreetOrient
Carlsson HouseLate 1800s925 Orchard StreetOrient
Reverend G. Hollis Woglum HouseLate 1800s525 Orchard StreetOrient
Marvin Holmes House965 Village LaneOrient
Richard Barra House475 Orchard StreetOrient
765 Orchard StreetOrient
300 Tabor Rd Orient
800 Tabor Rd Orient
950 Tabor Rd Orient
1045 Orchard StreetOrient
605 Village La Orient
Orient Methodist Church18381325 Village LaneOrient
Tuthill Dwarf House Tuthill Reevesafter 1868455 Village LaneOrient
Rockwell House295 Village LaneOrient
Rockwell Soito House335 Village LaneOrient
825 Village LaneOrient
Tuthill Dwarf House (2) Tuthill Norklunbefore 1861555 Village LaneOrient
715 Village LaneOrient
Holmes Son House905 Village LaneOrient
Rackett Grand Horton House1095 Village LaneOrient
Tuthill Blauvelt House1405 Village LaneOrient
1405 Village La Orient
Gillette House2005 Village LaneOrient
Bay House1995 Village LaneOrient
Cicero Breeze King Cohen House1855 Village LaneOrient
Vail House1880s (1889?)150 Vincent StreetOrient
Conroy Joseph Glover Capt. Alan Brooks1885230 Vincent StreetOrient
Little Red Barn1555 Village LaneOrient
Old Orient Point Schoolhouse1555 Village LaneOrient
Amanda Brown Schoolhouse1555 Village LaneOrient
Booth/Orange Webb House17901555 Village LaneOrient
Village House17901555 Village LaneOrient
Andrade House975 Navy StreetOrient
875 Navy St Orient
805 Navy St Orient
Capt. George Vail House18621495 Village LaneOrient
695 Navy St Orient
170 Orchard StreetOrient
Hazel House260 Orchard StreetOrient
1125 Navy St Orient
1075 Navy St Orient
Gideon Young Ledd House17011725 Village LaneOrient
Young Kanz House1815 Village LaneOrient
830 Navy St Orient
Horace Tabor House1110 Orchard StreetOrient
1380 Orchard StreetOrient
1060 Orchard StreetOrient
700 Orchard StreetOrient
Orchard St Orient
Orchard St Orient
1000 Orchard StreetOrient
850 Orchard StreetOrient
940 Navy St Orient
1060 Navy St Orient
1180 Navy St Orient
Sorenson House370 Orchard StreetOrient
430 Orchard StreetOrient
James Young House530 Orchard StreetOrient
Christopher Brown Young House650 Orchard StreetOrient
Bayside Cottage2190 Village LaneOrient
375 Navy St Orient
Havens Richard House1888255 Navy StreetOrient
2395 Village LaneOrient
95 Navy St Orient
Before 18892355 Village LaneOrient
Nolan House2300 Village LaneOrient
2360 Village LaneOrient
King-Hoffman House2440 Village LaneOrient
2530 Village LaneOrient
2660 Village LaneOrient
Sandbox Cottage2220 Village LaneOrient
Douglass House2760 Village LaneOrient
Jeremiah Vail House2595 Village LaneOrient
King House2655 Village LaneOrient
Rose House145 King StreetOrient
225 King StreetOrient
James Douglass HouseBefore 1858355 King StreetOrient
Bischoff/Winsch House425 King StreetOrient
525 King StreetOrient
75 Willow StreetOrient
King-McCauley House595 King StreetOrient
745 King StreetOrient
Orchard St Orient
Grosbauer HouseBefore 1873205 Willow StreetOrient
Latham HouseBefore 188970 Vincent StreetOrient
L Beebe Gessel House20 Vincent StreetOrient
20 Vincent St Orient
595 Navy St Orient
680 Navy St Orient
510 Navy St Orient
Dyer Gazarian House120 King StreetOrient
William Steeple Davis House1860s230 King StreetOrient
King House350 King StreetOrient
400 King StreetOrient
152 King StreetOrient
Glover House154 King StreetOrient
560 King StreetOrient
660 King StreetOrient
700 King StreetOrient
850 King StreetOrient
422 King StreetOrient
1050 King St Orient
The Buttonwood Tree Orient
Isaac Overton House17913305 Peconic LanePeconic
The Old Castle - Bauer House172439515 Main RoadPeconic
Theodore James House1415 Indian Neck LanePeconic
Horton Point Lighthouse18573575 Lighthouse RoadSouthold
Cosden Estate1750 Mt. Beulah Ave.Southold
Jeremiah Vail Booth House1653-165659405 Route 25Southold
Wickham Prince House1100 Youngs AvenueSouthold
Burns House53245 Route 25Southold
Academy Printing Shop360 Horton LaneSouthold
Traveler Street Lot120 Traveler StreetSouthold
Whitaker-Thompson House52875 Route 25Southold
Roes Tuthill House53155 Route 25Southold
Bender House53315 Route 25Southold
Southold Town Hall53095 Route 25Southold
Krukowski House54255 Main RoadSouthold
Carpenter House52650 Route 25Southold
Fischetti House235 Oaklawn AvenueSouthold
Terry House285 OaklawnSouthold
First Presbyterian Church181153150 Main RoadSouthold
Old Burying Ground53150 Route 25Southold
Israel Peck BarnWells RoadSouthold
The Prince Building187454255 Route 25Southold
L'Hommedieu Barn (from Witiker Property)55200 Main RoadSouthold
Thomas Moore Housepre-165855200 Main RoadSouthold
Cleaveland Glover Gagen Blacksmith Shop184555200 Main RoadSouthold
Down's Carriage Farm184555200 Main RoadSouthold
Pine Neck Barn180055200 Main RoadSouthold
Bayview School Housepre-185855200 Main RoadSouthold
Hallock Currie Bell House189855200 Route 25Southold
Terry/Price House,179557020 Main Road Southold
St. Patrick's Church52125 Route 25Southold
Josiah Vail House52355 Route 25Southold
Goldsmith-Hunting House52535 Route 25Southold
Rennselaer Terry House52645 Route 25Southold
Murphy-Huntting225 Horton LaneSouthold
Henrietta Payne House325 Horton LaneSouthold
Raso House425 Horton LaneSouthold
Andruski House475 Horton LaneSouthold
John Budd House600 Tuckers LaneSouthold
Olstead House515 Horton LaneSouthold
Stepnowski House500 Tuckers LaneSouthold
Mengeweil House500 Tukers Lane Southold
Tomashevski House370 Tuckers LaneSouthold
Marra House220 Tuckers LaneSouthold
Zukowski House30 Tuckers LaneSouthold
BH Booth House American Legion51655 Route 25 Southold
Civil War Monument at Budd Park51655 Route 25 Southold
mechanic50 Oaklawn AvenueSouthold
FC Williams House51535 Route 25Southold
Booth Houce c188051680 Route 25Southold
Koke House51750 Route 25Southold
First Universalist Church1835-183751970 Main RoadSouthold
First Universalist Church Parsonage1835-183751900 Main RoadSouthold
Cleveland-Charnews House & Barns52180 Route 25Southold
Cleveland Charnews House52180 Route 25Southold
WH Terry Methodist Parsonage52340 Route 25Southold
John Booth Much Moved House1657875 Oaklawn Ave.Southold
Vail-Scopaz House185856755 Main RoadSouthold
Daniel E. Terry Paul Diefenbacher House54800 Route 25Southold
Col. John Young's House Prince House1732450 Youngs AvenueSouthold
2nd Parsonage House1674 2500 Hobart RoadSouthold
Newbold House52475 Route 25Southold
Overton House680 Ackerly Pond LaneSouthold
Joseph Reeve House16771675 Lower RoadSouthold
Joseph Horton Conklin Prince House165351295 Main RoadSouthold
Moses Cleveland House50415 Route 25Southold
J. Halsey Tuthill House51435 Route 25Southold
Conklin Terry House51225 Route 25Southold
Horton King House51155 Route 25Southold
Franke House51005 Route 25Southold
Cleveland Gagan Ichabod50915 Route 25Southold
The Anasagasti Property360 Jasmine LaneSouthold
The Best Property265 Jasmine LaneSouthold
Bayles Tuthill Corey House1657-166750705 Route 25Southold
Richard Terry House50605 Route 25Southold
Burnett Williams House50495 Route 25Southold
Fell House51540 Route 25Southold
Craftsman Style House51470 Route 25Southold
Southold School420 Oaklawn AvenueSouthold
Nancy Tuthill House51100 Route 25Southold
Harrison De Friest House51400 Route 25Southold
Italiante House51320 Route 25Southold
Ambrose Terp House51250 Route 25Southold
Radich House51170 Route 25Southold
Weymouth House51020 Route 25Southold
Town Doctor's House1726310 Ackerly Pond LaneSouthold
Allen Tobey Carriage House19103295 Pine Neck RoadSouthold
Manley House1820 Lower RoadSouthold
John B Coleman House200 Harbor Lights DriveSouthold
Freeman's Farmhouse1663150 Bay Water Ave.Southold
Abijah Corey House17267635 Main Bayview Rd.Southold
Springsteel7760 Main Bayview RoadSouthold
Decon James Horton House171110585 Main Bayview Rd.Southold
Ben Franklin's Milestones175522 of 24 Originals
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDIX Z
Sea Level Rise Map 2050
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDIX AA
Property Data for Abutting/Adjacent Properties
PR
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
A
B
U
T
T
I
N
G
O
R
I
M
M
E
D
I
A
T
E
L
Y
A
D
J
A
C
E
N
T
T
O
S
U
B
J
E
C
T
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
PA
R
C
E
L
I
D
AD
D
R
E
S
S
SC
T
M
#
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
AC
R
E
A
G
E
BL
D
G
F
O
O
T
P
R
I
N
T
(S
F
)
1
2
6
0
5
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
S
T
2
7
‐
1
‐
4
0
.
4
8
1
9
5
9
2
2
1
3
0
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
S
T
2
5
‐
5
‐
4
1
.
4
2
1
3
0
8
3
2
0
0
O
L
D
F
A
R
M
R
D
2
5
‐
5
‐
5
1
.
3
7
2
4
3
5
4
2
0
5
O
L
D
F
A
R
M
R
D
2
5
‐
5
‐
6
1
.
3
9
1
4
9
0
5
2
6
1
0
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
S
T
2
7
‐
3
‐
2
.
0
0
4
0
.
5
0
8
8
8
6
2
6
2
0
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
S
T
2
7
‐
3
‐
2
.
0
0
3
0
.
9
6
1
6
0
1
7
2
9
7
0
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
S
T
2
7
‐
3
‐
2
.
0
0
2
1
.
1
4
1
1
4
4
8
3
1
8
0
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
S
T
2
7
‐
3
‐
3
.
0
0
1
1
.
3
0
1
5
4
4
9
3
5
8
5
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
S
T
2
7
‐
2
‐
2
.
0
1
0
5
.
0
0
1
9
0
4
10
4
0
5
H
A
L
Y
O
A
K
E
A
V
E
2
7
‐
1
‐
5
1
.
6
5
1
2
2
2
11
2
0
5
0
P
L
A
T
T
R
D
2
7
‐
1
‐
9
4
.
1
6
U
N
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
E
D
12
1
7
5
0
P
L
A
T
T
R
D
2
7
‐
1
‐
1
0
.
0
0
5
2
.
1
4
1
1
4
4
13
1
6
1
0
P
L
A
T
T
R
D
2
7
‐
1
‐
1
0
.
0
0
4
2
.
0
3
1
2
9
6
14
1
4
7
0
P
L
A
T
T
R
D
2
7
‐
1
‐
1
0
.
0
0
3
3
.
0
8
1
2
0
0
15
1
1
9
0
P
L
A
T
T
R
D
1
8
‐
5
‐
2
3
8
.
0
9
U
N
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
E
D
16
2
3
0
3
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
S
T
2
7
‐
1
‐
2
.
0
0
2
2
.
5
0
U
N
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
E
D
NO
T
E
:
"
B
L
D
G
F
O
O
T
P
R
I
N
T
"
R
E
F
E
R
S
T
O
T
H
E
S
Q
U
A
R
E
F
O
O
T
A
G
E
O
F
T
H
E
H
O
U
S
E
E
X
C
L
U
D
I
N
G
PO
R
C
H
E
S
,
D
E
C
K
S
A
N
D
G
A
R
A
G
E
A
S
D
E
T
E
R
M
I
N
E
D
F
R
O
M
T
O
W
N
O
F
S
O
U
T
H
O
L
D
P
RO
P
E
R
T
Y
R
E
C
O
R
D
CA
R
D
S
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDIX BB
SCDHS WWM Comments dated December 2021
For Individual Parcel Sanitary System Plans
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
STEVEN BELLONE
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES GREGSON H. PIGOTT, MD, MPH
Commissioner
WILLIAM LAHTI
207 HALLOCK ROAD, SUITE 212
STONY BROOK, NY 11790
December 10, 2021
Notice#: 3
THE ORCHARDS LOT 1
Record ID: R-21-1588
Tax Map: 1000027000100003000
Notice of Incomplete Application
WILLIAM LAHTI,
This office has reviewed your application for existing or proposed sewage
disposal and/or water supply systems, or your application for a subdivision for the
above referenced project. The following will be required prior to any further
processing of the application for approval to construct:
Subdivision not approved yet; contact subdivision engineer Steven
Churchill at 631-852-5700 for assistance.
Please note that a review of the additional information requested may result in the
need to modify the proposed sewage disposal and/or water supply systems or
proposed subdivision. Please do not hesitate to call (631) 852-5700 with any
questions.
Regards,
Anthony Lalonde
Public Health Sanitarian
CC:
STEVEN A MARTOCELLO
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY - OFFICE OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
360 Yaphank Avenue, Suite 2C, Yaphank, NY 11980
(631) 852-5700 | Fax (631) 852-5755 Page 1 of 1
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
STEVEN BELLONE
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES GREGSON H. PIGOTT, MD, MPH
Commissioner
WILLIAM LAHTI
207 HALLOCK ROAD, SUITE 212
STONY BROOK, NY 11790
December 14, 2021
Notice#: 3
THE ORCHARDS LOT 2
Record ID: R-21-1589
Tax Map: 1000027000100003000
Notice of Incomplete Application
WILLIAM LAHTI,
This office has reviewed your application for existing or proposed sewage
disposal and/or water supply systems, or your application for a subdivision for the
above referenced project. The following will be required prior to any further
processing of the application for approval to construct:
Subdivision not approved yet; contact subdivision engineer Steven
Churchill at 631-852-5700 for assistance.
Please note that a review of the additional information requested may result in the
need to modify the proposed sewage disposal and/or water supply systems or
proposed subdivision. Please do not hesitate to call (631) 852-5700 with any
questions.
Regards,
Anthony Lalonde
Public Health Sanitarian
CC:
STEVEN A MARTOCELLO
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY - OFFICE OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
360 Yaphank Avenue, Suite 2C, Yaphank, NY 11980
(631) 852-5700 | Fax (631) 852-5755 Page 1 of 1
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
STEVEN BELLONE
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES GREGSON H. PIGOTT, MD, MPH
Commissioner
WILLIAM LAHTI
207 HALLOCK ROAD, SUITE 212
STONY BROOK, NY 11790
December 10, 2021
Notice#: 3
THE ORCHARDS LOT 3
Record ID: R-21-1590
Tax Map: 1000027000100003000
Notice of Incomplete Application
WILLIAM LAHTI,
This office has reviewed your application for existing or proposed sewage
disposal and/or water supply systems, or your application for a subdivision for the
above referenced project. The following will be required prior to any further
processing of the application for approval to construct:
Subdivision not approved yet; contact subdivision engineer Steven
Churchill at 631-852-5700 for assistance.
Please note that a review of the additional information requested may result in the
need to modify the proposed sewage disposal and/or water supply systems or
proposed subdivision. Please do not hesitate to call (631) 852-5700 with any
questions.
Regards,
Anthony Lalonde
Public Health Sanitarian
CC:
STEVEN A MARTOCELLO
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY - OFFICE OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
360 Yaphank Avenue, Suite 2C, Yaphank, NY 11980
(631) 852-5700 | Fax (631) 852-5755 Page 1 of 1
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
STEVEN BELLONE
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES GREGSON H. PIGOTT, MD, MPH
Commissioner
WILLIAM LAHTI
207 HALLOCK ROAD, SUITE 212
STONY BROOK, NY 11790
December 10, 2021
Notice#: 3
THE ORCHARDS LOT 4
Record ID: R-21-1591
Tax Map: 1000027000100003000
Notice of Incomplete Application
WILLIAM LAHTI,
This office has reviewed your application for existing or proposed sewage
disposal and/or water supply systems, or your application for a subdivision for the
above referenced project. The following will be required prior to any further
processing of the application for approval to construct:
Subdivision not approved yet; contact subdivision engineer Steven
Churchill at 631-852-5700 for assistance.
Please note that a review of the additional information requested may result in the
need to modify the proposed sewage disposal and/or water supply systems or
proposed subdivision. Please do not hesitate to call (631) 852-5700 with any
questions.
Regards,
Anthony Lalonde
Public Health Sanitarian
CC:
STEVEN A MARTOCELLO
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY - OFFICE OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
360 Yaphank Avenue, Suite 2C, Yaphank, NY 11980
(631) 852-5700 | Fax (631) 852-5755 Page 1 of 1
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
STEVEN BELLONE
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES GREGSON H. PIGOTT, MD, MPH
Commissioner
WILLIAM LAHTI
207 HALLOCK ROAD, SUITE 212
STONY BROOK, NY 11790
December 10, 2021
Notice#: 3
THE ORCHARDS LOT 5
Record ID: R-21-1592
Tax Map: 1000027000100003000
Notice of Incomplete Application
WILLIAM LAHTI,
This office has reviewed your application for existing or proposed sewage
disposal and/or water supply systems, or your application for a subdivision for the
above referenced project. The following will be required prior to any further
processing of the application for approval to construct:
Subdivision not approved yet; contact subdivision engineer Steven
Churchill at 631-852-5700 for assistance.
Please note that a review of the additional information requested may result in the
need to modify the proposed sewage disposal and/or water supply systems or
proposed subdivision. Please do not hesitate to call (631) 852-5700 with any
questions.
Regards,
Anthony Lalonde
Public Health Sanitarian
CC:
STEVEN A MARTOCELLO
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY - OFFICE OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
360 Yaphank Avenue, Suite 2C, Yaphank, NY 11980
(631) 852-5700 | Fax (631) 852-5755 Page 1 of 1
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDIX CC
Drought Weather Patterns
Appendix CC
The following Town comment relates to the proposed crop irrigation well: “What are the drought
weather patterns for this location?”
Definition of Drought
In order to answer the question posed, we must first establish which type of drought is to be
analyzed. The two types of “drought” most applicable to the question as it applies to the subject
site are:
• “Meteorological” which is defined as “A period of abnormally dry weather sufficiently prolonged for the lack of water to cause serious hydrologic imbalance in the affected area.”1
• “Hydrological” which is defined as “A period of below average water content in streams,
reservoirs, ground-water aquifers, lakes and soils.”2
The question, as stated, refers to “weather patterns”. Precipitation, i.e. the “weather”, is not the
full measure of drought patterns. A more meaningful parameter related to the availability of
water is preferable. New York State uses the Palmer Drought Index which is a measure of the
soil moisture as calculated by the National Weather Service. The Palmer Index, with its emphasis
on soil moisture, is more suitable for assessing agricultural impacts3, and is more relevant given
the question relates to the availability of groundwater for agricultural irrigation use.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climate Data Center
(NCDC) compiles climate data. The data for Long Island was used by the NOAA to compute the
PHDI (Palmer Hydrological Drought Index) for the period 1900 – 2000 (see chart following)4.
1 https://www.usgs.gov/centers/ny-water/science/new-york-drought-information?qt-
science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_center_objects
2 https://www.usgs.gov/centers/ny-water/science/new-york-drought-information?qt-
science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_center_objects
3 https://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/5011.html
4 https://www.usgs.gov/centers/ny-water/science/new-york-drought-information?qt-
science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_center_object
Negative vales of the PDHI (i.e. the “yellow” bars in the chart) indicate periods of hydrologic
drought. Positive values of the PDHI (i.e. the “green” bars in the chart) indicate periods of non-
drought.
As indicated by the 100 year period analyzed by the NOAA NCDC, the following general
observations can be made:
• Periods of drought are cyclical in nature
• The overall PHDI for the 100 year time frame indicates the total PHDI for non-drought
periods exceeded the total PHDI of drought periods.
• Based on the total net positive PHDI, non-drought conditions exist.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDIX DD
Irrigation Well Zone of Influence Analysis
Appendix DD
Response 3.2.15-
The purpose of this analysis is to approximate the zone of influence of the proposed irrigation well.
Project Specific Data for Analysis:
The following data extracted from the DEIS and FEIS shall be used for the analysis:
a. Elevation of groundwater (top of aquifer): 2 ft [NAVD 88]
b. Proposed depth of irrigation well: 45 ft [DEIS App. O]
c. Proposed diameter of irrigation well casing: 6 inches [DEIS App. O]
d. NAVD 88 elev. of site at irrigation well location: 15 ft [DEIS App. G]
e. Elevation of irrigation pump: - 30 ft [NAVD 88]
-29 ft [NGVD 29]
-28.6 ft [MSL]
f. Height of water within well casing: 32 ft
g. Maximum flow rate of irrigation pump: 175 gpm [DEIS App. O]
h. Elev. of upper surface of aquifer confining unit1: -70 ft [NGVD 29]
-71 ft [NAVD 88]
i. Conversion from Mean Sea Level (MSL) datum to NGVD 29 datum: Local Mean Sea Level
on the Northfork of Long Island is approximately 0.3 feet to 0.5 feet higher than NGVD 29 datum2. For this analysis, to convert MSL to NGVD 29 datum, subtract 0.4 ft.
j. K (hydraulic conductivity of site soil)3: 200 ft/day
0.000706 meters/sec
k. n (porosity of soil comprising aquifer): Fine sand 26%-53%
Course sand 31%-46%
1 Plate 3B in “Hydrologic Framework of the North Fork and Surrounding Areas, Long Island, New York”, U.S.G.S. 2004
2 Page 18 “Hydrologic Framework of the North Fork and Surrounding Areas, Long Island, New York”, U.S.G.S. 2004
3 Page 17 “Hydrologic Framework of the North Fork and Surrounding Areas, Long Island, New York”, U.S.G.S. 2004
Page 2 Appendix DD
Calculation of Pump Radius of Influence:
For an unconfined aquifer, the radius of influence for the proposed irrigation well can be estimated by the following4:
R = (1.9 k h t /n) 0.5 where
R = Radius of influence, in meters
k = Hydraulic conductivity, in meters/sec
h = Height of the water table above substratum, in meters
t = time, in seconds
n = effective porosity
It is important to note the area of influence for the irrigation well is independent of the
flow rate of the pump. It is strictly a function of the hydraulic conductivity of the
surrounding soil, and total head of the aquifer being drawn from.
Calculate height of water table above substratum:
h = 2 ft – (-71 ft) = 73 feet (22.25 meters)
Calculate t:
The radius of influence is created only when the irrigation pump is actively pumping water. The duration of time the irrigation pump runs is a function of the amount of water that needs to be delivered to the crops each time the pump is energized. The maximum
amount of irrigation water required per day occurs during the R1 through R3 stage of the
corn plant development and is estimated to be 0.32 in/day5. The crop area to be irrigated is 7.5 acres. The amount of time the irrigation well pump must run to provide the required water is:
0.32 in/day x (1 ft/12 in) x 7.5 acres x (43,560 SF/acre) = 8,712 CF/day
8,721 CF/ day x (7.48 gal/CF) = 65,166 gals per day
65,166 gals/day / 175 gals/.min = 372 mins/day pump run time
372 mins/day x (60 seconds/minute) = 22,320 seconds/day
4 Aravin and Numerov 1953 5Nebguide G1850 at https://extensionpublication.unl.edu/assets/html/g1850/build/g1850.htm
Page 3 Appendix DD
Determine n:
The effective porosity is a function of many factors including soil type and compaction. The soil at the subject site is Haven Loam6. Haven Loam at the depth of the aquifer is characterized by stratified gravelly sand. This soil profile was confirmed by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services during inspection of test holes dug September 19,
2013. Based on the type of soil present, a porosity value of 0.40 shall be used for the analysis. This value represents a blend of the porosity values for fine and course sand.
Radius of Influence can now be calculated:
R = (1.9 k h t /n) 0.5
R = [(1.9) (0.000706 meters/sec) (22.25 meters) (22,320 seconds)] 0.5
R = 25.8 meters = 85 feet
6 DEIS Appendix I
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDIX EE
Old Farm Road View Shed
9-19-2019 Legend
600 ft
N
➤➤
N
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDIX FF
Groundwater Depletion Analysis
Appendix FF
Response 3.2.24-
The purpose of this analysis is to evaluated potential groundwater depletion by the proposed action.
Project Specific Data for Analysis:
a. Annual Precipitation: 48.84 inches1 (4.07 ft)
b. Evapotranspiration Rate: 22.4 inches2 (1.87 ft)
c. Total Property Area: 579,480 SF [DEIS pg. 1-2]
d. SF of impervious land & bldgs.: 48,748 SF [DEIS pg. 1-2]
e. SF of pervious land: 530,732 SF [DEIS pg. 1-2]
f. Recharge from impervious surfaces as a percentage of precipitation3: 80%
Calculate Recharge Rate:
Evapotranspiration rate applies to all pervious land area. Run-off from impervious surfaces is piped to underground leaching pools. Precipitation falling on impervious surfaces is subject to 20% evaporation before being channeled to underground leaching pools.
Recharge = Precipitation – Evapotranspiration
Recharge = [(4.07 ft) (579,480 sf)] – [(1.87 ft) (530,732 sf) + (20%) (4.07 ft) (48,748 sf)]
Recharge = 1,326,334 cubic feet per year x (7.48 gals per cubic foot) = 9,920,978 gals/yr
Water Usage4:
During a best case no crop irrigation water demand year: 1,640,655 gallons
During an average natural precipitation year: 3,679,121 gallons
During a worst case crop irrigation water demand year: 5,127,023 gallons
1 Suffolk County Subwatersheds Wastewater Plan July 2020; page 1-85 2 Ground-Water-Recharge Rates in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York, U.S. Geological Survey Water-
Resources Investigation Report 86-4181, 1987 3 Runoff coefficient for Rational Formula from table 3-1 of “Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 22, Third Edition”,
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Publication FHWA-NHI-10-009 4 FEIS Response 3.2.8
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDIX GG
Subdivision map dated November 3, 2021
SOUTHOLD
T
O
W
N
P
R
O
T
E
C
T
E
D
L
A
N
D
Land
N
o
w
o
r
F
o
r
m
e
r
l
y
o
f
:
ROB
E
R
T
R
.
B
E
R
K
S
ANIT
A
T
R
E
H
A
N
Land
n
o
w
o
r
f
o
r
m
e
r
l
y
o
f
:
NA
N
C
Y
M
.
Z
O
L
N
E
R
F
E
R
R
A
R
I
S
Lan
d
n
o
w
o
r
f
o
r
m
e
r
l
y
o
f
:
MA
R
K
F
.
F
E
R
R
A
R
I
S
TH
E
O
D
O
R
E
M
A
Y
E
R
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
La
n
d
n
o
w
o
r
f
o
r
m
e
r
l
y
o
f
:
MA
R
G
E
R
Y
M
A
Y
E
R
ALI
S
O
N
B
R
A
U
N
S
T
E
I
N
Lan
d
n
o
w
o
r
f
o
r
m
e
r
l
y
o
f
:
CH
A
R
L
E
S
B
R
A
U
N
S
T
E
I
N
CH
A
R
L
E
S
S
Q
U
I
R
E
Lan
d
n
o
w
o
r
f
o
r
m
e
r
l
y
o
f
:
GA
I
L
B
A
R
L
O
W
STE
V
E
N
K
E
E
L
I
N
G
Lan
d
n
o
w
o
r
f
o
r
m
e
r
l
y
o
f
:
Lan
d
n
o
w
o
r
f
o
r
m
e
r
l
y
o
f
:
SYL
V
I
A
S
.
N
E
W
M
A
N
JO
H
N
P
R
I
Z
E
M
A
N
DIA
N
E
P
R
I
Z
E
M
A
N
Lan
d
n
o
w
o
r
f
o
r
m
e
r
l
y
o
f
:
PIE
R
R
E
D
E
N
E
U
F
V
I
L
L
E
JEA
N
N
E
D
E
N
E
U
F
V
I
L
L
E
Lan
d
n
o
w
o
r
f
o
r
m
e
r
l
y
o
f
:
Lan
d
n
o
w
o
r
f
o
r
m
e
r
l
y
o
f
:
JE
F
F
R
E
Y
A
.
W
E
I
S
S
BE
V
E
R
L
Y
A
.
B
R
E
D
E
M
E
Y
E
R
Lan
d
n
o
w
o
r
f
o
r
m
e
r
l
y
o
f
:
JO
H
N
M
.
B
R
E
D
E
M
E
Y
E
R
JO
H
N
M
c
K
A
S
T
Y
Lan
d
n
o
w
o
r
f
o
r
m
e
r
l
y
o
f
:
JA
Y
M
c
K
A
S
T
Y
MADELYN EHRLICH Land now or formerly of:ROBERT EHRLICHROBERT J. EHRLICH Land now or formerly of:Land
n
o
w
o
r
f
o
r
m
e
r
l
y
o
f
:
H.
S
I
D
N
E
Y
H
O
L
M
E
S
H.
S
I
D
N
E
Y
H
O
L
M
E
S
Lan
d
n
o
w
o
r
f
o
r
m
e
r
l
y
o
f
:
KELLY SMITH CRAIG SMITH Land Now or Formerly of:
PA
T
R
I
C
K
G
A
U
D
A
G
N
O
La
n
d
N
o
w
o
r
F
o
r
m
e
r
l
y
o
f
:
Dwel
l
i
n
g
Vac
a
n
t
VacantDwellingDwellingVacantDwellingDwelling
Va
c
a
n
t
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
Vac
a
n
t
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
Dwe
l
l
i
n
g
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
DO
M
I
N
I
C
K
D
I
L
O
R
E
N
Z
O
&
L
A
U
R
A
D
I
L
O
R
E
N
Z
O
La
n
d
N
o
w
o
r
F
o
r
m
e
r
l
y
o
f
:
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
Vac
a
n
t
WILLIAM
T
E
R
R
Y
I
I
I
Land Now or
F
o
r
m
e
r
l
y
o
f
:
JULIE CA
R
T
N
E
R
ANNE S
W
I
C
K
GL
Y
N
I
S
B
E
R
R
Y
HI
D
E
A
K
I
A
R
I
I
Z
U
M
I
La
n
d
N
o
w
o
r
F
o
r
m
e
r
l
y
o
f
:
72
'
36'
1
8
9
'
2
7
2
'
135'
3
3
4
'
6
3
4
'
6
3
6
'
6
3
8
'
6
4
9
'
3
4
9
'
2
0
0
'
350'
4
6
2
'
424'
6
2
7
'
96'
37
5
'
5
6
1
'
55'
10
1
'
5
0
0
'
44
9
'
44
'
99
'
99
'
14
4
'
15
6
'
15
6
'
15
6
'
43
6
'
20
7
'
43
1
'
11
5
'
11
5
'
42
8
'
26
4
'
16
0
'
16
0
'
12
8
'
12
8
'
30
0
'
20
0
'
381'216'172'186'201'
20
0
'
346'324'
30
0
'
30
0
'
20
0
'
20
0
'
185'185'500' BUFFER
500
'
B
U
F
F
E
R
50
0
'
B
U
F
F
E
R
5
0
0
'
B
U
F
F
E
R
GRAPHIC SCALE 1"= 100'1000 - 27 - 1 - 3 SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX #SITUATE: ORIENTTOWN: SOUTHOLDSUFFOLK COUNTY, NYN.Y.S. LIC. NO. 50202 JOHN C. EHLERS LAND SURVEYOR6 EAST MAIN STREETRIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901 Lan
d
N
o
w
o
r
F
o
r
m
e
r
l
y
o
f
:
PA
T
R
I
C
K
G
A
U
D
A
G
N
O
Land
N
o
w
o
r
F
o
r
m
e
r
l
y
o
f
:
Keith
M
o
r
t
o
n
Land
N
o
w
o
r
F
o
r
m
e
r
l
y
o
f
:
Avigd
o
n
O
r
l
i
n
&
R
i
v
k
a
O
r
l
i
n
Land
N
o
w
o
r
Form
e
r
l
y
o
f
:
Beve
r
l
y
P
a
r
k
e
r
Land
N
o
w
o
r
Form
e
r
l
y
o
f
:
Jane
L
l
e
w
e
l
l
y
n
Land
N
o
w
o
r
F
o
r
m
e
r
l
y
o
f
:
Robe
r
t
B
e
r
k
s
S
t
u
d
i
o
s
I
n
c
.
Land
N
o
w
o
r
F
o
r
m
e
r
l
y
o
f
:
Doris
B
.
M
o
r
g
a
n
&
J
o
h
n
C
.
M
o
r
g
a
n
J
r
.
La
n
d
N
o
w
o
r
F
o
r
m
e
r
l
y
o
f
:
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
H
i
g
g
i
n
s
&
Fr
e
d
e
r
i
c
k
D
e
l
a
v
e
g
a
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
Orc
h
a
r
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
H
a
l
y
o
a
k
e
A
V
E
Vac
a
n
t
Vaca
n
t
Dwel
l
i
n
g
Vaca
n
t
Dwel
l
i
n
g
Dwel
l
i
n
g
Dwel
l
i
n
g
Lo
t
4
Ar
e
a
=
4
0
,
0
1
3
S
Q
F
T
or
0
.
9
1
8
6
A
C
R
E
S
Lot 2
Area
=
4
3
,
0
1
6
S
Q
F
T
or 0.
9
8
7
5
A
C
R
E
S
Lot 3
Area
=
4
9
,
7
5
0
S
Q
F
T
or 1
.
1
4
2
1
A
C
R
E
S
Lot
5
Area
=
4
0
,
0
0
0
S
Q
F
T
or 0
.
9
1
8
3
A
C
R
E
S
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
HO
U
S
E
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
Lot 1
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
A
r
e
a
Area
=
5
8
,
9
4
9
S
Q
F
T
or 1
.
3
5
3
3
A
C
R
E
S
Lot
1
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
Are
a
=
3
4
7
,
7
5
2
S
Q
F
T
or
7
.
9
8
3
3
A
C
R
E
S
Old
F
a
r
m
R
o
a
d
Loca
t
i
o
n
o
f
F
u
t
u
r
e
Agric
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
B
a
r
n
-
"As
p
a
r
t
o
f
L
o
t
1
255.00'320.72'
O
r
i
e
n
t
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
C
e
m
e
t
a
r
y
N41°04'00"E 106
8
.
0
9
'
344
.
3
1
'
Va
c
a
n
t
(c
e
m
e
t
e
r
y
)
175.35' 293.61'411.99'
3
3
2
.
5
1
'
37
8
.
6
6
'
64
2
.
0
0
'
Land now or formerly of:Margaret Smilow &Takami YaoLand now or formerly of:Concetta Maggiore &Salvatore MaggioreLand now or formerly of:James P. MellasLand n
o
w
o
r
f
o
r
m
e
r
l
y
o
f
:
Joh
n
M
c
L
i
n
s
k
e
y
&
Kathle
e
n
M
c
L
i
n
s
k
e
y
PR
O
P
.
FIR
E
W
E
L
L
SEP
T
I
C
WEL
L
SEP
T
I
C
SEP
T
I
C
S
E
P
T
I
C
W
e
l
l
a
n
d
S
e
p
t
i
c
1
5
0
+
WE
L
L
W
e
l
l
a
n
d
S
e
p
t
i
c
1
5
0
+
W
e
l
l
a
n
d
S
e
p
t
i
c
1
5
0
+
Well a
n
d
S
e
p
t
i
c
1
5
0
+
WEL
L
VA
C
A
N
T
SEP
T
I
C
BM
N
T
REVISED 12-05-2014, 01-21-2015SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2 FIRE DISTRICT NO. 25
EL.
1
6
EL.
1
0
EL. 1
1
EL. 1
3
_____________________________________
16
'SA
N
D
&
G
R
A
V
E
L
SA
N
D
&
G
R
A
V
E
L
SI
L
T
Y
S
A
N
D
SW SW SM ML
11
'
7'1'LO
A
M
TE
S
T
H
O
L
E
#
1
D
A
T
A
AL
B
R
E
C
H
T
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
I
O
N
11
-
1
7
-
2
0
1
5
_____________________________________SERVICES CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS IN EFFECT AS OF THIS DATE"PROPOSED, CONFORM TO THE SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH OF THE SOIL, SITE AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS , ALL LOTS, AS UNDER MY DIRECTION. BASED UPON A CAREFUL AND THOROUGH STUDY DISPOSAL SYSTEM(S) FOR THIS PROJECT WERE DESIGNED BY ME OR JOHN C. EHLERS N.Y.P.L.S. LIC # 50202 ALL DIMENSIONAL AND GEODETIC DETAILS ARE CORRECT. HEREON ACTUALLY EXIST AND THEIR POSITIONS CORRECTLY SHOWN AND "I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP WAS MADE BY US FROM ACTUAL SURVEYS"I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE WATER SUPPLY(S) AND/OR SEWAGEDATE:_______________________ BY:_____________________________________
NO
T
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
6"
M
I
N
.
6"
12
"
6"
2'
M
A
X
.
1'
M
I
N
.
MA
S
O
N
R
Y
C
H
I
M
N
E
Y
S
GR
A
D
E
FI
N
I
S
H
E
D
SL
A
B
FL
A
T
MIN
.
4
"
D
I
A
.
P
I
P
E
MI
N
I
M
U
M
P
I
T
C
H
1/8
"
P
E
R
F
O
O
T
MIN
.
4
"
D
I
A
.
P
I
P
E
MIN
I
M
U
M
P
I
T
C
H
1/4
"
P
E
R
F
O
O
T
2'
M
A
X
.
1'
M
I
N
.
CH
I
M
N
E
Y
MA
S
O
N
R
Y
CO
V
E
R
T
O
G
R
A
D
E
CA
S
T
I
R
O
N
F
R
A
M
E
A
N
D
AN
D
C
O
V
E
R
S
T
O
G
R
A
D
E
CA
S
T
I
R
O
N
F
R
A
M
E
S
BA
C
K
F
I
L
L
W
I
T
H
C
L
E
A
N
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
.
3'
H
O
R
I
Z
O
N
T
A
L
L
Y
A
N
D
6
'
V
E
R
T
I
C
A
L
L
Y
.
RE
M
O
V
E
I
M
P
E
R
V
I
O
U
S
S
O
I
L
W
I
T
H
I
N
12
5
0
G
A
L
L
O
N
M
O
N
O
L
I
T
H
I
C
S
E
P
T
I
C
T
A
N
K
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
SE
A
S
O
N
A
L
H
I
G
H
SE
A
S
O
N
A
L
H
I
G
H
G
R
O
U
D
W
A
T
E
R
3'
M
I
N
I
M
U
M
S
E
P
A
R
A
T
I
O
N
F
R
O
M
4"
M
I
N
.
SOILS
IMPERVIOUS
3'
18
"
20
"
SI
D
E
W
A
L
L
A
R
E
A
30
0
S
.
F
.
M
I
N
.
24
"
x
no
t
t
o
s
c
a
l
e
TY
P
I
C
A
L
P
L
O
T
P
L
A
N
we
l
l
E.
P
.
S.T
.
L.P
.
15
0
'
T
O
S
E
P
T
I
C
RO
A
D
HO
U
S
E
N
1"
=
6
0
0
'
KE
Y
M
A
P
TO
G
R
E
E
N
P
O
R
T
MAPPED 06-15- 2013APPLICANT:Steven A. Martocello24 Miller Woods DriveMiller Place, NY 11764
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
T
R
E
E
L
I
N
E
4
0
'
S
E
P
A
R
A
T
I
O
N
HO
L
E
#
1
TE
S
T
HO
L
E
#
2
TE
S
T
1
.
0
'
E
F
E
1
.
6
'
E
F
E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTYjesurvey@optonline.net OFFICE: 631-369-8288 05-215 NOTES:PROPERTY ZONE R-80ALL LOTS 20% MAX. LOT COVERAGEMONUMENT FOUNDPIPE FOUNDREBAR FOUND ELEVATIONS REFERENCE NAVD 88XXXWIRE FENCE 11-14-2015, 03-16-2018, 11-20-2018
WA
T
E
R
I
N
WA
T
E
R
I
N
TE
S
T
H
O
L
E
#
2
D
A
T
A
AL
B
R
E
C
H
T
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
I
O
N
11
-
1
7
-
2
0
1
5
LO
A
M
1'7'10
.
5
'
ML
SMSWSW
SI
L
T
Y
S
A
N
D
SA
N
D
&
G
R
A
V
E
L
SA
N
D
&
G
R
A
V
E
L
14
'
2'
CL
LO
A
M
&
S
A
N
D
WILLIAM J. LAHTI P.E.Area = 579,482 Sq. Ft.Area =13.3 Acres
IRR
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
WEL
L
"THE ORCHARDS" 5 LOTSGROUND WATER MANAGEMENT ZONE 4 05-08-2019, 05-29-2019, 06-18-2019
EX
I
S
T
.
WE
L
L
DEVELOPMENT IS FOR 5 LOTS
open
s
p
a
c
e
"
WE
L
L
PR
O
P
.
PR
O
P
.
WE
L
L
PR
O
P
.
WE
L
L
(M
A
X
.
4
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
H
O
M
E
)
GE
N
E
R
I
C
S
E
P
T
I
C
S
Y
S
T
E
M
D
E
T
A
I
L
SI
T
E
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
S
A
N
I
T
A
R
Y
S
Y
S
T
E
M
D
E
S
I
G
N
*
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
L
O
T
S
S
H
A
L
L
H
A
V
E
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
15
0
'
6S
F
D
SC
D
H
S
S
A
N
I
T
A
R
Y
L
E
G
E
N
D
4S
F
D
-
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
4
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
S
I
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
DW
E
L
L
I
N
G
6S
F
D
-
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
6
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
S
I
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
DW
E
L
L
I
N
G
ST
-
SE
P
T
I
C
T
A
N
K
LP
-
SA
N
I
T
A
R
Y
L
E
A
C
H
I
N
G
P
O
O
L
EL
P
-
EX
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
S
A
N
I
T
A
R
Y
L
.
P
.
DB
-
DI
S
T
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N
B
O
X
PG
E
-
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
G
R
A
D
E
E
L
E
V
.
A
T
S
E
P
T
I
C
S
Y
S
4S
F
D
15
0
'
15
0
'
15
0
'
4S
F
D
15
0
'
15
0
'
15
0
'
15
0
'
15
0
'
15
0
'
4S
F
D
4S
F
D
EX
I
S
T
.
WE
L
L
EX
I
S
T
.
WE
L
L
EX
I
S
T
15
0
'
07-08-2020 (BLDG ENVELOPES BY LAHTI ENG.)
PG
E
1
3
.
0
MIN
.
1
0
'
MIN
.
8
'
MIN
.
5
'
T
O
P
.
L
.
HI
G
H
E
S
T
E
X
P
E
C
T
E
D
G
R
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E
L
2
'
PROPOSED 5 LOT SUBDIVISION 02-04-2021 (SCWWM COMMENTS BY LAHTI ENG.)
GR
A
D
E
E
L
=
1
3
'
GR
A
D
E
E
L
=
1
2
'
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
Z
O
N
E
4
BE
T
W
E
E
N
AL
L
S
A
N
I
T
A
R
Y
ST
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
S
E.
P
.
L.
P
.
L.
P
.
DB
MIN. 5' TO P.L.
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
L
O
T
1
T
O
T
A
L
A
R
E
A
=
9
.
3
3
6
A
C
R
E
S
03-16-2021 (SCWWM COMMENTS BY LAHTI ENG.)05-6-2021 (SCWWM COMMENTS BY LAHTI ENG.)
17
5
0
G
A
L
L
O
N
M
O
N
O
L
I
T
H
I
C
S
E
P
T
I
C
T
A
N
K
(M
A
X
.
6
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
H
O
M
E
)
(M
A
X
.
4
B
E
D
R
M
S
)
SI
D
E
W
A
L
L
A
R
E
A
40
0
S
.
F
.
M
I
N
.
(M
A
X
.
6
B
E
D
R
M
S
)
ST
DW
06-7-2021 (LOT LINES/AREAS UPDATED BY LAHTI ENG.)
(3
)
E
L
P
(6
)
L
P
DW
ST
(3
)
E
L
P
(5
)
L
P
PG
E
1
2
.
0
ST
PG
E
1
3
.
0
(3
)
E
L
P
(5
)
L
P
ST
(3
)
E
L
P
(5
)
L
P
PG
E
1
1
.
6
ST
(3
)
E
L
P
(5
)
L
P
PG
E
1
1
.
6
PR
O
P
.
WE
L
L
PR
O
P
.
WE
L
L
11-3-2021 (SCWWM COMMENTS BY LAHTI ENG.)THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS SUBDIVISION PLAT HAS BEEN APPROVEDBY THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BY RESOLUTIONDATED, __________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDIX HH
Town zoning code sections 240-47 & 240-48
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDIX II
SCDHS WWM NOI dated December 20, 2021
PLEASE RETURN A COPY OF THIS FORM WITH ANY RESUBMISSION(S)
WWM - 025 (Rev. 8/05)
SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
OFFICE OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
360 YAPHANK AVENUE, SUITE 2C
YAPHANK, NEW YORK 11980 NOTICE 2 12
(631) 852-5700 GMZ 4
NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION – SUBDIVISION
TO:
John Ehlers
6 East Main Street
Riverhead, NY 11901
SUB NAME: The Orchards
REF. NO.: S10-13-0005 SCTM NO: 1000-27-1-3
Your submission for the referenced subdivision has been reviewed. This office will require the following for
further review and/or approval:
Application form signed by licensed design professional
Yield map, minimum square foot lots. Filing fee $ due.
Test well(s) sampled by Health Department. Follow procedures enclosed. (Test well does not indicate a waiver
of requirement for connection to public water)
Public water availability letter from water district (Include distance & cost if water main extension is required).
Town Zoning Approval
Covenants: Language previously sent for pvt. well construction, treatment, BOR
Board of Review variance. Well Treatment Method
SEQRA determination from Town. Certificate of Authorization, or disclaimer.
In addition, the following is required to be shown on a preliminary/final map or on a separate sewage
disposal/water supply plan signed and sealed by a licensed design professional:
Lot Areas* Suffolk County Tax Map Number*
Sewage disposal & water supply locations for all existing buildings on property (specify if none)
Neighboring wells and sewage disposal systems within 150 feet of property (specify if none)
Design for the onsite sewage disposal and water supply per Department standards
Corner elevations and test hole elevation Department approval stamp*
Test hole details* Typical lot layout: water & sewage disposal*
L.S. certification and certification of sewage disposal & water supply design by P.E., R.A., or L.S. with
exemption (original signatures & seals required)*.
[*] FINAL maps to be filed with County Clerk require items marked above with asterisk (*).
Other: (1) BOR variance granted 12/17/19. Covenants must be recorded in language acceptable to the County as per the
BOR conditions; see language previously sent. (2) Town SEQRA has declared the action as an Unlisted/Positive; County
Findings Statement pending. (3) Submit 4 physical maps signed/sealed by PE/LS and the design professional statement
signed/dated for approval.
CC: Steven A. Martocello
24 Miller Woods Drive
Miller Place, NY 11764
REVIEWED BY: Steven Churchill
DATE: December 20, 2021
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application February 2022
APPENDIX JJ
SCDHS individual lot sanitary system plans dated November 22, 2021
N
N.
T
.
S
.
KE
Y
M
A
P
TO
G
R
E
E
N
P
O
R
T
16
'SA
N
D
&
G
R
A
V
E
L
SA
N
D
&
G
R
A
V
E
L
SI
L
T
Y
S
A
N
D
SW SW SM ML
11
'
7'1'LO
A
M
TE
S
T
H
O
L
E
#
1
D
A
T
A
AL
B
R
E
C
H
T
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
I
O
N
11
-
1
7
-
2
0
1
5
WA
T
E
R
I
N
GR
A
D
E
E
L
=
1
3
'
3
3
4
'
6
3
4
'
6
3
6
'
6
3
8
'
4
6
2
'
6
2
7
'
37
5
'
44
9
'
15
6
'
15
6
'
43
6
'
43
1
'
11
5
'
42
8
'
16
0
'
16
0
'
12
8
'
30
0
'
20
0
'
324'
30
0
'
30
0
'
20
0
'
20
0
'
185'Orc
h
a
r
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
H
a
l
y
o
a
k
e
A
V
E
Old
F
a
r
m
R
d
320.72'
344.
3
1
'
37
8
.
6
6
'
64
2
.
0
0
'
SEP
T
I
C
W
e
l
l
a
n
d
S
e
p
t
i
c
1
5
0
+
W
e
l
l
a
n
d
S
e
p
t
i
c
1
5
0
+
Well a
n
d
S
e
p
t
i
c
1
5
0
+
HO
L
E
#
1
TE
S
T
1.
0
'
E
F
E
1
.
6
'
E
F
E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IRR
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
WEL
L
D
15
0
'
6S
F
D
EX
I
S
T
.
WE
L
L
PG
E
1
3
.
0
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
L
O
T
1
ST
(3
)
E
L
P
(6
)
L
P
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
WE
L
L
PR
O
P
.
W
W
D
D
UN
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
E
D
EL
.
1
6
'
EL
.
1
3
'
EL
.
1
2
'
EL
.
1
3
'
EL
.
1
3
'
EL
.
1
3
'
EL
.
1
2
'
EL
.
1
2
'
PR
O
P
.
1
5
'
W
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
PR
O
P
.
U
/
G
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
DW
Y
PR
O
P
.
W
A
T
E
R
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
SC
D
H
S
S
A
N
I
T
A
R
Y
L
E
G
E
N
D
4S
F
D
-
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
4
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
S
I
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
DW
E
L
L
I
N
G
6S
F
D
-
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
6
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
S
I
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
DW
E
L
L
I
N
G
ST
-
SE
P
T
I
C
T
A
N
K
LP
-
SA
N
I
T
A
R
Y
L
E
A
C
H
I
N
G
P
O
O
L
EL
P
-
EX
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
S
A
N
I
T
A
R
Y
L
.
P
.
DB
-
DI
S
T
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N
B
O
X
PG
E
-
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
G
R
A
D
E
E
L
E
V
.
A
T
S
E
P
T
I
C
S
Y
S
HOLE #1 TEST D 150'E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WE1E1E1E1E1E1DDVACANTNO WATERNO SANITARY
IM
P
R
O
V
E
D
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
W
A
T
E
R
W
E
L
L
A
N
D
S
E
P
T
I
C
15
0
'
+
F
R
O
M
S
U
B
J
E
C
T
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
VACANTNO WATERNO SANITARYPROPOSED DRINKINGWATER SUPPLY WELLPROPOSED 2 STORY6 BEDROOMSINGLE FAMILY DWELLING(SANITARY SYSTEM SIZED FORPOTENTIAL OF 8 BEDROOMS PER SCDHS)NO BASEMENTF.F. 15.0PORCH GARAGEF.F. 13.5PROPOSED LOCKABLE MANHOLECOVER AT GRADE 18'
1' MIN.
2' MAX.
2' MAX.
4' MAX.
1' MIN.
2' MAX.
LP1LP3LP2 FLP1FLP2 PROPOSED 2,500 GAL 10'Ø SEPTIC TANK PROPOSED CLEAN-OUT ACCESSIBLEAT GRADE AT FACE OF BLDGPROPOSED 4"Ø CAST IRON WASTEPIPE PITCHED 1/4" PER FOOTPROPOSED 4"Ø SDR 35 PVC PIPEPITCHED 1/8" PER FOOTPROPOSED 8'Ø X 4' RING HEIGHTPRECAST CONCRETE SANITARYLEACHING POOL (TYPF FOR 6)LOCATION FOR 8'Ø X 4'EXPANSION SANITARYLEACHING POOL (IF REQUIREDIN FUTURE) TYP FOR 3 I.E. 10.73GRADE 13.0 +VACANTNO WATERNO SANITARYPROPOSED STORMWATERLEACHING POOL FORHOUSE ROOF (TYP)
ST
O
P
P
E
R
O
R
EN
D
P
L
U
G
VARIES
45
°
E
L
B
O
W
S
SE
W
E
R
P
I
P
E
SL
A
T
E
O
R
O
T
H
E
R
S
U
I
T
A
B
L
E
CO
V
E
R
FR
O
M
B
L
D
G
TO
S
E
P
T
I
C
T
A
N
K
8'LP4 LP5 LP6 FLP38'PROPOSED 15'W DRIVEWAYPROPOSED U/G ELECTRIC SERVICE PROPOSED 5'W SIDEWALK PROPOSED WATERSERVICE FROM WELL12'11'
N
N.
T
.
S
.
KE
Y
M
A
P
TO
G
R
E
E
N
P
O
R
T
WA
T
E
R
I
N
TE
S
T
H
O
L
E
#
2
D
A
T
A
AL
B
R
E
C
H
T
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
I
O
N
11
-
1
7
-
2
0
1
5
LO
A
M
1'7'10
.
5
'
MLSMSWSW
SIL
T
Y
S
A
N
D
SA
N
D
&
G
R
A
V
E
L
SA
N
D
&
G
R
A
V
E
L
14
'
2'
CL
LO
A
M
&
S
A
N
D
GR
A
D
E
E
L
=
1
2
'
3
3
4
'
6
3
4
'
6
3
6
'
6
3
8
'
2
0
0
'
4
6
2
'
6
2
7
'
37
5
'
44
9
'
15
6
'
15
6
'
43
6
'
43
1
'
11
5
'
42
8
'
16
0
'
16
0
'
12
8
'
30
0
'
20
0
'
324'
30
0
'
30
0
'
20
0
'
20
0
'
185'Orc
h
a
r
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
H
a
l
y
o
a
k
e
A
V
E
Old
F
a
r
m
R
d
320.72'
344.
3
1
'
37
8
.
6
6
'
64
2
.
0
0
'
SEP
T
I
C
SEP
T
I
C
SEP
T
I
C
S
E
P
T
I
C
W
e
l
l
a
n
d
S
e
p
t
i
c
1
5
0
+
WE
L
L
W
e
l
l
a
n
d
S
e
p
t
i
c
1
5
0
+
W
e
l
l
a
n
d
S
e
p
t
i
c
1
5
0
+
Well a
n
d
S
e
p
t
i
c
1
5
0
+
WEL
L
SEP
T
I
C
BM
N
T
HO
L
E
#
2
TE
S
T
1.
0
'
E
F
E
1
.
6
'
E
F
E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EX
I
S
T
.
WE
L
L
DW
DW
ST
4S
F
D
15
0
'
15
0
'
EX
I
S
T
.
WE
L
L
EX
I
S
T
.
WE
L
L
EX
I
S
T
PG
E
1
3
.
0
(3
)
E
L
P
(5
)
L
P
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
LO
T
2
WE
L
L
PR
O
P
.
EL
.
1
2
'
N
o
W
a
t
e
r
o
r
S
e
p
t
i
c
U
n
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
EL
.
1
2
'
EL
.
1
2
'
WWWWWW
EL
.
1
2
'
E1
E1
E1
E1
EL
.
1
2
'
EL
.
1
2
'
EL
.
1
2
'
SC
D
H
S
S
A
N
I
T
A
R
Y
L
E
G
E
N
D
4S
F
D
-
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
4
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
S
I
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
DW
E
L
L
I
N
G
6S
F
D
-
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
6
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
S
I
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
DW
E
L
L
I
N
G
ST
-
SE
P
T
I
C
T
A
N
K
LP
-
SA
N
I
T
A
R
Y
L
E
A
C
H
I
N
G
P
O
O
L
EL
P
-
EX
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
S
A
N
I
T
A
R
Y
L
.
P
.
DB
-
DI
S
T
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N
B
O
X
PG
E
-
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
G
R
A
D
E
E
L
E
V
.
A
T
S
E
P
T
I
C
S
Y
S
1' MIN.2' MAX.2' MAX.4' MAX.1' MIN.2' MAX.
4' MAX.
1' MIN.2' MAX.
ST
O
P
P
E
R
O
R
EN
D
P
L
U
G
VARIES
45
°
E
L
B
O
W
S
SE
W
E
R
P
I
P
E
SL
A
T
E
O
R
O
T
H
E
R
S
U
I
T
A
B
L
E
CO
V
E
R
FR
O
M
B
L
D
G
TO
S
E
P
T
I
C
T
A
N
K
2
0
0
'
HO
L
E
#
2
TE
S
T
DW
DW
15
0
'
15
0
'
1 E1 E1 E1
E
1
E
1
E
1
E
1
E
1
E
1
E
1
WWWWWW
E1
E1
E1
E1
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
D
R
I
N
K
I
N
G
WA
T
E
R
S
U
P
P
L
Y
W
E
L
L
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
2
S
T
O
R
Y
4
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
SI
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
D
W
E
L
L
I
N
G
NO
B
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
F.
F
.
1
5
.
0
GA
R
A
G
E
F.
F
.
1
3
.
5
LP
1
LP
3
LP
2
FL
P
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
1
,
2
5
0
G
A
L
8
'
Ø
S
E
P
T
I
C
T
A
N
K
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
C
L
E
A
N
-
O
U
T
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
AT
G
R
A
D
E
A
T
F
A
C
E
O
F
P
O
R
C
H
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
4
"
Ø
C
A
S
T
I
R
O
N
W
A
S
T
E
PI
P
E
P
I
T
C
H
E
D
1
/
4
"
P
E
R
F
O
O
T
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
4
"
Ø
S
D
R
3
5
P
V
C
P
I
P
E
PI
T
C
H
E
D
1
/
8
"
P
E
R
F
O
O
T
(
T
Y
P
.
U
.
O
.
N
.
)
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
8
'
Ø
X
3
'
R
I
N
G
H
E
I
G
H
T
PR
E
C
A
S
T
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
S
A
N
I
T
A
R
Y
LE
A
C
H
I
N
G
P
O
O
L
(
T
Y
P
F
O
R
5
)
LO
C
A
T
I
O
N
F
O
R
8
'
Ø
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
SA
N
I
T
A
R
Y
L
E
A
C
H
I
N
G
P
O
O
L
(
I
F
RE
Q
U
I
R
E
D
I
N
F
U
T
U
R
E
)
T
Y
P
F
O
R
3
+
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
T
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
LE
A
C
H
I
N
G
P
O
O
L
F
O
R
HO
U
S
E
R
O
O
F
(
T
Y
P
)
VA
C
A
N
T
NO
W
A
T
E
R
NO
S
A
N
I
T
A
R
Y
PO
R
C
H
I.
E
.
1
0
.
7
9
GR
A
D
E
1
3
.
0
IM
P
R
O
V
E
D
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
W
A
T
E
R
W
E
L
L
A
N
D
S
E
P
T
I
C
15
0
'
+
F
R
O
M
S
U
B
J
E
C
T
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
A
N
I
T
A
R
Y
S
Y
S
T
E
M
A
N
D
WE
L
L
R
E
S
P
E
C
T
I
V
E
L
Y
EXISTING DRINKINGWATER SUPPLY WELL
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
D
R
I
N
K
I
N
G
WA
T
E
R
S
U
P
P
L
Y
W
E
L
L
IN
B
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
S
E
P
T
I
C
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
L
O
T
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
W
A
T
E
R
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
C
O
M
M
O
N
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
U
/
G
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
14'
6'
8'
FL
P
1
FL
P
3
LP
4
LP
5
8'
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
L
O
C
K
A
B
L
E
M
A
N
H
O
L
E
CO
V
E
R
A
T
G
R
A
D
E
(
T
Y
P
F
O
R
A
L
L
)
PO
R
C
H
STA
I
R
S
STA
I
R
S
S
T
A
I
R
S
N
N.
T
.
S
.
KE
Y
M
A
P
TO
G
R
E
E
N
P
O
R
T
WA
T
E
R
I
N
TE
S
T
H
O
L
E
#
2
D
A
T
A
AL
B
R
E
C
H
T
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
I
O
N
11
-
1
7
-
2
0
1
5
LO
A
M
1'7'10
.
5
'
MLSMSWSW
SIL
T
Y
S
A
N
D
SA
N
D
&
G
R
A
V
E
L
SA
N
D
&
G
R
A
V
E
L
14
'
2'
CL
LO
A
M
&
S
A
N
D
GR
A
D
E
E
L
=
1
2
'
3
3
4
'
6
3
4
'
6
3
6
'
6
3
8
'
2
0
0
'
4
6
2
'
6
2
7
'
37
5
'
44
9
'
15
6
'
15
6
'
43
6
'
43
1
'
11
5
'
42
8
'
16
0
'
16
0
'
12
8
'
30
0
'
20
0
'
324'
30
0
'
30
0
'
20
0
'
20
0
'
185'Orc
h
a
r
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
H
a
l
y
o
a
k
e
A
V
E
Old
F
a
r
m
R
d
320.72'
344.
3
1
'
37
8
.
6
6
'
64
2
.
0
0
'
SEP
T
I
C
SEP
T
I
C
SEP
T
I
C
S
E
P
T
I
C
W
e
l
l
a
n
d
S
e
p
t
i
c
1
5
0
+
WE
L
L
W
e
l
l
a
n
d
S
e
p
t
i
c
1
5
0
+
W
e
l
l
a
n
d
S
e
p
t
i
c
1
5
0
+
Well a
n
d
S
e
p
t
i
c
1
5
0
+
WEL
L
SEP
T
I
C
BM
N
T
HO
L
E
#
2
TE
S
T
1.
0
'
E
F
E
1
.
6
'
E
F
E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EX
I
S
T
.
WE
L
L
WE
L
L
PR
O
P
.
DW
DW
15
0
'
15
0
'
4S
F
D
EX
I
S
T
.
WE
L
L
EX
I
S
T
.
WE
L
L
EX
I
S
T
E
1
E
1
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
LO
T
3
EL
.
1
1
'
EL
.
1
1
'
EL
.
1
2
'
EL
.
1
2
'
EL
.
1
2
'
EL
.
1
2
'
ST
(3
)
E
L
P
(5
)
L
P
PG
E
1
1
.
6
W
E1
SC
D
H
S
S
A
N
I
T
A
R
Y
L
E
G
E
N
D
4S
F
D
-
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
4
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
S
I
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
DW
E
L
L
I
N
G
6S
F
D
-
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
6
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
S
I
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
DW
E
L
L
I
N
G
ST
-
SE
P
T
I
C
T
A
N
K
LP
-
SA
N
I
T
A
R
Y
L
E
A
C
H
I
N
G
P
O
O
L
EL
P
-
EX
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
S
A
N
I
T
A
R
Y
L
.
P
.
DB
-
DI
S
T
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N
B
O
X
PG
E
-
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
G
R
A
D
E
E
L
E
V
.
A
T
S
E
P
T
I
C
S
Y
S
ST
O
P
P
E
R
O
R
EN
D
P
L
U
G
VARIES
45
°
E
L
B
O
W
S
SE
W
E
R
P
I
P
E
SL
A
T
E
O
R
O
T
H
E
R
S
U
I
T
A
B
L
E
CO
V
E
R
FR
O
M
B
L
D
G
TO
S
E
P
T
I
C
T
A
N
K
1' MIN.2' MAX.2' MAX.4' MAX.1' MIN.2' MAX.
4' MAX.
1' MIN.2' MAX.
156'115'
H
a
l
HOLE #2 TEST
DW
DW
15
0
'
E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1
W
W
W
W
W
W
E1E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
D
R
I
N
K
I
N
G
WA
T
E
R
S
U
P
P
L
Y
W
E
L
L
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
2
S
T
O
R
Y
4
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
SI
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
D
W
E
L
L
I
N
G
NO
B
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
F.
F
.
1
3
.
6
GA
R
A
G
E
F.
F
.
1
2
.
1
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
T
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
LE
A
C
H
I
N
G
P
O
O
L
F
O
R
HO
U
S
E
R
O
O
F
(
T
Y
P
)
PO
R
C
H
IM
P
R
O
V
E
D
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
W
A
T
E
R
W
E
L
L
A
N
D
S
E
P
T
I
C
15
0
'
+
F
R
O
M
S
U
B
J
E
C
T
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
A
N
I
T
A
R
Y
S
Y
S
T
E
M
A
N
D
WE
L
L
R
E
S
P
E
C
T
I
V
E
L
Y
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
L
O
T
3
IM
P
R
O
V
E
D
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
W
A
T
E
R
W
E
L
L
A
N
D
S
E
P
T
I
C
15
0
'
+
F
R
O
M
S
U
B
J
E
C
T
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
A
N
I
T
A
R
Y
S
Y
S
T
E
M
A
N
D
WE
L
L
R
E
S
P
E
C
T
I
V
E
L
Y
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
W
A
T
E
R
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
PROPOSED ELECTRIC
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
PROPOSED COMMON
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
L
O
C
K
A
B
L
E
MA
N
H
O
L
E
C
O
V
E
R
A
T
GR
A
D
E
(
T
Y
P
F
O
R
A
L
L
)
LP
1
LP
3
LP
2
FL
P
1
FL
P
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
1
,
2
5
0
G
A
L
8
'
Ø
S
E
P
T
I
C
T
A
N
K
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
C
L
E
A
N
-
O
U
T
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
AT
G
R
A
D
E
A
T
F
A
C
E
O
F
D
W
E
L
L
I
N
G
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
4
"
Ø
C
A
S
T
I
R
O
N
W
A
S
T
E
PI
P
E
P
I
T
C
H
E
D
1
/
4
"
P
E
R
F
O
O
T
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
4
"
Ø
S
D
R
3
5
PV
C
P
I
P
E
P
I
T
C
H
E
D
1
/
8
"
PE
R
F
O
O
T
(
T
Y
P
.
U
.
O
.
N
.
)
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
8
'
Ø
X
3
'
R
I
N
G
H
E
I
G
H
T
PR
E
C
A
S
T
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
S
A
N
I
T
A
R
Y
LE
A
C
H
I
N
G
P
O
O
L
(
T
Y
P
F
O
R
5
)
LO
C
A
T
I
O
N
F
O
R
8
'
Ø
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
SA
N
I
T
A
R
Y
L
E
A
C
H
I
N
G
P
O
O
L
(
I
F
RE
Q
U
I
R
E
D
I
N
F
U
T
U
R
E
)
T
Y
P
F
O
R
3
I.
E
.
9
.
3
1
GR
A
D
E
1
1
.
6
+
LP
4
LP
5
FL
P
3
6'
S
T
A
I
R
S
10'
8'
1
3
'
PO
R
C
H
S
T
A
I
R
S
STAI
R
S
N
N.
T
.
S
.
KE
Y
M
A
P
TO
G
R
E
E
N
P
O
R
T
WA
T
E
R
I
N
TE
S
T
H
O
L
E
#
2
D
A
T
A
AL
B
R
E
C
H
T
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
I
O
N
11
-
1
7
-
2
0
1
5
LO
A
M
1'7'10
.
5
'
MLSMSWSW
SIL
T
Y
S
A
N
D
SA
N
D
&
G
R
A
V
E
L
SA
N
D
&
G
R
A
V
E
L
14
'
2'
CL
LO
A
M
&
S
A
N
D
GR
A
D
E
E
L
=
1
2
'
3
3
4
'
6
3
4
'
6
3
6
'
6
3
8
'
2
0
0
'
4
6
2
'
6
2
7
'
37
5
'
44
9
'
15
6
'
15
6
'
43
6
'
43
1
'
11
5
'
42
8
'
16
0
'
16
0
'
12
8
'
30
0
'
20
0
'
324'
30
0
'
30
0
'
20
0
'
20
0
'
185'Orc
h
a
r
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
H
a
l
y
o
a
k
e
A
V
E
Old
F
a
r
m
R
d
320.72'
344.
3
1
'
37
8
.
6
6
'
64
2
.
0
0
'
SEP
T
I
C
SEP
T
I
C
SEP
T
I
C
S
E
P
T
I
C
W
e
l
l
a
n
d
S
e
p
t
i
c
1
5
0
+
WE
L
L
W
e
l
l
a
n
d
S
e
p
t
i
c
1
5
0
+
W
e
l
l
a
n
d
S
e
p
t
i
c
1
5
0
+
Well a
n
d
S
e
p
t
i
c
1
5
0
+
WEL
L
SEP
T
I
C
BM
N
T
1.
0
'
E
F
E
1
.
6
'
E
F
E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EX
I
S
T
.
WE
L
L
PR
O
P
.
WE
L
L
DW
DW
15
0
'
15
0
'
15
0
'
15
0
'
4S
F
D
ST
(3
)
E
L
P
(5
)
L
P
EX
I
S
T
.
WE
L
L
EX
I
S
T
15
0
'
PG
E
1
2
.
0
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
LO
T
4
EL
.
1
3
'
EL
.
1
3
'
EL
.
1
2
'
EL
.
1
2
'
E1
E1
E1
W
W
W
W
W
W
N
o
W
a
t
e
r
o
r
S
e
p
t
i
c
U
n
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
EL
.
1
2
'
HO
L
E
#
2
TE
S
T
SC
D
H
S
S
A
N
I
T
A
R
Y
L
E
G
E
N
D
4S
F
D
-
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
4
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
S
I
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
DW
E
L
L
I
N
G
6S
F
D
-
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
6
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
S
I
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
DW
E
L
L
I
N
G
ST
-
SE
P
T
I
C
T
A
N
K
LP
-
SA
N
I
T
A
R
Y
L
E
A
C
H
I
N
G
P
O
O
L
EL
P
-
EX
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
S
A
N
I
T
A
R
Y
L
.
P
.
DB
-
DI
S
T
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N
B
O
X
PG
E
-
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
G
R
A
D
E
E
L
E
V
.
A
T
S
E
P
T
I
C
S
Y
S
1' MIN.2' MAX.2' MAX.4' MAX.1' MIN.2' MAX.
4' MAX.
1' MIN.2' MAX.
ST
O
P
P
E
R
O
R
EN
D
P
L
U
G
VARIES
45
°
E
L
B
O
W
S
SE
W
E
R
P
I
P
E
SL
A
T
E
O
R
O
T
H
E
R
S
U
I
T
A
B
L
E
CO
V
E
R
FR
O
M
B
L
D
G
TO
S
E
P
T
I
C
T
A
N
K
11
5
'
160'128'0'reet
DW
DW
15
0
'
15
0
'
15
0
'
150'
E
1
E
1
E
1
E
1
E
1
E
1
E
1
E
1
E
1
E1
E1
E1
W
W
W
WWW
HO
L
E
#
2
TE
S
T
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
2
S
T
O
R
Y
4
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
SI
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
D
W
E
L
L
I
N
G
NO
B
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
F.
F
.
1
4
.
0
GA
R
A
G
E
F.
F
.
1
2
.
5
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
L
O
C
K
A
B
L
E
M
A
N
H
O
L
E
CO
V
E
R
A
T
G
R
A
D
E
LP
1
LP
3
LP
2
FL
P
1
FL
P
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
1
,
2
5
0
G
A
L
8
'
Ø
S
E
P
T
I
C
T
A
N
K
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
C
L
E
A
N
-
O
U
T
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
A
T
G
R
A
D
E
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
4
"
Ø
C
A
S
T
I
R
O
N
W
A
S
T
E
PI
P
E
P
I
T
C
H
E
D
1
/
4
"
P
E
R
F
O
O
T
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
4
"
Ø
S
D
R
3
5
P
V
C
P
I
P
E
PI
T
C
H
E
D
1
/
8
"
P
E
R
F
O
O
T
(
T
Y
P
.
U
.
O
.
N
.
)
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
8
'
Ø
X
3
'
R
I
N
G
H
E
I
G
H
T
PR
E
C
A
S
T
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
S
A
N
I
T
A
R
Y
LE
A
C
H
I
N
G
P
O
O
L
(
T
Y
P
F
O
R
5
)
PO
R
C
H
PROPOSED
L
O
T
4
IMPROVEDEXISTING WATER WELL AND SEPTIC150'+ FROM SUBJECT PROPERTYPROPOSED SANITARY SYSTEM ANDWELL RESPECTIVELY
LO
C
A
T
I
O
N
F
O
R
8
'
Ø
EX
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
S
A
N
I
T
A
R
Y
LE
A
C
H
I
N
G
P
O
O
L
(
I
F
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
IN
F
U
T
U
R
E
)
T
Y
P
F
O
R
3
PROPOSED DRINKINGWATER SUPPLY WELL EXISTING DRINKINGWATER SUPPLY WELLEXISTING DRINKINGWATER SUPPLY WELL IMPROVEDEXISTING WATER WELL AND SEPTIC150'+ FROM SUBJECT PROPERTYPROPOSED SANITARY SYSTEM ANDWELL RESPECTIVELY
IM
P
R
O
V
E
D
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
W
A
T
E
R
W
E
L
L
A
N
D
S
E
P
T
I
C
15
0
'
+
F
R
O
M
S
U
B
J
E
C
T
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
A
N
I
T
A
R
Y
S
Y
S
T
E
M
A
N
D
WE
L
L
R
E
S
P
E
C
T
I
V
E
L
Y
IMP
R
O
V
E
D
EXI
S
T
I
N
G
W
A
T
E
R
W
E
L
L
A
N
D
S
E
P
T
I
C
150'
+
F
R
O
M
S
U
B
J
E
C
T
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
A
N
I
T
A
R
Y
S
Y
S
T
E
M
A
N
D
WE
L
L
R
E
S
P
E
C
T
I
V
E
L
Y
IMPROVEDEXISTING WATER WELL AND SEPTIC150'+ FROM SUBJECT PROPERTYPROPOSED SANITARY SYSTEM ANDWELL RESPECTIVELYEXISTING DWELLING
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
T
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
LE
A
C
H
I
N
G
P
O
O
L
F
O
R
HO
U
S
E
R
O
O
F
(
T
Y
P
)
I.
E
.
9
.
6
3
GR
A
D
E
1
2
.
0
+
6'
8'
8'LP
4
LP
5
FL
P
3
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
C
O
M
M
O
N
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
U
/
G
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
W
A
T
E
R
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
12
'
20
'
PO
R
C
H
STA
I
R
S
STA
I
R
S
S
T
A
I
R
S
N
N.
T
.
S
.
KE
Y
M
A
P
TO
G
R
E
E
N
P
O
R
T
WA
T
E
R
I
N
TE
S
T
H
O
L
E
#
2
D
A
T
A
AL
B
R
E
C
H
T
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
I
O
N
11
-
1
7
-
2
0
1
5
LO
A
M
1'7'10
.
5
'
MLSMSWSW
SIL
T
Y
S
A
N
D
SA
N
D
&
G
R
A
V
E
L
SA
N
D
&
G
R
A
V
E
L
14
'
2'
CL
LO
A
M
&
S
A
N
D
GR
A
D
E
E
L
=
1
2
'
3
3
4
'
6
3
4
'
6
3
6
'
6
3
8
'
2
0
0
'
4
6
2
'
6
2
7
'
37
5
'
44
9
'
15
6
'
15
6
'
43
6
'
43
1
'
11
5
'
42
8
'
16
0
'
16
0
'
12
8
'
30
0
'
20
0
'
324'
30
0
'
30
0
'
20
0
'
20
0
'
185'Orc
h
a
r
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
H
a
l
y
o
a
k
e
A
V
E
Old
F
a
r
m
R
d
320.72'
344.
3
1
'
37
8
.
6
6
'
64
2
.
0
0
'
PR
O
P
.
FIR
E
W
E
L
L
SEP
T
I
C
SEP
T
I
C
SEP
T
I
C
S
E
P
T
I
C
W
e
l
l
a
n
d
S
e
p
t
i
c
1
5
0
+
WE
L
L
W
e
l
l
a
n
d
S
e
p
t
i
c
1
5
0
+
W
e
l
l
a
n
d
S
e
p
t
i
c
1
5
0
+
Well a
n
d
S
e
p
t
i
c
1
5
0
+
WEL
L
SEP
T
I
C
BM
N
T
EL.
1
8
HO
L
E
#
2
TE
S
T
1.
0
'
E
F
E
1
.
6
'
E
F
E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EX
I
S
T
.
WE
L
L
PR
O
P
.
WE
L
L
DW
DW
15
0
'
15
0
'
15
0
'
4S
F
D
ST
(3
)
E
L
P
(5
)
L
P
EX
I
S
T
.
WE
L
L
EX
I
S
T
.
WE
L
L
EX
I
S
T
PG
E
1
1
.
6
E1
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
LO
T
5
W W W W W
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
EL
.
1
2
'
EL
.
1
0
'
EL
.
1
2
'
EL
.
1
1
'
SC
D
H
S
S
A
N
I
T
A
R
Y
L
E
G
E
N
D
4S
F
D
-
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
4
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
S
I
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
DW
E
L
L
I
N
G
6S
F
D
-
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
6
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
S
I
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
DW
E
L
L
I
N
G
ST
-
SE
P
T
I
C
T
A
N
K
LP
-
SA
N
I
T
A
R
Y
L
E
A
C
H
I
N
G
P
O
O
L
EL
P
-
EX
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
S
A
N
I
T
A
R
Y
L
.
P
.
DB
-
DI
S
T
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N
B
O
X
PG
E
-
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
G
R
A
D
E
E
L
E
V
.
A
T
S
E
P
T
I
C
S
Y
S
1' MIN.2' MAX.2' MAX.4' MAX.1' MIN.2' MAX.
4' MAX.
1' MIN.2' MAX.
ST
O
P
P
E
R
O
R
EN
D
P
L
U
G
VARIES
45
°
E
L
B
O
W
S
SE
W
E
R
P
I
P
E
SL
A
T
E
O
R
O
T
H
E
R
S
U
I
T
A
B
L
E
CO
V
E
R
FR
O
M
B
L
D
G
TO
S
E
P
T
I
C
T
A
N
K
15
6
'
31'115'428'0'
H
a
l
PROP.FIRE WELL
DW
DW
15
0
'
15
0
'
150'E1
W W W W W
E1E1E1E1
E1
E1
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
2
S
T
O
R
Y
4
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
SI
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
D
W
E
L
L
I
N
G
NO
B
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
F.
F
.
1
3
.
6
GA
R
A
G
E
F.
F
.
1
2
.
1
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
L
O
C
K
A
B
L
E
M
A
N
H
O
L
E
CO
V
E
R
A
T
G
R
A
D
E
(
T
Y
P
F
O
R
A
L
L
)
LP
1
LP
3
LP
2
FL
P
1
FL
P
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
1
,
2
5
0
G
A
L
8
'
Ø
S
E
P
T
I
C
T
A
N
K
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
C
L
E
A
N
-
O
U
T
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
AT
G
R
A
D
E
A
T
F
A
C
E
O
F
D
W
E
L
L
I
N
G
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
4
"
Ø
C
A
S
T
I
R
O
N
W
A
S
T
E
PI
P
E
P
I
T
C
H
E
D
1
/
4
"
P
E
R
F
O
O
T
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
4
"
Ø
S
D
R
3
5
P
V
C
P
I
P
E
PI
T
C
H
E
D
1
/
8
"
P
E
R
F
O
O
T
(
T
Y
P
.
U
.
O
.
N
.
)
PROPOSED 8'Ø X 3' RING HEIGH
T
PRECAST CONCRETE SANITAR
Y
LEACHING POOL (TYP FOR
5
)
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
T
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
LE
A
C
H
I
N
G
P
O
O
L
F
O
R
HO
U
S
E
R
O
O
F
(
T
Y
P
)
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
L
O
T
5
IM
P
R
O
V
E
D
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
W
A
T
E
R
W
E
L
L
A
N
D
S
E
P
T
I
C
15
0
'
+
F
R
O
M
S
U
B
J
E
C
T
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
A
N
I
T
A
R
Y
S
Y
S
T
E
M
A
N
D
WE
L
L
R
E
S
P
E
C
T
I
V
E
L
Y
LOCATION FOR 8'Ø EXPANSIO
N
SANITARY LEACHING POOL (I
F
REQUIRED IN FUTURE) TYP FOR
3
I.
E
.
9
.
3
1
GR
A
D
E
1
1
.
6
EXISTING WATER SUPPLY WELLEXISTING WATER SUPPLY WE
L
L
VA
C
A
N
T
NO
W
A
T
E
R
NO
S
E
P
T
I
C
IMPROVE
D
SEPTIC 150'+ FROM
S
U
B
J
E
C
T
PROPERTY L
I
N
E
IMPROVEDSEPTIC 150'+ FROM SUBJECTPROPERTY LINEIMPROVEDEXISTING WATER WELL AND SEPTIC150'+ FROM SUBJECT PROPERTY LINE IMPROVEDEXISTING WATER WELL AND SEPTIC150'+ FROM SUBJECT PROPERTY LINE
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
DR
I
N
K
I
N
G
W
A
T
E
R
SU
P
P
L
Y
W
E
L
L
6'S
T
A
I
R
S
10'
+
8'LP
4
LP
5
FL
P
3
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
W
A
T
E
R
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
PROPOSED ELECTRIC SERVICEPROPOSED DRIVEWAY PROPOSED COMMON DRIVEWAY
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
S
T
A
I
R
S
PO
R
C
H
PO
R
C
H
STA
I
R
S