HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Correspondence PO Box 345
1405 Cedar Beach Road
Southold, NY 11971 Panninn 13o and •
August 17, 2022
Town of Southold Planning Board
Don Vlfilcenski, Chairman
Pierce Rafferty
James Rich
Martin Sidor
54375 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Chairman Wilcenski and Planning Board Members Rafferty, Rich and Sidor:
As you may recall, I've submitted letters to the Planning Board dated April 11,
April 24, and July 5 regarding the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) performed by Dunn
Engineering for the Enclaves' project DEIS. I very much appreciate the Planning
Board's request to Nelson + Pope to review and comment on my letters. I am
also very grateful that Planning Board Member Rich, in the August 8 work
session, expressed interest in reviewing N+P's response in detail, and that he
suggested allowing time for Chairman Wilcenski to review the N+P response as
well.
After a detailed review of N+P's Traffic Comment Response, Enclaves Hotel &
Restaurant, dated August 5, 2022 and received by the Southold Town Planning
Department on August 8, 2022, 1 continue to stand by my conclusions that the
project's Traffic Impact Study (TIS) understates both restaurant and hotel traffic
and underestimates the increase in Main Road traffic (all independent of any
assumptions about traffic split) and doesn't strictly comply with the Institute for
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (TGM).
In fact, in light of having gained access to the ITE TGM 10th edition and having
done more investigation into the number of employees for the restaurant and
hotel, I estimate that the project will increase Main Road weekday peak afternoon
traffic by 6.6 — 13%, independent of traffic split assumptions, in contrast to the
applicant's assertion that the traffic increase will be less than 4%. And if my
belief that the number of hotel employees will be 43, as noted 6 times in the
DEIS, is true, then the predicted traffic increase is 19%.
N+P's comment response is correct that the Town of Southold is considered a
suburb for planning purposes. Many other elements of N+P's response are
nonresponsive, irrelevant, unsubstantiated, or misleading. I don't say that lightly.
I have put many hours into reviewing their points, performing calculations to
support or refute their comments, and re-reviewing the project DEIS, the TIS, my
1
own memos, and other sources. What follows is a detailed analysis of N+P's
response. It is a slog, it may be exceedlingly dull, and it is probably also
challenging to follow. I apologize for that, but I offer it in hopes that it may aid the
Planning Board's own detailed review of N+P's response and persuade the
Planning Board of the need to take action to prevent the predicted traffic
congestion, in keeping with the purpose of Town Code Chapter 280, Article
XXIV, Site Plan Approval.
Respectfully,
Margare Steinbugler
Cc: Heather Lanza, Mara Cerezo, Brian Cummings, Mark Terry (by e-mail)
Detailed N+P Traffic Comment Response Review
1. 1 appreciate N+P's first comment about the definition of urban /suburban vs.
rural areas and agree that when using the Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE) Trip Generation Manual (TGM), it is important to follow their definitions of
area types.
Later in that same response section, N+P's notes, "According to the Traffic
Impact Study, the proposed hotel will contain 44 rooms and will be supported by
12 employees. The basis of 43 employees is not clear and use of trip generation
by the number of rooms is an acceptable approach."
The basis of 43 employees supporting the hotel is the project's Draft
Environmental Impact Statement, revised October 2019, found at:
l tp 1//2 . .2 22 2040/weblink/ /'ed /1018323/DEIS%o20_Rev%20Oct%x20201
9.pdf
Page vii of the DEIS, second full paragraph, notes, "The proposed restaurant and
hotel uses are projected to generate approximately 10 and 43 employees,
respectively, for a total of 53 jobs." This is repeated on pages 79, 94, and 142.
Page 10 says, "The proposed job generation rate for the hotel is approximately
43 employees" and page 79, in Table 14, indicates the number of hotel
employees is projected to be 43.
In total, there are 6 places in the DEIS that note the hotel will have 43 employees
and the restaurant will have 10 employees. There are 4 places in the DEIS that
note the hotel will have 12 employees.
The DEIS provides a reference for the factors used to estimate number of
employees, but I was not able to access it on short notice. However there is
good reason to believe the hotel will have 43 employees and the restaurant will
have 12. The World Tourist Organization gives a guide to number of hotel
employees based on rooms and hotel quality. For a 3-star hotel the number is 8
employees for 10 rooms and for a 4-star hotel is it 12 employees per 10 rooms.
For a 44-room hotel the number of employees would be 35 (3-star) or 53 (4-star),
which brackets 43.
There is also good reason to believe the restaurant will have 12 employees. The
web site 7shifts.com offers factors to estimate required restaurant servers and
back-of-house staff based on number of tables and number of customers.
Applying those factors results in 13-15 staff needed for a 74-seat restaurant.
To be thorough I have analyzed the trips generated by the hotel for both 12 and
43 employees further down in Table 1.
First, though, I want to point out that N+P's response does not suggest there is
any issue with using of number of hotel employees to estimate trips or that use of
number of rooms is preferable. In fact a sound argument can be made that
number of employees would be the preferred independent variable for this
project. The ITE TGM, 10th edition, volume 1, p. 16, under the heading
Limitations of the Data Plots," notes, "The plots presented in the Trip Generation
Manual cover only the range of independent variables for which data are
available. Caution should be used if extrapolating the data beyond the ranges
provided because no information has been supplied to document trip generation
characteristics beyond the given ranges" (emphasis added).
The data range available for a Business Hotel, LUC 312, for the weekday AM
and PM peak hours of the generator (the hotel) is 55-300 rooms; for Saturday
PM peak the data range is 55-130 rooms. Neither of these ranges includes the
proposed hotel's 44-room size. N+P, in saying that using the number of rooms is
an acceptable approach, neglects to acknowledge that this approach requires
extrapolation, contrary to TGM guidance. The project's TIS does not include any
discussion of what caution was applied in extrapolating the ITE TGM data
beyond the ranges for which data are available, nor does N+P's response to my
analysis.
In contrast the hotel's number of employees, whether 12 or 43, is included in the
ITE TGM data range. For the weekday AM and PM peak hours of the generator
(hotel) the data ranges are 8-48, which nicely bracket both possible values of
hotel employees. So there is a good rationale to prefer using the number of
employees as the independent variable, rather than the number of rooms.
If number of hotel employees is used as the independent variable, in keeping
with the ITE TGM's advice to avoid extrapolation, hotel trips generated are 41
and 42 trips for 12 employees for AM and PM weekday peak, respectively; and
147 and 150 trips for 43 hotel employees for AM and PM weekday peak,
respectively. For 12 hotel employees, the trips are 2.4-2.5 times the number
reported in the TIS. For 43 hotel employees, the trips are 8.6— 8.8 times the
number reported in the TIS, as reported in my memo of July 5, 2022. These
results, including whether the independent variable is within the data range of the
ITE TGM, are summarized in Table 1.
Project Traffic Impact Using Employees as Using Employees as
Land Study (TIS, Baseline) independent variable independent variable
Use 43 Hotel Employees 12 Hotel Em to ees
#of rooms #of #of
WD WD within WD WD employ WD WD employ-
AM PM range of AM PM -ees AM PM ees
Peak Peak TGM data? Peak Peak within Peak Peak within
range range of
of TGM TGM
data? data?
Bus.
Hotel 17 17 No 147 150 Yes 41 42 Yes
Increase in trips relative to TIS 8.6x 8.8x 2.4x 2.5x
baseline
Table 1: Summary of Vehicle Trips per Hour (WD: weekday; TGM: the Institute
of Transportation Engineers [ITE] Trip Generation Manual [TGM], 10" edition;
AM and PM peak are for the peak hour of the generator)
Unless otherswise stated, analysis in the rest of this memo will be based on 12
hotel employees where applicable, despite this appearing to be an under-
estimation of the needed staff.
2. N+P's second comment deals with the increase in level of service delay of 0.7
seconds at the intersection of Boisseau Avenue and Main Road, which is
significant according to NYC Dept of Transportation standards. N+P notes that
the project is not expected to add to southbound traffic at Boisseau and Main
Road. This may be true, but it isn't relevant. It is the traffic on Main Road
generated by the project that will increase the delay for turns from Boisseau (or
any side street) onto Main Road. The significance of the delay does not depend
on the source of the traffic. N+P concedes the increase in delay time but tries to
argue it away, saying that motorists make turns during shorter gaps in Main Road
traffic, such as turning into gaps of 4-5 seconds vs. 7 seconds (which they call
conservative). For comparison, the Pennsylvania Dept of Motor Vehicles
(htt s:// .dmv. a. ov/Driver--Services/Driver-Licensin /Driver-
Manual/Cha ter-3/Eve da -Drivin /Pa es/I've otiatin -Intersections.as x), for
left turns from a minor onto a major street, recommends a nine-second gap
between the motorist and vehicles approaching from the right. A 1966
4
publication of the Transportation Reseach Board
(htt s://onfine a s.trb.or /Onlinep_ubs/ rr/196 /118/11'8-003.0 suggests that
for left turns from a stopped position on a minor road to major road, about half of
drivers choose a gap of 7.7- 8 seconds or larger. Both these publications seem
to refute the assertion that a 7 second gap is conservative.
Who hasn't been frustrated trying to make a left turn onto Main Road? Motorists
may make turns into shorter intervals of traffic out of frustration at long waits. But
turning into a shorter gap reduces safety margin and increases accident risk.
The N+P response also uses the same vague language about `significance' for
which I criticized the Dunn Engineering TIS, saying "Given these factors it was
not anticipated that the calculated level of service delay—would result in
significant operational impacts at this intersection." N+P provides no threshold to
indicate what would constitute a significant increase. The NYC DOT document
does provide a threshold, which deems the delay increase significant.
3. N+P's third comment, on traffic directional distribution, notes that the
applicant's 40% /60% east/west traffic directional distribution is supported by
the existing, that is 'no action,' roadway volumes, and uses this 'no action'
distribution to justify a similar distribution for the 'as built condition. This
explanation assumes that traffic generated by the hotel and restaurant will follow
the same distribution as pre-existing traffic.
There is no substantiation for this assumption. Rather, N+P offers some 'hand
waving'justifications about hotel guests potentially visiting destinations east of
the hotel site. Indeed hotel guests may visit sites east, just as they may visit sites
west of the hotel, but no one knows in what proportion those will occur, and the
applicant did not attempt to gather any such data, despite the fact that it could
easily be collected from existing hotels, motels, and restaurants on the North
Fork.
The N+P response notes that "The claim that changing the westbound traffic
distribution from 60% to 90% for Saturday peak hour arriving from the west would
result in an approximately 6% traffic increase (not less than 4%) is accurate,
however, doing that will also reduce the percentage of traffic coming from the
east. Therefore, changing the distribution from 60% /40% to 90% / 10% should
not change the overall increase in traffic on Route 25."
1 agree with the point that overall west+ east traffic would not change, but it
ignores the importance of traffic split to the driving public. To someone driving
west-bound on Main Road stuck behind a back up at the Youngs Avenue traffic
light due to guests departing the hotel or restaurant to the west, it matters little
that the east-bound traffic is sparse and moving freely.
Regarding the influence of a change in west/east traffic split, the N+P response
concludes, "...we believe changing the distribution from 60% /40% to 90% / 10%
will not significantly change the results in the TIS." No level of service (LOS)
analysis is offered to support this belief. N+P could have calculated the levels of
service for the 90% / 10% case and compared them to the 60% /40% case. In
the absence of that information, why should the Town and the public be asked to
have confidence in N+P's belief? I pointed out in my memo of April 11, "...this
analysis's estimates of increased traffic will ripple through the TIS's intersection
capacity analyses and may change their outputs and conclusions." N+P's
response to this point is inadequate.
With respect to the effects of traffic split, N+P says, "An increase in 7 vehicles
(from 16 to 23) over a period of one (1) hour, equivalent to one vehicle every 8
minutes should not significantly change the level of service results in the TIS,"
but doesn't provide any analysis to substantiate that assertion. Why not run the
calculation and prove the point, instead of relying on a hunch?
4. N+P's response regarding restaurant traffic generation notes that use of either
number of seats or square footage to predict trips is appropriate. I calculated trips
using the ITE TGM 10th edition, which I've been able to access since my April 11
memo. If square footage is used as the independent variable, restaurant-
generated traffic is greater than the TIS predictions by 64%, 45%, and 42% for
Saturday peak, weekday PM peak, and weekday AM peak respectively. Using
restaurant area rather than number of seats as the independent variable also has
the advantage of requiring less extrapolation beyond the limits of the TGM data.
The N+P response makes the argument that the TIS restaurant-generated trips
are conservative since they do not take any reduction for hotel guests using the
restaurant, thereby not generating any external trips ("internal capture"). Probably
true, but what is the degree of conservatism? The argument that the data are
conservative, without any quantification, is not really helpful.
Finally N+P notes that for special events, the TIS assumed 112 vehicles entering
the site and 36 vehicles exiting the site for a total of 148 vehicle trips. There are
a couple of points to be made here. First, this seems to argue that high traffic
incurred by special events somehow justifies high traffic at other times, which
seems like unsound logic. Second, it is not clear where the trip values of 112
and 36 originate. Figure 13 in the TIS, titled "2020 Build Special Event Saturday
Peak Hour Volumes" appears to show 55+36 = 91 vehicles entering the site and
34+51 = 85 vehicles exiting the site for a total of 176 vehicles, not 148. Third, the
TIS was delivered'in June 2019 and it considered special events that included up
to 200-250 guests. Subsequently the ZBA commissioned N+P to analyze special
event traffic. N+P found that special events of greater than 100 guests would
generate internal backups at the site. N+P recommended that traffic control
personnel be required for such events. Ultimately the ZBA's special exception
approval stipulated no events with greater than 100 guests. Comparing traffic
s
generated by events with 200-250 guests to traffic at other times is irrelevant and
misleading, since the ZBA prohibited such events.
5. N+P's fifth response appears to be intended to react to the hotel trip
generation portion of my memo, which made the point that predicting traffic
based on different types of hotels, such as `hotel' vs. `business hotel,' generates
quite different results, therefore the TIS should have included a sensitivity study
to assess the influence of dfferent hotel land use codes on predicted trips.
N+P's comment is non-responsive on that point. Instead N+P notes that the
peak hour of the generator(the hotel) does not coincide with the peak hour of the
adjacent street traffic, either morning or evening, therefore analyzing site traffic
from the peak hour of adjacent street traffic should be conservative.
This may be true, but it is unsubstantiated since the TIS did not include Main
Road traffic counts for street off-peak times, and we have no indication of the
degree of conservatism.
In addition to this point-by-point assessment of N+P's response to my memos, I
would like to add that N+P did not address.a key finding from my April 11, 2022
memo: The TIS did not adhere to guidelines within the ITE TGM, specifically:
• The TIS used trip generation rates outside the bounds of the ITE TGM, in
conflict with ITE TGM guidance.
• The TIS failed to collect data to establish local trip generation rates as,
recommended by the ITE TGM when the project's parameters are outside the
ITE TGM data bounds.
o In such cases the ITE TGM recommends a study including 3—5 sites.
The TIS had zero such studies.
It turns out there are no data sets in the ITE TGM 10th edition for which the
restaurant's independent variables (seats, square feet, and number of
employees) lie within the data bounds, as shown in 2. To keep within the ITE
TGM guidance for the project's restaurant, on-site traffic studies should have
been performed.
Independent Project's ITE TGM Data Range ITE TGM Data Range
Variables Quality for Peak Hour adjacent for Peak Hour of
Restaurant street traffic generator
Values
AM PM AM PM
Seats 74 280-490 160-490 90-490 100-490
Square Feet 3806 6000- 4500- 4500- 4500-
16,000 16,00 16,000 16,000
Employees 43 No data No data 1 740 7-40
Table 2: Comparison of the project's Restaurant independent variables to the
approximate data ranges available in the ITE TGM 10 h edition
7
In the absence of such studies, to compare traffic predictions for the restaurant
for both peak hour of generator and peak hour of adjacent street traffic, we have
to compromise and choose a data set that does not bound the independent
variable. It's prudent to select the independent variable that requires the least
extrapolation. For the peak hour of generator case, the restaurant's number of
employees is closest to the ITE TGM data range (43 employees vs. a max of 40
in the data range). For the afternoon peak hour of adjacent street traffic, the
project's restaurant area of 3806 square feet is the closest to the ITE TGM data
range (3806 sq ft vs. a minimum of 4500 sq ft for the data range).
Accordingly, for both the peak hour of generator and the peak hour of adjacent
traffic, I calculated the trips for both the restaurant and the hotel using the
independent variables for the restaurant that require the least extrapolation and
using the independent variable for the hotel that is within the ITE TGM data
range (employees). These results are summarized in Table 3.
How do these numbers compare to overall traffic on Main Road? For the
weekday PM generator peak, predicted Main Road traffic increases by 119 trips,
a 13% increase in total traffic (both directions). For the weekday PM adjacent
road peak traffic, predicted Main Road traffic increases by 60 trips, a 6.6%
increase in traffic. These results are independent of traffic split. Both cases
represent greater traffiq growth than the "less than 4%" claimed by the project.
If my suspicion that the hotel will have 43 employees is correct, the predicted
traffic increase for the weekday afternoon peak is 19%, also independent of
traffic split.
R
Project Traffic Impact Using Employees as Independent Variables:
Land Study (TIS, Baseline) independent variable Restaurant: Sq Ft
Use Independent Variable: 43 in Rest, 12 in Hotel, (3806)
Restaurant: Seats Peak Generator Hotel: Employees (12)
Hotel: Rooms Peak Adjacent Street
Peak Generator Traffic
#of #of #of
WD WD seats/rms WD WD employ WD WD employ-
AM PM within AM PM -ees AM PM ees
Peak Peak range of Peak Peak within Peak Peak within
TGM data? range range of
of TGM TGM
data? I data?
Qual.
Rest't 12 22 No 30 77 No 3 30 No
Bus.
Hotel 17 17 No 41 42 Yes 34 30 Yes
Total 29 39 71 119 37 60
Increase in trips over baseline 145% 205% 28% 54%
Increase in overall Main Road 6% 13% 3% 6.6%
traffic
Table 3: Comparison of the project's Restaurant and Hotel trips using
independent variable(s) for the Restaurant that require the least extrapolation
and for the Hotel that requires no extrapolation
A
RECEIVED
JUL 12922
Sout o Town
Planning Board
North Fork Environmental Council
12700 Main Road
-^+{ P®Box 799
North Fork rk Mattituck,ROY 11952
Envoronmefftal Council Phone: 631.298.8880
V Fax: 631.298.4649
mom4 Web: www.NFECI.org
June 30, 2022
Chairman Donald Wilcenski
Mr.Pierce Rafferty
Mr.James Rich
Mr.be Martin Sidor
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Planning Board
The North Fork Environmental Council believes that The Enclaves Hotel, one of most dense
development projects in the hamlet of Southold in many years, will have an outsized impact on
the town.
For this reason, we urge you to consider these issues during your site plan review:
We are concerned that the applicant's traffic studies, conducted before 2019 and before COVID,
were seriously flawed. We have seen engineer Margaret Steinbugler's letter regarding the
applicant's traffic studies submitted to the Planning Board at the public hearing on April 11. Ms.
Steinbugler has brought up serious issues that we believe should be of great concern to the
Planning Board. These traffic studies appear to have used unsupported data and used
underestimated trip generation figures. These are serious matters that must be addressed. The.
board should order an independent traffic study during the peak summer travel season.
The proposed hotel exit, directly across from the 7-11 driveway,could lead to accidents. We ask
that you consider an alternative location for the exit.
The town-wide impact of the increased traffic must be considered. The special events planned at
this location from April through October, combined with events from nearby Founder's Landing,
could lead to gridlock from Southold all the way east to Greenport and from Southold all the way
west to Peconic.
We believe the Planning Board has the authority under the Town Code, and the obligation to the
citizens of Southold, to change the site plan to fit our community before it is permanently
changed. Thank you for considering these vital issues.
Sincerely
Sincerely,
Mark P. Haubner
President,North Fork Environmental Council
PO Box 345
1405 Cedar Beach Road
Southold, NY 11971
July 5, 2022
Town of Southold Planning Board RECEIVED
Don Wilcenski, Chairman
Pierce Rafferty JUL 22022
James Rich
Martin Sidor sout o Town
Planning Board
54375 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Chairman Wilcenski and Members Rafferty, Rich and Sidor:
During the Planning Board's April 11, 2022 public hearing, I testified before the
Board about several flaws and shortcomings of the traffic study performed as
part of the environmental impact statement for the proposed Enclaves hotel and
restaurant to be located at 56655 Main Road in Southold. I remember well that
Chairman Wilcenski responded to testimony from me and from others by
pledging that all traffic concerns would be addressed, a commitment I was
grateful to hear.
On June 22 1 attended the Planning Board work session at which the referral
.review for this proposed project was conducted. My understanding from that
session is that the Planning Board committed to the applicant that by the Board's
next meeting, scheduled for Monday July 11, the Board would decide whether to
adopt the findings statement issued by the Zoning Board of Appeals or adopt its
own findings statement.
I would remind the Planning Board that your commitment to address the public's
traffic concerns remains, as far as I understand it, unfulfilled.
As engaged Planning Board members, you know the Southold Town Code,
Chapter 280 (Zoning), Article XXIV (Site Plan Approval), section 127
(Applicability)sub-part (B)(2), states that part of the purpose of site plan review is
to "Lessen and, where possible, prevent traffic congestion on the streets
and highways upon which the site fronts or which provide vehicular or
pedestrian access thereto" (emphasis added).
You are likely also aware that Southold Town Code 280 section 129 (Objectives)
states:
"In considering and acting upon site plans, the Planning Board shall take
into consideration the public health, safety and welfare, the economic
impact and the comfort and convenience of the public in general and
the residents of the immediate neighborhood in particular and may
prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards as may be required
in order that the result of its action may, to the maximum extent
possible, further the expressed intent of this chapter..." (emphasis
added).
Thus the Southold Town Code explicitly gives the Planning Board the authority,
through the Site Plan Review process, to prescribe conditions needed to prevent
traffic congestion. The Planning Board's public hearing process revealed
credible evidence that the project as proposed will result in significant traffic
increase in front of the site. Hence the Planning Board has the authority to take
steps as necessary to prevent that traffic congestion.
It is also worth noting that the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation's
document,."The SEQR Handbook, Fourth Edition, 2020," explicitly affirms that no
agency, such as the Planning Board, loses its decision-making authority with
respect to an action even if it is not the lead agency. That is, the existence of the
SEAR Act does not alter or supersede the Planning Board's authority.
Since my letter of April 24 to Chair Wilcenski, making some of the points above,
further information has come to light. I was able to access the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (TGM), 10th edition, upon
which the applicant's traffic study was based (formerly I had access only to the
9th edition).
I learned the following from a review of the ITE TGM, 10th edition:
• The trip generation rates that the applicant applied to estimate traffic
generated by the proposed hotel and restaurant were based on data from
urban and suburban locations. Southold Town and Southold hamlet
are neither urban nor suburban, thus these trip generations rates are not
applicable to the applicant's proposal and were used inappropriately.
• The ITE TGM 10" edition offers estimates of trips generated by business
hotels based on number of employees (you may recall that the applicant
estimated trips based on number of rooms). If the number of hotel
employees (43) is used as the independent variable instead of the number
of rooms, weekday morning and afternoon peak trips are 147 and 150
tripsrespectively, compared to only 17 estimated in the applicant's traffic
study. Basing trips on number of employees results in nearly 9 times
more trips than the applicant estimated based on number of hotel
rooms.
In addition, I noted in my April 11 testimony that the applicant concluded in
several instances that traffic increases would be `insignificant" or `not noticeable'
;r
without providing'any standard or threshold between significant and insignificant
levels. Such a threshold has been found: the New York City CEQR Technical
Manual, December 2021 edition, Chapter 16, notes that for a lane group with
level of service (LOS F) under the 'With-Action' condition, an increase in
projected delay of 4.0 or more seconds compared to the `No-Action'
condition should be considered significant. The applicant's traffic study notes
that the-intersection of southbound Boisseau Avenue and the Main Road, for
Saturday peak hour conditions, under a 'no build' scenario will have a level of
service of F and a control delay time of 63.4 seconds vs. a delay time under the
`build' scenario is predicted to be 68.1 seconds. The increase in delay for this
level F intersection is thus 4.7 seconds, which is considered significant by
the NYC DOT, in contrast to the applicant's assertion that this increase would not
be noticeable. Surely the NYC DOT is an entity that is likely more tolerant of wait
times at intersections than Southold residents are.
In closing, I urge the Planning Board to fulfill its commitment to the public to
address the multiple and credible traffic concerns raised during the Planning
Board's public hearing and public comment period. Adopt an independent
findings statement advising the applicant that more information is needed to
address traffic concerns. Withhold application approval until such information is
provided. And as needed, impose conditions to safeguard the comfort and
convenience of the general public and the area's immediate residents.
Yours truly,
.71f Jt4 �'"�� r
Margaret Steinbugler
Cc:
Heather Lanza
Brian Cummings
April 25, 2022
�Ir
Donald Wilcenski, Chairman
East End Planning Board, Town of Southold
54375 Main Road
-------------------------------------------------------------------
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York, 11971
Re: The Enclaves Site Plan Application
SCTM#1000-63-3-15
Robert S.DeLuca
PRESOENT Dear Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Planning Board,
BOARD OF MRIECTORS
Katherine Lcmhy Birch On behalf of Group for the East End, please accept the following comments and
CHAW recommendations regarding the Enclaves site plan application. Please consider
these comments as an addition to our comments made in person during the public
William Ryall hearing on April 11, 2022.
VICE CHAIR
Susan AL)dalla Site Plan Comments:
Lou Bevdacqua In your continued review of this project, we urge you to consider the following:
W.Marco Birch
Kristen Brines Future Event Space— The applicant has proposed a"future event space" however,
Graciela Dauhaire the exact details of this space have yet to be provided. We believe specific
Andrew Goldstein information about this event space must be considered in your review and the
Stuart Goode details of this use cannot be put off to a later date. Information such as a
Nestor Gounaris maximum capacity of the space, the square footage of the building, and the
Sondra R.Mey(,,,r structure's location must be provided for this review. We are concerned that the
John F.Shea town will not be able to enforce the Zoning Board of Appeal's (ZBA)
Kimberly SmHh Spacek determination of limiting events to 100 people— especially if the event space
Mary Walker itself can hold well above that capacity. We ask that the Planning Board does not
Donna Winston deem the site plan complete until such information is provided, and prohibit
future expansion as a condition of any approval.
f'O, Box 1792
Southold,NY 11971 Density - We would like to emphasize that the Planning Board has discretionary
P.O. Box 569 authority over the approval of this project. We ask that you use this authority to
Bridgeharyipton, NY 11932 reconsider the maximum density of this project. The applicant's ZBA approval
631765,6450 provided a maximum density for this property, however, given the contention of
GroupforthelEastEnd,org that decision, which was not unanimous, we ask that the Planning Board consider
a smaller project that is more congruent with the comprehensive plan and the
character of Southold Town. Decreasing the density will help mitigate many
environmental and planning issues that have been raised over the course of this
project's review.
Traffic - The Group along with many others have raised concerns about the traffic
impacts of this project. During the public hearing on April 11th 2021 Margaret
Steinbugler, an engineer, raised many substantive concerns regarding the
applicants traffic study. The traffic studies provided by the applicant also pre-date
the Covid-19 pandemic which appears to have had a significant effect on the
traffic patterns in Southold Town. We ask the town to conduct their own
additional traffic study, during peak season, using a consultant who is clearly
independent from the applicant's consultants, to provide a truly objective,
substantive review.
Architecture - The architectural design of this project appears completely
incongruent with downtown Southold's historic, rural character. The
comprehensive plan indicates in numerous sections the importance of maintaining
our towns community character and rural feel. We ask that the Planning Board
utilize its authority, as it has in the past, to help the applicant create a project that
fits with our community and the goals of the comprehensive plan.
Landscape Design - The current property is located on a state designated scenic
byway and is primarily wooded with mature trees and vegetation. The applicant's
current proposal appears to demolish an extensive amount of existing vegetation.
The two nativars currently indicated on the landscape plan,Acer rubrum and
Cornus florida, are not the true native species. Therefore, they have a lower
ecological value than a true native, and we would encourage the use of true native
plantings at this site. We ask that the Planning Board push for a landscape design
plan which preserves a greater amount of the natural, native trees and shrubs. We
would also advocate for the use of Ilex glabra instead of privet since many forms
of privet are considered invasive. Creating a more natural landscape on the
property would decrease the need for extensive irrigation and water usage since
many of these plants are already adapted to our climate.
Lighting Plan -We also have concerns about the property's contribution to light
pollution. This hotel will be open 24 hours and even with compliant fixtures there
will still be lights running all night. In light of this we ask that the Planning Board
prohibit any decorative lighting and require all proposed lighting is strictly
necessary for the safety of staff and patrons. We also ask that all lights in relation
to the restaurant are turned off a half hour after closing as per chapter 172 of the
town code. Additionally, we ask that the Planning Board encourage the applicant
to use 2200 Kelvin light bulbs with low lumens for the fixtures on the property.
Suffolk County Bill "IR 1805-2021" calls for the use of 2200 Kelvin bulbs on all
county properties as is considered best practice by current dark sky standards.
Response to Applicant Comments Received April 1911, 2022
We wish address some of the comments made by the applicant in their recent
letter received by the planning board on April 19th 2022.
The applicant's position in respect to the Planning Board's authority is misguided
in that it presumes the Planning Board had no additional review authority outside
the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA)process.
The determination made by the Zoning Board of Appeals permits the hotel use.
The decision also provides conditions for the approval such as a maximum
density, and event size limit. This project is still subject to a complete site plan
review and will of the Planning Board. Traffic is a component of this review
(Southold Town Code, Chapter 280-127 (B)(2)). Subjecting the applicant to a
substantive review of their site plan is a completely acceptable process.
Requesting further information is by no means a back door challenge of the
ZBA's determination, does not impose undue harm on the applicant as their
proposal is in the process of undergoing review.
The SEQRA process does not change the jurisdictional or administrative review
authority of any agency. The New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation's SEQRA handbook makes it clear that an involved agency may
elect not to approve a positive finding statement for a project even if the lead
agency elected to do so. An involved agency may even issue a negative findings
statement, if it finds critical issues of concern (such as traffic) that has not been
adequately addressed and would need to be addressed by the applicant and
involved agency. (NYS SEQRA handbook, 64)
Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the overwhelming public concern, and the lack of
a unanimous Zoning Board decision we believe it is necessary for the Planning
Board to ask for further information in regards to traffic. Since there is a need for
additional information the Planning Board must not adopt a positive finding
statement based on the ZBA approval until it has satisfied all questions regarding
safety/access and related traffic concerns associated with this proposal.
Thank you for your time and consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
Marina C. DeLuca
Environmental Associate
REC'EIVED
April 22, 2022
PO Box 528 f�
_. 20� _,
20221
325 Indian Neck Lane out "�lo? n
Peconic,NY 11958 Planning Board
Southold Town Planning Board
PO Bx 1179
Southold,NY 11971
Dear Planning Board Members,
Although I am not a resident of the hamlet of Southold, I am a full time resident of
Peconic, a hamlet within the township of Southold. I have attended two of the town's sessions
regarding the application for the project we have all come to know as The Enclave. This project
has become a sticking point for many of the residents of Southold. This can be measured by
the attendance at the various town sessions and by the letters to the editor of the local
newspaper.
I believe that the Planning Board needs to look at this application through a new lens,
one of the overall future of Southold, and what this one application might mean for the future of
Southold. While I realize that the approval of this project should have no bearing on any other
future projects - that should not the case here. There are two other hotel projects that are, or
will come before a Southold Town Planning Board for review. The approval of this one will
probably pave the way for the others, and I fear will influence the approval of more projects of
similar scope in the very near future.
That other hamlets around Suffolk County probably do not fit into your approval
equation is probably true, but take a look at Port Jefferson, Northport, Southampton, Hampton
Bays, all without three hotels, all tourist spots, all so much like Southold.
Then there is the issue of traffic. I urge you to drive east from the North Fork Table and
Inn, and come to the bend in the road just before the proposed project and imagine a summer
night and cars exiting the restaurant. Look at Founders Tavern on a week night and count the
cars parked in the street, causing congestion. People are people and they park in the street
even if there are many available parking places in the venues parking lot.
Ten events allowed per year. Do you think that these ten will be held in January or
February? No, they will be held in the peak of the season June to August-a ten week period.
So each and every summer weekend you drive east into Southold and come round that bend
and meet those 75 restauranteurs and those 40 hotel guests exiting. Who or what will control
the traffic?
Generally, an architect's model or rendering of a project of this magnitude would be
available, I have not soar&model, nor a close-up of the rendering. This would, for one thing,
show the types and density of any foliage that would be planted. In this case it is highly
important due to the fact that the Enclave is to be hidden from view, according to the
conversation. I am hoping that it will be of the evergreen variety not deciduous but also deer
resistant aft. Perhaps the real question is Why are they trying to hide the hotel? What are they
afraid of? If the deer do devour the foliage as in most of Southold, what will we see then?
Thank You for listening,
W___
Joel Reitman
From: Laura Blume <laurasblul8@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2022 8:27 AM RKEIVED
To: Lanza, Heathererg �
Subject: Enclaves hotel
Sou
t.ZWG Town
planning Board
I am writing to request you further reduce the footprint of the proposed Enclaves Hotel. While I am not against
this addition entirely, I am concerned about the size of the venue complicating both traffic and the character of
our hamlet.
It is important that we protect our environment and bucolic setting so that the North Fork is still a place worth
visiting. Don't sell out our future!
Thank you
Laura Blume
Sent from my iPhone
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
From: Carol A.Owens <carolaowens@gmail.com> W
RECEIVED
Sent: Saturda , A ril 23, 2022 10:46 AMY P �To: Lanza, Heather Subject: The Enclaves
Dear Heather Lanza:
One of the most unsettling claims in the FEIS is that making a left turn onto Main Road from Town Harbor
Lane should not be impacted by traffic turning into and out of the property in question. As we are aware,the
Comprehensive Plan for Southold plainly states ...maintenance ...of our community by encouraging small scale
development.
Please acknowledge this is directly the opposite and we,the residents, heard about its scale very late in the
process.
Thank you, Carol Owens
1800 Town Harbor Lane
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
From: Nicholas Antonucci <nantonucci@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday,April 23, 2022 3:17 PM
To: Lanza, Heather; Michaelis,Jessica RECEIVED
Subject: Planning board - Enclaves Application - Public Comment
L..S tbok -T6o '�-
To: Southold Town Planning Board, Planning Board
My name is Nick Antonucci, and I live at 770 Old Shipyard Lane in
Southold.
I'm writing to express my concern to the Planning board about the
Enclaves application, and I would like to voice my opinion in the public
comment section.
My wife and I have three children, and our youngest will graduate from
Southold High School this June. From the time our children went to pre-K
until now, it is incredible how much has changed in Southold.
When our children were younger, Main Street traffic was light, and we
never had trouble making a left-hand turn pulling out of Locust lane onto
Main street. Twenty years later, things have changed. Traffic has
increased so much that we've experienced significant delays in making
left-hand turns year-round. What's worse is that with the increase in
traffic, more vehicles are not following the law. The IGA parking lot has a
sign that indicates no left-hand turns onto Main Road, yet I've seen folks
making that turn regularly. The same is true for people pulling out of the
Grateful Deli. Hobart is a one-way street until it reaches Korn Road. I
cannot tell you how many people disobey this rule and pull out of Hobart
Road onto Main Road illegally. Our family and many others in our
community share the same experience regularly. It is the main reason I
am writing today.
As we are seeing more people driving on our local roads, I suggest that
before the planning board approves the Enclaves Hotel application, it
would consider the totality of the traffic effect when adding a Hotel at
the proposed location. Although I've listened to the experts on what they
say is the nominal impact the Hotel will have on traffic, I am very dubious
of this fact. It is very hard to reconcile that hotel guests and employees
traveling in this area will have only a negligible impact on traffic. As a
community resident who has witnessed changes over the years, I am
seeing an ever growing increase in the number of people using the beach
and the boat ramp at the end of Hobart Road during these past two
summers. When we are thinking of this section of Southold Town, adding
the Hotel will not make traffic conditions safer for residents and non-
residents; instead, it will hasten a more significant problem for us to solve
in the future.
Although Chief Flatley and his department are doing their best to enforce
traffic laws in this part of the Southold, we cannot expect a police officer
to patrol this area 24/7. It seems clear that adding a Hotel to this section
of town will only worsen a bad situation. Please consider finding a
solution for these traffic problems first before adding another layer of
complexity.
The Southold Town Board has only one chance to get this right, and I
hope it will consider my thoughts when making its final decision.
Respectfully,
Nick Antonucci
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
2
From: Meryl HittrnN <meryl7hittman@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 9:42 AM RECEIVED
7Subject: En�clavel�Pro Jessica
� ���r �
1 1 2022
SoutWd Town
Dear Ms. Michaelis, Planning Board
I am writing to express my concern about the Enclaves' project and request delay of approval until issues of
traffic and infrastructure can be further studied.At the last meeting, data presented by the developers was
questioned by other knowledgeable professionals. This is too big a project not to due our due diligence and
make sure we have completely studied the impact on traffic and infrastructure.
We owe it to ourselves and all Southold residents to make sure that we are using all scientific and current
studies in making our decision.I urge you to please withhold approval until this can be resolved.
Sincerely,
Meryl Rittman
Sent from my iPad
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source.Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
i
From: Amy Orr <amyorrl @gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 4:23 PM RECEIVEDVLU]
To: Lanza, Heather
Subject: Enclaves Feedback A
7PLIanningBoard
Please consider -
Two party venues within 1/2 mile
I am a resident in the founders landing neighborhood. We already have a
party venue at founders landing. 1/2 mile from the Enclaves. Believe me,
if music is happening inside or out you can feel the base reverberate over
the water and through the quiet neighborhood. With the enclaves we will
have a party venue on either side of the neighborhood, 1/2 mile in
between. Was there any consideration to how close party venues can
operate?
2 party venues booked every weekend through the long summer.
Traffic on 25.
Already there are older pedestrians darting between cars on the northeast
end of town. Its humiliating and frightening. The traffic is bad and will
become worse. Are you waiting for tragedy? Slow down the traffic. A stop
sign? A pedestrian sign? We deserve help.
Thanks for your consideration and good care of our community. Amy
Amy Carr
215-518-1733
amyorrl@giiiaii.com
am orr.net.
instagram.com/amyorrwhat
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
From: LYNNE NORMANDIA <lnormandia@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2022 6:04 PM RECEIVED
To: Lanza, Heather _......
Subject: Enclaves AfT 2 202Z
—0-6f c n
Dear Heather, Planning Board
From Websters:
Definition of enclave
: a distinct territorial, cultural, or social unit enclosed within or as if within foreign territory
I have made bold the word"foreign"to point out that even the name of this proposed hotel is not a friendly
entity. Are we the enemy?
Do we really need such a thing here in Southold?When I read that he ZBA approved the place, I almost gave
up hope that this town listens to its residence. The Planning Board is our last hope.Warm wishes and good
luck.Lynne Normandia2100 Leeton Drive
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
From: ROBERT DUNN <dunn3809@aol.com> �I
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2022 2:14 PM IYZECi ..II
IVED
To: Lanza, Heather
Cc: Southold Civic Association
5 Z(J2,2J
Subject: The Enclaves Hotelc y'd ro
Planning Board
Good day,
This correspondence is regarding the proposed development of the Enclaves Hotel in downtown Southold.
It is my understanding that the property has certain rights under existing zoning application,therefore I will
leave that decision to those of you in the know. It is not for anybody to decide against a proposal simply
because it's unpopular. Though the bigger picture and long term consequence requires a reexamination of
zoning code that would even give consideration of a project of this size and scope in an hamlet center.
However, given that this proposal includes an accessory meeting space for up to a hundred participants it has
gone beyond what is a safe and reasonable use of this property as a forty room hotel. There is simply no way
that the traffic from a meeting of 100 individuals, with the possibly of up to 100 car's arriving/leaving on
schedule, in addition to the normal traffic of a forty room hotel with restaurant, can be accommodated in a safe
and orderly manner in the center of our small hamlet. It will only be more dangerous considering it's proximity
to the busy 7/11 store on the other side of the street, with it's existing traffic.
The current proposal would be an unreasonable risk to, and burden on the people of Southold, and is therefore
unacceptable and must be denied as such.
Respectfully,
Robert Dunn
Peconic
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
From: James Cornacchia <jimc@cordev.com> EIVED
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2022 11:10 PM
To: Michaelis,Jessica re "i 2,022 Subject: [SPAM] - Enclaves Hotel p�.rp.�
t11oid-rown
Planning Board
Dear Jessica Michaelis,
My name is Jim Cornacchia and my wife,Amanda and I live in Reydon Shores on 655 Grove Drive.I have
been a summer resident of the North Fork since 1972 when my parents built their summer home in Cutchogue
on the end of Skunk Lane next to the Nassau Point Causeway Beach.In 1988, our family moved to Southold
and lived in the historic Williams Log Cabin on Kimberly Lane. My wife and I were married at St.Patricks
Church and our wedding reception was held at my parents home. I spent a considerable amount of time at the
Southold Yacht club and co-ran the junior sailing program from 1982-1986.I still continue to sail at SYC today.
We absolutely love the North Fork and it has been a significant part of our lives for many years.We
understand that communities need to continue to evolve and we have witnessed some incredibly positive
changes over the past decades. The North Fork has grown and evolved over the years and with that growth it
has become a destination with incredible restaurants, vineyards and many many family friendly activities.
Most importantly to me,it remains a boaters paradise. There is simply no better place to spend on the water
and we spend a considerable amount of time on our boat with our kids and friends. Every summer brings
incredible memories.
My wife and I write to you this evening because of our deep concern over the Enclaves Hotel development.
We strongly believe that Southold town is at a tipping point in terms of the traffic is can support.On paper, the
Enclaves hotel has the opportunity to bring additional foot traffic to stores and restaurants in town,however
we are concerned that a full impact of the car traffic that will result has not been considered.That particular
area is a choke point for cars and it is becoming more and more congested each year.We ask that the town
board consider not moving forward with this project OR substantially scaling it down. We understand there
has already been concessions made,but the size and scope is still too large for the area it slated to be built.
There is no place like the North Fork,but if this project moves forward,unfortunately Southold will follow in
the footsteps of our South Fork neighbors. Overcrowded, Overrun... and stripped of the character that made
the North Fork a family destination will be destroyed.
Thank you for your time and consideration...
Sincerely,
James and Amanda Cornacchia
655 Grove Drive
Southold,NY 11971
From: Karen Murray <karenmurray25@gmail.com>
RECEIVED
°
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 10:11 AM ._.._.,.._......._..m ..__
To: Michaelis,Jessica; Lanza, Heather � dmt a
Subject: Enclaves proposal
a 2022
sou tfioo T'6
Planning Board
Dear Ms. Lanza and Ms. Michaelis:
Thank you for your work on the Planning Board, and for inviting public comment about The Enclaves hotel application. I
am writing in opposition to the proposal. I believe that the traffic study from 2019 is no longer valid,given the
permanent increase in year-round residents that occurred due to the pandemic. People are now working full-time from
home, and have relocated to the North Fork. We can see that traffic has increased, businesses are busier, and the
precious resources of our home are ever more strained.
I have lived on the North Fork since 2000, and I remember that"Tumbleweed Tuesday,"the day after Labor Day, used to
mark the end of the tourist season. Now the season includes vineyard harvest festivals, pumpkin picking,Christmas tree
purchasing, and we are only"back to normal"from January through about March.
While there are positive side effects to increased tourism and visitors, I believe that The Enclaves proposal goes too far.
Our hamlet will be negatively impacted forever by the addition of a 44-room hotel with pool, spa, roof deck and
restaurant, not to mention a facility for 100-person events.This is the first domino, and if it falls, it will be used to justify
other large, invasive and unsustainable hotels to be built.
Please reject the proposal as written. We should be encouraging developers to redo existing properties.A small inn--
without a pool or event space--is the most that we need in our hamlet.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Karen Murray
9350 N. Bayview Rd.
Southold 11971
631-765-5227
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
From: annemurray@optonline.net
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 11:12 AM P -i�VE]D
To: Lanza, Heather
Subject: Enclaves Hotel Comments to Planning Board �� 2
022
,oU itFO-2 n
Planning Board
Dear Planning Board Members,
I urge the Planning Board to require an additional traffic study of the intersections near the proposed Enclaves
Hotel.
The most recent traffic study cited in the Final Environmental Impact Statement was conducted in 2019 and is
way too outdated to cite as being reflective of current or projected traffic conditions in that area.
This hotel's proposed events and combined with restaurant patrons coming and going are a potential traffic
nightmare for the hamlet that must be addressed.
The Planning Board should require that the Enclaves owners provide or pay for traffic enforcement in that
area on weekends to ensure traffic flow and traffic and pedestrian safety in the hamlet of Southold.
Sincerely,
Anne Murray
300 Southern Boulevard
East Marion , NY 11939
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
From: Kathy Mccabe <kathy.mccabe@gmail.com> RECEIVED
Sent: Monday,April 25, 2022 11:11 AM
To: Lanza, Heather APR R 5 2022
Subject: Enclaves Project
L�6ut'f''ewd Rou4+n
Planning Board
Members of the Board:
Although I have many concerns about the Enclaves Project,the impact on traffic in Southold is of grave
concern. I know an earlier study was submitted, but I do not believe it is as accurate as it could be. I am asking
the board to order another more in-depth study before final permission is given for this project.
Sincerely Kathleen McCabe, resident of the town of Southold.
Sent from my iPhone
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
��IT 022,
Margaret Steinbugler
PO Box 345 6-6ti uoi'o Town
1405 Cedar Beach Road Planning Board
Southold, NY 11971
(631) 765-9346
(860) 490-1582 (cell)
April 24, 2022
Don Wilcenski, Chairman
Planning Board, Town of Southold
54375 Main Road
PO Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Planning Board:
I am writing in regard to the letter of April 15, 2022 addressed to the Planning Board
from David N. Altman, counsel to the applicant for the Enclaves hotel and restaurant
project proposal. I would like to call the Planning Board's attention to an erroneous
statement in the letter; also to several other aspects of the letter.
The letter states, "Respectfully, this Board does not have the authority to conduct a new
TIS [traffic impact study] and is bound by the State Environment Quality Review Act
('SEQRA') record and Final Environment Impact Statement ('FEIS') accepted by the
Southold Zoning Board of Appeals ('ZBA')." This statement is erroneous on two
counts, one related to Southold Town Code and one related to the NYS SEQR Act.
Firstly, the Southold Town Code, Chapter 280 (Zoning), Article XXIV (Site Plan
Approval), section 127 (Applicability) sub-part (13)(2), states,
"It is the purpose of this article to encourage good design and to:
(1) Protect the established character and value of the adjoining properties, both
public and private, and of the neighborhood in which they are located.
(2) Lessen and, where possible, prevent traffic congestion on the streets
and highways upon which the site fronts or which provide vehicular or
pedestrian access thereto." (emphasis added).
Further, Southold Town Code 280 section 129 (Objectives) states:
"In considering and acting upon site plans, the Planning Board shall take into
consideration the public health, safety and welfare, the economic impact and the
comfort and convenience of the public in general and the residents of the
immediate neighborhood in particular and may prescribe appropriate
conditions and safeguards as may be required in order that the result of its
action may, to the maximum extent possible, further the expressed intent
of this chapter..." (emphasis added).
Thus the Southold Town Code explicitly gives the Planning Board the authority, through
the Planning Board's Site Plan Review process, to prescribe conditions needed to
prevent traffic congestion on the street on which the project fronts, also on the streets
that provide access. The Planning Board's public hearing process revealed credible
evidence that the project as proposed will result in significant traffic increase in front of
the site. Hence the Planning Board has the authority to take such steps as necessary to
prevent that traffic congestion. If those steps require another traffic study, or a
reduction in the project's size and/or scope, or a return of the proposal to the ZBA,
those steps are squarely within the Planning Board's authority.
Secondly, the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation's document, "The SEQR
Handbook, Fourth Edition, 2020," notes on page 64:
"Does an agency [ie, the Planning Board] lose its decision-making authority with
respect to an action if it is not the lead agency?
No. All underlying jurisdictions of each involved agency with respect to an action
remain unchanged."
That is, the existence of the SEQR Act does not alter or supersede the authority of any
involved agency.
There are three other aspects of the applicant's attorney's letter that I would like to bring
to the Planning Board's attention.
First, the applicant's attorney's letter cites the case Troy Sand & Gravel Co., Inc. v.
Town of Nassau, 125 A.D.3d 1170 (3d Dept., 2015) as reason why the Planning Board
must be bound by the FEIS accepted by the ZBA. While this case appears relevant, it
differs in one significant factor from the applicant's case: the Troy Sand & Gravel Case
did not include any challenge to the quality and completeness of the FEIS conducted via
the SEQR process. In the applicant's case, the FEIS quality and completeness are
challenged, and evidence and analysis were produced and documented to substantiate
that challenge.
Second, it is important to mention that the letter from the applicant's attorney did not
make any effort to refute the flaws in the applicant's TIS noted in the April 11 public
hearing and further documented in the memo provided to the Planning Board and to the
applicant's representatives on April 11, 2022. Rather, the letter dismisses residents'
concerns about traffic as "unfounded, unsupported and baseless" without providing any
evidence or substantiation that would refute the flaws noted in the TIS.
Related to this lack of refutation, it may be of interest to the Planning Board that "The
SEQR Handbook, Fourth Edition, 2020,"
(hftps://www.diec,,ny.gov/docs/perm its e° operations, df/se rh,andbook.od , page 65,
notes, "Project sponsors are responsible for the accuracy of the information they
provide for EAFs and EISs. Presentation of misleading or knowingly false information by
an applicant may lead to rejection of his proposal, or to subsequent litigation.
2
Presentation of a misleading or knowingly false statement on such a document could
also result in criminal prosecution of the person making the statement. This action
would be considered `Filing a false instrument,' a 'D' felony in New York," (emphasis
added). This note suggests that the applicant (ie, project sponsor) should be highly
motivated to refute the flaws noted in the TIS, in order to avoid the appearance of
providing misleading or false information. Yet the applicant's attorney presented no
refuting evidence.
"The SEQR Handbook, Fourth Edition, 2020" contains another point relevant to the
Planning Board's consideration of the proposed project. From the Handbook, page 64:
"What recourse does an involved agency have if it has participated in the EIS
process, but its concerns have been ignored or inadequately addressed?
It is important for an involved agency that has substantive concerns regarding the
adequacy of the draft EIS to make this known to the lead agency. If the involved
agency's comments are then disregarded or responded to unsatisfactorily, it may
take such deficiencies into account in making its own decision regarding the
action which could result in negative SEAR Findings and a denial."
Third, the applicant's attorney's letter claims, "...it is entirely impermissible to use the
Site Plan Review process and the forum provided thereby as a means to conduct a
backdoor challenge to the ZBA's Decision and/or Findings Statement." In fact, it is the
purpose of the public hearing to hear the public so as to enable the Planning Board to
take into consideration their welfare, comfort and convenience as required by Southold
Town Code 280-129. The applicant's attorney does not appear to know or understand
what the Town Code requires.
would add that there is nothing "backdoor" about standing up to speak in a public
forum, being quoted in the local newspaper, and providing hard copies of one's
observations, data, and analyses to the Planning Board as well as to the applicant's
representatives.
In closing, I note that, if approved, this project and its traffic impacts will be enduring and
irreversible. I strongly urge the Planning Board to take the time to carefully consider its
options before approving this project. I defer to the Planning Board's own, best
knowledge of its processes and options, but I submit that they may include:
• An updated traffic study with the characteristics outlined on page 3 of my April
11, 2022 memo, and/or
a A requirement imposed on the applicant to refute the flaws noted in the TIS
and/or
• Referral back to the ZBA for reconsideration of its negative declaration based on
new information coming to light (ie, TIS flaws):
The N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 6 § 617.7 (f) allows for the
rescission of negative declarations by the lead agency: "a lead agency, at
3
its discretion, may amend a negative declaration when substantive...new
information is discovered," and/or
Consultation with its own internal or external counsel to better understand the
Planning Board's options and risks
Thanks very much for your consideration. I wish you probity and wisdom as you
consider how to proceed.
Best regards,
Margaret Steinbugler
4
RECEIVED
�D ._ �
Southold Town Planning Board22
tr�op `town
Planning Board
PO Box 1179
Southold NY 11971
April 25, 2022
Re: Enclaves
What is the point of setting goals if we sit back and do nothing to achieve
them? Southold's Comprehensive Plan laid out a vision for a sustainable,
healthy future, acknowledging community character as a precious
resource. Our town is now confronting not just the Enclaves but 4 new
hotel complexes (Mattituck, Cutchogue, Greenport and now the Silver
Sands) and no doubt there are more in the pipeline. A more in depth
analysis of the total impact of these developments is urgently needed.
How can we mitigate their impact without accurate data? This is
fundamental and must be a top priority for Southold.
The problems we face as a community are unprecedented:
—The extraordinary increase in traffic, home building and buying during
the pandemic has created myriad issues where local officials are straining
to change the trajectory.
—Long Island's nature as a watershed means all activities on land effect
our water—from our now nitrogen-saturated bays to our shallow water
table. Development pressures continue to compromise this precious
resource with long-term frightening consequences.
—Insects have declined 75% in the last 50 years due to toxic pesticides
and these declines continue to accelerate with catastrophic results for
human and animal populations. Our world will grind to a halt without our
intervention.
So how does the Enclaves, as well as the other hotel proposals, fit in all
this? Thoughtful developers can have a positive impact on growth, and
become stewards of the community we love. Here are a few examples of
how the Enclaves and the others could mitigate the damage that is
inevitable with ambitious projects such as theirs:
—Drought-resistant planting has been discussed and is easily
accomplished. Add pollinator plants to the mix along with native species and
the developer can show a good-faith gesture toward preserving our habitat.
—The water consumption required to maintain the outdoor pool, indoor
pool, spa, hotel etc will be extraordinary. Grey water or water re-use could
be employed to irrigate the landscape, avoiding a wasteful use of this
resource.
—Encourage biking as an alternative to the car. Offer incentives to leave
the car at home and take the bus or train to Southold. Decrease the size
of the vast parking lot. If you build it, they will come.
—The flat roof hotel could easily accommodate solar panels to lessen the
carbon footprint. It's surprising, given the current focus on renewable
energy and global warming, that this is not part of the current plan.
Other issues more directly effect those of us who live in the Founders
neighborhood, an historic area with small homes, narrow lanes and no
sidewalks. Our only egress is the 3 streets facing the Enclaves (Town
Harbor, Locust and Cottage) so we will face considerable delays and
unsafe conditions just to go grocery shopping. Yet, if only right hand turns
are allowed when exiting the hotel, all that traffic (limos, box trucks, vans)
will be diverted onto our narrow lanes to head east. We will essentially
become the new route to Greenport, with its attendant issues of public
safety, noise and pollution. Add to that the constant flow of traffic entering
and exiting 7/11, surely, this deserves more study to ensure public safety.
Finally, there is the special event space which given its size (58'6" x 40')
could comfortably accommodate nearly 400 people. It's large doors open
onto the lawn, an invitation to gather outside on a summer night, creating
more noise in the neighborhood. The Menhaden, the Greenporter, the
Harborfront and American Beech all manage without these venues. Surely
with it's large lobby, bar and extensive seating the Enclaves could
accommodate those guests wanting to gather. It will be impossible to
regulate and enforce the 100 person rule. I urge the Planning Board to
reject this additional space.
Because of years of institutional inertia which allowed developers free rein
and the vested interests working against change, there is now pressure to
do something, anything to protect our community and its natural
resources. It is difficult but not too late to initiate a comprehensive traffic
study taking in all the recent changes and new proposals. We owe it to
future generations of Southold town.
Sincerely,
Nancy Butkus
655 Town Harbor Lane, Southold, NY 11971
Lanza, Heather
From: Bee Best <bbestny@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 12:39 PM dE]D
To: Lanza, Heather
Subject: Enclaves � I
i�� c Z
r�
Hi Heather Planning ard
Regarding the Enclaves proposal hope that the town will conduct another traffic study before deciding since the one cited in the FEIS was an
outdated study from 2019.
Thank you.
Regards,
Barbara Best
12355 New Suffolk Ave
Cutchogue
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
Lanza, Heather
From: Lisa <lnr02O6@grnail.com> ��
Sent: Monday,April 25, 2022 7:37 AM C L.
To: Lanza, Heather
APR
Subject: [SPAM] - Enclaves "022
scut co
Planning Board
Good morning Ms. Lanza,
I'll keep my email short as I suspect you have heard many variations on a theme...
I have had the blessing of spending over 60 years on the north fork in our family "summer house" ; my
children were equally blessed, and I have the joy of being fortunate enough to purchase a house for my
children and grandchildren on the beautiful Town Harbor lane...
Walk to beach,pristine as it was....
Walk to town, great family walking/cycling neighborhood for all generations - I fear that will all change with
this ill proposed project . My husband was a builder in NYC, and I completely understand expansion and the
merchants need for robust foot traffic... There surely was a way to utilize that space for the betterment of the
community- I am still befuddled at its approval. We need to be better stewards of the land and the
neighborhood...
Having said that, I ask for a new Traffic analysis... Post covid ,nothing is the same, anyone who has driven
around over the past two years can see that. Anecdotally, I am starting a small renovation and the trades people
are inundated with work from people like me who bought and are contemplating a permanent move
east... More traffic... less safe for the children on bikes, parents with strollers, older people just taking a
walk. Add to that a hotel... And let's not even mention the impact on our beautiful beach.
I urge another study at the very least-
Thank you for your attention.
Lisa Roselli
VED
_,... m. ..__.�,. .....
Carolyn & Benjamin Bennett APR2 W
2022
155 Old Shipyard Lane, Southold NY 11971
Email: Caroleee�agmail.com R lith ld fown—,—
Planning
wnmPlanning Board
Apr 25,2022
Southold Town Planning Board
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
PO Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Email: heatlier.lanza� town.southold.n .u ,jessica.michaelis@townsouthold.ny.us
To Whom it May Concern,
As a resident and owner in the Founders Landing neighborhood, I am writing to restate my continued &
strong opposition to the proposed Enclaves development, as I have previously petitioned the Zoning
Board of Appeals. I want to reiterate that I am not opposed to development at 56655 Route 25, or
elsewhere in Southold town. In fact, I believe that responsible, proactive city planning is long overdue,
could alleviate many of the issues our town faces, and help to preserve the character and quality of our
town that we all so value.
However, it is developments such as those proposed for"The Enclaves"that stand in direct opposition to
these values, challenge our commitment to responsible city planning and destroy the character of our
towns and communities. I am adamantly opposed to the development as it is currently proposed and
urge the Planning Board to take a hard, independent and critical lens to the myriad of issues that
have been raised by an overwhelming number of residents.
The plan in totality stands directly in opposition of Southold Town's comprehensive plan goals.The
proposed development stands in direct opposition to 6 of 10 town goals, while doing nothing to promote
the others:
1. Improve traffic congestion and safety and ensure infrastructure supports the residents and
businesses of the Town
2. Protect the character of the Town
3. Protect and enhance the natural resources and environment of the Town
4. Continue to preserve farmland and open space
5. Economic Prosperity("encouraging small scale community and residential development...
iw thout compromising the unique character of the town")
6. Continue to provide quality parks and recreation opportunities in the Town.
None of the key issues raised by residents have been directly addressed or satisfactorily answered by
the developer.
• Environmental Impact of this project is high.
• Architectural value has not been demonstrated.
• Traffic Impact has not been recently or fully considered and recent proposals to mitigate the
effect on the Main Road are likely to have multiple unintended consequences.
Economic Benefit and value added to the community are not shown..
Moreover,the management of this process overall would suggest negligence and poor community
involvement from the developer,a very poor harbinger of what's to come,given the inability to
regulate much of the mitigation plans proposed by the developer.
• Throughout the FEIS,the developers have taken a very dismissive stance to outlined concerns
o Time and again and across topics,the developer states in response that they're doing the "bare
minimum"while also asking for the required exception permit.
• In two years,there was no community outreach or involvement despite having a list of names and
details of concerns. The FEIS report itself was released the very last second and left an absurdly
short period of time for residents to learn about and digest the information contained within it
• In many instances,the developer proposes a qualitative mitigation plan that the town has no way
of regulating or enforcing. These should be considered as empty promises until such time as
there are real and material avenues for enforcement.
It is quite clear the proposed project could bring an immediate and negative impact to Southold town. I
myself welcome new residents and businesses to our town. I desire to see these uninhabited buildings
brought back to life,well loved and integrated into the fabric of our community. However, it is this very
desire that prompts me to plead the board to reconsider the application currently pending for the
Enclaves.
Southold Town should be at the forefront of representing the community interests and implementing the
town plan. It is our responsibility as members of this community to ensure that the local codes and
planning are protecting and enhancing our community. I write this letter as part of my commitment and
responsibility to a community I love, and I urge you to consider your responsibility to do the same. Far
from preserving the character and quality of our town,this project will clearly have a multi-faceted and
adverse impact across Southold - bringing damage that will spread far beyond the drawn boundaries of
the lot at 56655 Route 25. These are not mistakes that can be easily undone.
Regards,
Carolyn Bennett
ED
NRS '.
April 25, 2021
s �I; ��Y � own
To the members of the Southold Town ZBA,
Planning Board
As I read through the plan for "Then Enclaves" and scrolled through the images
of what is being proposed I thought to myself "there is no way the town will
approve this." Unfortunately we all now know that this has been given the green
light due to zoning being outdated and the Enclave group having endless money
to put into the project. This project will completely change the nature of our little
North Fork town and cause numerous issues for the residence who call
Southold "home" year round.
Again, I am sharing my concerns which have echoed through our neighborhood:
* Increased traffic - it is already dangerous to make a left hand turn out of our
driveway to head west. The FEIS only states that "no significant adverse
traffic impacts on or off-site will occur". I am unsure of the "study" performed
however a busy weekend evening of cars coming from Greenport and North
Fork Table already cause traffic situations. Additionally the intersection of the
Main Road and Boisseau Ave is already dangerous, I cannot imagine what a
weekend event would do to that intersection.
* The FEIS also states that the summer traffic count was done in July 2018.
Now, three years, and a pandemic, later the number of people on and
visiting the North Fork has grown exponentially. Those 2018 counts should
hardly hold any weight.
* Finding staff for this project will be a huge hurdle. The hotel, restaurant, and
events would all require part and full time employees however where will those
employees live? There is already a lack of affordable housing on the North
Fork and a project of this scope will draw in employees from out of town
directly adding to the traffic issue. Have you driven to Southampton between
May and September? Do we really want that line of traffic through the town of
Southold?
* The plans mention offering a shuttle service to allow hotel guests to visit our
beaches. Our beaches are already maxed out, not enough staff to man the life
guard stations, and the trash that piles up is horrendous. The project and
shuttle service would push local families away from out beaches and possibly
off of the North Fork all together.
* A hotel of this size with a restaurant that seats 70+ people seems very similar
to the Shoals just a mile or so east of this proposed project. Does Southold
need another hotel/venue in such proximity?
* The Shoals, North Fork Table & Inn, 57125 Main Road, 56695 Main Road, The
proposed Enclave location, and the Southold Venue (formerly Caci) are all now
owned by Jonathan Tibbett &friends. In addition to Southold General, the
former Rothman's. Each of these are commercial properties, and that stretch
of the Main Road in Southold are almost a continuous stretch of land owned
by the same person/group. Is there anything in Southold town code that
prevents each of these locations from having one event per week? In other
words, a wedding at the proposed Enclaves Thursday, a wedding at the
Shoals Friday, a wedding at the Southold Venue Saturday, and another
wedding at the North Fork Table Sunday? Each individual business would be
holding to this "one event per week" but the community would be setup for
disaster. It makes sense for these investors to maximize the return on their
investment with all of these properties, however it will be at the expense of the
people who call this area home.
Ultimately the request for this special exemption goes against everything
Southold Town recently adopted and put forward in it's "Comprehensive Plan"
that came out in early 2020. Protecting our "small town quality of life" is
mentioned several times in the Comprehensive Plan, now is the time for the ZBA
to do just that. Please protect our small town, people want to come here
because of how it is now. After the Enclaves was approved we've seen hotel
plans continue to be announced - the large hotel in Mattituck (complete with
palm trees in it's plan drawing), the hotel at Peconic Bay Vineyard, and now the
proposed hotel in Greenport where Sweet Indulgences was. The Enclave
project opened this door and if the town doesn't hold this project to strict
guidelines we will turn into the Hamptons. And 20 years form now people won't
want to be on the North Fork because it will be built up and unrecognizable...
just like the Hamptons.
Sincerely,
Katie Peters
From: megan barron <meganbarron2018@gmail.com> IVED
Sent: Monday, 2022 3:39 PM
YApril
7_ —
To: I �a 2 , .. .
Subject: The Enclaves pending application
out
of T v
P Board
Southold Town Planning Board
Re: Pending application for The Enclaves
25 April 2022
Dear Members of the Southold Planning Board,
Thank you in advance for reading this and other letters concerning the pending application for
The Enclaves. As you know, a great number of local residents have written letters and shown
up to public hearings, but it is worth keeping in mind that those people represent only a
portion of locals who are against approving this plan. Unfortunately, the process is weighted
in favor of the applicant, who along with hired consultants may take years to put together a
proposal; by contrast, local citizens have a scant two weeks after notification to understand
the scope of a project and, should they decide to oppose it, figure out how to do so. That said,
would like to add my own views to the public record on this proposed development.
The Suffolk Times reported on April 21, 2022 that the Planning Board has advised against an
affordable housing development called Cutchogue Woods. While I am not offering a negative
or positive opinion on that project, allow me to list the following comparisons between that
plan and The Enclaves.
The Enclaves Cutchogue Woods
6.75 acres
5.66 acres
Proposal includes the following:
Proposal includes the following:
44-unit 2-story hotel
24 units
74-seat restaurant in house listed 48 hardscape parking spaces
in Southold Historic Places Inventory
plus driveways
132 hardscape parking spaces 35-foot setbacks
plus driveways
4 cottages with outdoor hot tubs
Outdoor swimming pool and hot tub
Indoor spa pool 40 ft x 20 ft + hot tub
Accessory event space with 45 ft deck
Outdoor second-floor dining (in hotel)
8'-wide takeout counter in restaurant
Some setbacks only 10 ft
Interestingly, not so long ago the Planning Board rejected an application on the same land
(SCTM 1000-63-3-15) as the proposed Enclaves Hotel. The Southwold Manor proposal in
2009 was for an active adult condominium community of 27 residential units: 8 freestanding
buildings of 4 units each, plus 3 affordable housing units within the aforementioned historic
dwelling. One greatly hopes that our town of Southold does not give special favor to
developers whose clientele are very wealthy while rejecting other applications that benefit
residents of our community.
The Southold Town Comprehensive Plan has been ten years in the making, and reflects what
our government and our citizens envision and want in the place they live. It is time to
implement the recommendations of this plan in a consistent and meaningful manner. The
Enclaves proposal is not fully supported by the Comprehensive Plan. The architecture, as
numerous residents have noted, is not in any way reflective of the aesthetic character of
Southold Town. The hotel rooms, a long box with an unimaginative monotonous grid of
windows, uncannily resembles countless American grade schools built in the 1960s, and the
finish of the complex's buildings are a rather dispiriting beige stone. Frankly, the only beautiful
structure on the property is the existing house, which (to quote from Southold Landmarks
Preservation Commission, 2013) is an
Exquisite Gable-Roof Italianate style house with heavy brackets; only 10% of remaining
Italianate style houses in America are of this sub-type. House significantly contributes
to the historic viewshed and landscape of Southold.
It would be a shame if our town of Southold cannot conceive of a better means by which to
preserve this historic dwelling than to have it cling to survival via conversion into a restaurant.
The house's continued existence is useful to the developer for one reason: to make the rest of
the extensive construction possible.
At the Planning Board public hearing on April 11 , 2022, David Altman (attorney for the
applicant) repeatedly stated that the Enclaves plan is "modest" in the hopes that saying it
often enough will make the board and the public believe it. For the record, this proposal is big
for the town of Southold, and anyone who lives here knows that. Altman also puts on the
record that the Enclaves plan involves building on only 18% of the property; however,
"building" does not include the nearly 3 acres that would be paved over in this project, making
the percentage of structures and hardscape closer to 55% of the 6.75 acres in question.
A look at the site plan drawings makes it clear that the Enclaves pushes to the limits of the
property line, in almost every case using the minimum required setback, which in some
places is as little as 10 feet. The 25-foot setback from the Long Island Railroad, which uses
the tracks 8 times a day, is far more generous than the setbacks along the property line of
adjacent homeowners and local businesses, where the plan essentially calls for circulating
hotel and restaurant traffic that would continuously affect properties 1000-63-03-16, 1000-63-
03-14, and 1000-63-03-13. Note: box trucks will have to reverse to navigate out of the
proposed turnaround, which is situated at the entrance of the hotel and 4 handicapped
parking spaces. Other adjacent properties would be obligated to deal with a sewer treatment
plant and additional parking at most 15 feet from their property line (1000-63-03-17.3), and
the entire length of the hotel and newly added event space would border 1000-63-17.4.
SCTM 1000-63-03-16 is also faced with the potential problem of the proposed event space
and surrounding lawn: that structure has a 45-ft deck leading directly outside. Although one of
the conditions for the Enclaves special exception from the ZBA is no outdoor events, it is
without question that guests in the event space will exit onto the deck, lawn, and pond areas
in order to continue the party. And the mitigation plan for all of the above-cited issues factors
is a stockade fence.
It is worth noting that the applicant's team also emphasizes the plan to "hide the hotel and
activity from view"—why not instead devise a plan that Southold residents can be excited
about and enthusiastically support? By definition, hiding a development signifies that the
applicant is aware of its many shortcomings.
The concerns about traffic on the Main Road are serious and real. Others with far more
expertise than I have supplied the board with hard data on this issue, and I join them in
contending that a new, independent traffic study is necessary. I will add, however, that
proposed traffic circulation plans C-100 and C-101 demonstrate sweep and steering angles of
box trucks and stretch limousines, respectively, for navigating within the confines of The
Enclaves; however, there are no schematics for how those vehicles enter and exit onto Route
25.
The ZBA imposed a number of conditions upon granting a special exception for this project,
but a major problem is that they look good on paper, but in reality the burden of enforcement
is left to town residents. Southold does not have the resources to police developments such
as The Enclaves once the project is given approval. In the Planning Board hearing on April
11 th, one resident questioned how the number of guests at special events would be
monitored, and it was telling that the only means by which to effect that is for neighbors to call
the Code Enforcer. Even though counting the number of special event attendees would be
very difficult given the number of other uses going on at the same time on this property, the
proposed hotel grounds will be off limits to locals, hidden behind a 6 ft 5 in wall + tall
shrubbery and it would therefore be impossible for outsiders to monitor human activity. Nor
should Southold Town residents be obliged to do so. As the ZBA's Leslie Weisman said in
reference to Code Enforcement, "we would rather have a project that isn't going to look
forward to issues on the property." As long as special events and an accessory building
created to house them are permitted, "issues on the property" will fail to be solved in a
satisfactory manner.
The estimated water use for landscaping alone for this plan is approximately 2,396,000
gallons, or 92,151+ per week in the irrigation season. In addition, the applicant does plan to
use pesticides "sparingly," but that is not forward thinking or environmentally acceptable. In
2022 we don't need sterile grass lawns—in fact, they are actually harmful to the planet, and
we are not living in the 1950s—but more natural landscaping that takes into account critical
insect and bird pollinators and is in keeping with efforts to reduce climate change.
Landscaping is, of course, only one demand on our aquifer. In addition, the Enclaves plan
shows an outdoor swimming pool, another pool in the basement measuring 40 ft x 20 ft plus
auxiliary hot tub, a decorative pond, beauty salon stations for washing hair, facilities for
manicures and pedicures, hot tubs for each cottage, and more. The floor plans on record may
not show all bathrooms—for example, it is unlikely that there are no staff toilets for the
proposed coffee shop, back offices, housekeeping offices, etc.—but water use estimations
must also factor in all the toilets and showers needed for a development of this size.
Per the FEIS the applicant states "It is likely that [Enclaves] beachgoers will also shower at
the beach" and therefore not add to the applicant's use of water; however, these potential
guests would still be partaking of Southold's aquifer—that is, if showers at our beaches
existed! Off site does not mean nonexistent. The same reasoning is applied to laundry for the
hotel and restaurant that will take place somewhere offsite.
It is inarguable that The Enclaves project would create a significant demand for water.
Southold Town is using the firm of Nelson Pope Voorhis (NPV) as environmental consultants
to this application, and representatives for The Enclaves were quick to state at public
hearings that NPV is "well respected." But respect is not what is crucial here; rather,
independence is. NPV's website is 100% developer driven and shows no examples of
pushing back against projects that negatively impact the environment. Thus it is no surprise
that NPV has not found any problems with the Enclaves application and that the SEQRA is a
"neg dec"; that is, the environmental effects are projected to be of"insignificant" impact or will
be mitigated. NPV's recommendations are self-interested, as the firm is "well respected" by
developers only. Southold Town needs to enlist the expertise of a truly independent, nonprofit
consulting firm to conduct an environmental impact study for this project.
At the first Planning Board meeting a representative for the Enclaves said, "Imagine a hotel
without special events. Imagine a hotel without an event space," as if the notion were absurd.
He went on to argue that the applicant has gone "above and beyond" by altering the plans in
order to accommodate local residents. First, most hotels do not have event spaces and
events, so it is quite easy to imagine; moreover, such configurations are well outside the norm
for North Fork hamlets. The applicant contends that this project "can't make money" without
special events and the spaces to hold them. If a business plan is dependent upon special
events to be financially feasible, then it is a bad business plan. In addition, Southold Town is
not obligated to approve an application under such terms; it is not our responsibility to
accommodate investors so that they can profit at citizens' expense. Nor does it matter that the
applicant has "spent five years" on this project, as they are also fond of saying at public
hearings–again, it is solely the applicant's choice to begin a proposal and should not earn him
or her approval points with any town board. And as for making concessions to residents who
oppose the Enclaves, let's remember that the original site plan called for a hotel of 22 rooms,
and now the revised plan is for 44 rooms and an additional event space. So much for scaling
things down to appease the unruly locals.
We do not need additional hotels on the North Fork. Existing businesses are thriving, and we
have a healthy local economy. If tourists try to make a reservation during the summer season
and the existing B&Bs, hotels, and airbnb units are booked, then they will select a different
date, thus keeping a certain limit on how many people and vehicles are on the East End at a
time. This is a positive. Everyone says they don't want the North Fork to become like the
South Fork with its bottlenecked traffic, but in order to achieve that we must say no to projects
like the Enclaves.
Thank you all very much for reading and considering all of my comments.
Very respectfully yours,
Megan Barron
15 Sage Blvd
Greenport, NY 11944
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
R y,ED
iK;f,IN/
I 2 SSI 2, 221
Lauren E.Barry _
56755 Route 25o � Board
Southold, NY 11971 planning
April 25,2022
Planning Board
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
Southold,NY 11971
To Whom it May Concern at the Southold Planning Board,
I live directly next door to the east of the proposed site of the enclaves. My front porch looks out onto
one of the original houses my family(the L'Hommedieu's)first built here when they settled Southold.This
town,and our founder's neighborhood,means something to me. I chose to put roots down here for a
reason. I purchased my home a few years ago knowing there may be a small business next door to me at
some point, but never would have I imagined a proposal for a huge hotel grossly out of proportions to it's
surroundings that drastically changes the character and dynamic of our town.The proposed plans for the
enclaves are a direct assault on myself and neighbors.
The proposed plan for the Enclaves hotel openly pollutes our land and water.It's frustrating to me that
the Enclaves FEIS was not evaluated properly by the zoning board or it's consultants who could have fact
checked better before issuing a special use permit for the hotel and handing it off to the planning board.
The FEIS was conducted by the applicant using antiquated statistics and numbers that do not accurately
represent the uses described in the proposed plans. Renderings submitted by the applicant contradict
what is slated in the site plans.The intensity of use on this parcel will have severe environmental impacts,
and as I will argue further,introduces public health issues.Although this can be deduced from some of the
calculations already in the FEIS,the extent of potential damage is not represented accurately.A modern
day approach should have been taken in designing this parcel that reflects climate change and
sustainability and acknowledges the basic health and safety needs of our community.A modern day
approach also should also have been taken by the zoning board and it's consultants when policing
submittals by the applicant.
The FEIS states that the built elements onsite will not change the sites character(which is misleading) but
states very clearly the changes that would be made to the landscape. "Accordingly,while the use of the
property will change upon implementation of the proposed project,the visual character of the site will be
minimally impacted."FALSE. By hedging and fencing,the site character will be drastically changed.
Currently,my chickens run freely to be greeted by the children next door who live in the future
'restaurant'.There is a shared view into the forested area behind my house enjoyed by all neighbors.The
managed part of the landscape is rustic,yet cared for.Clearing the land,adding driveways and a massive
parking lot,hedging with Leyland cypress(non-native,water intensive),will drastically change not only
the aesthetic of the site but the entire character. It screams keep out. Not for neighbors.Cafe and spa for
guests only.Stay away.
The proposed buildings are bullying to surrounding structures and do not fit local context or represent
Southold character.The applicant claims the structure of the newly built hotel will not be able to be seen
from the road.The elevation of the pitched roof suggests otherwise.The proposed landscape
buffer/hedge is also not adequate enough to block this huge structure.
The architect's renderings contradict the site plan and are misleading.The renderings show tall mature
deciduous trees towering over hotel buildings when in fact these large trees do not exist on the site plan.
The site plan even shows there is no room to plant large trees between the property boundary hedgerow
and the backs of hotel building..
FEIS states signage is consistent with signage along main road. FALSE.Signage along main road is limited
to hanging wooden signs.Architect's renderings show a large over scaled stone monument that looks like
a large gravestone.This is not consistent with the hamlet's signage.
Proposed plans indicate 6.75 acres of early successional to be cleared with the exception of a few trees
the applicant has deemed aesthetically pleasing. From the DEIS executive summary--'The loss of early
successional communities would result in decreased habitat availability for the plants,birds,wildlife
species present'.Agreed, FACT.The summary also goes on to say'the resulting habitat loss and any
subsequent reductions in local abundance of bird or wildlife species is not a significant adverse
environmental impact as:successional hardwood forests and successional old fields are classified by the
New York natural heritage program as"demonstrably secure both in New York State and globally".This is
poor science here.Taking an environmental statistic on a state-wide scale and applying it to a small local
down-state condition is inappropriate. New York statewide data is skewed. Data from the larger,
disconnected,area mass of up-state,skews statewide data leaving local conditions(i.e.Long Island)
underrepresented when observed on that large of a scale.The environmental conditions of the project
site need to be evaluated fairly at a local scale.
The FEIS Executive summary also states'The successional forests and old fields present at the site are not
known to provide habitat for any endangered,threatened,or rare wildlife or plant species.'The reason
why there are no endangered,threatened or rare species onsite is because they don't exist anymore,
most are extinct. Poor scientific reasoning,as described above, has been used to inform zoning processes
for far too long and early successional communities have been allowed to be cleared,leaving not many
plants and animals that live in these zones left to protect.By allowing the clearing of this specific site,we
are not helping the situation.We must encourage the maturation and responsible management of these
parcels of early successional forests in order to increase biodiversity in our local ecological community.As
stated in the New York State Strategic Plan for State Forest Management(which to my awareness was not
consulted for the purposes of the Enclaves DEIS), "early successional cover may continue to decrease as
time progresses unless steps are taken to deliberately create,and enhance and sustain new habitat."This
type of habitat is especially important for songbirds,turkey,grouse,deer, rabbits,fox and native bees to
name a few.
Clear cutting the site is an ecologically destructive gesture that opens up a giant would in the vernacular
landscape—A hole in the center of town.The site will be scraped bare leaving a dust bowl during
construction.During the 4/11/22 planning meeting the applicant's lawyer and architect often relied on
the'landscaping'as the answer to the wrongs the hotel was creating.The laywer even cited 'adding
greenspace'multiple times.The site is already green.Contrary to what the lawyer said,plans dictate
'greenspace'is being removed and parking lot is being added.The Enclaves'parking lot will be larger than
any other parking lot in Southold—larger than both the high school and fire department.The remainder
of the site as per plans,that is not parking lot or structure is hedging,lawn and a handful of ornamental
trees—all high water use.Their new'greenspace'causes more harm than good.They are introducing a
new ecologically destructive landscape that will have to be heavily managed.I am interested in HOW this
'landscaping'is going to be managed.The landscape plans do not indicate a sensitive approach was taken
to site design and are void of ecological improvements.This leads me to believe the landscape would be
managed with a similar mindset.Lawn,hedging,and parking lot—means CONSTANT use of mowers,
blowers and hedge clippers which equates to gas fumes and dust(air pollution)and engines running
(noise pollution).What are they using to fertilize?Are they planning on using insecticides and herbicides?
How is the'meadow' being managed?What's in the meadow?Will the meadow be enticing insects and
wildlife only to be sprayed to keep the ticks out,thus polluting the land and killing the animals it's
intended to support?
Impervious surfaces in proposed plan increase from 0.1 acres(currently existing)to 2.99+acres resulting
in 44.3%of site being impervious.That's nearly 3 full acres of non-permeable surfaces including paved
access ways,parking spaces and built structures.Green building measures should be used and could
include permeable paving and greenroof areas to enhance stormwater management practices onsite.
Stormwater Runoff calculations are severely underrepresented. Using a 2"rainfall for stormwater
calculations is no longer seen in the profession of architecture or landscape architecture as adequate.The
applicant should be calculating for rainfall events consistent with climate change standards regardless of
whether Southold town code is up to date on this.
The pond creates an environmentally imbalanced landscape. Why introduce a man made water feature
that will serve as a nutrient sink from lawn runoff, not have fish in it?Pump or no pump,the pond is going
be full of mosquitos given there will be no fish.How is it even possible to keep fish out of a pond that
large?Birds and aquatic mammals can have fish eggs attached to them(it's often why fish end up in
isolated ponds).Why not ditch the pond idea or stock with native fish?
The Southold aquifer is a limited aquifer that is currently being depleted faster than it can be naturally
replenished and is facing problems of saltwater intrusion,subsidence,and contamination.This is a very
sensitive time in the lifespan of the aquifer to validate withdrawing 2.5 million gallons of freshwater per
year(as stated in the DEIS)directly from an onsite well to irrigate a proposed landscape that provides no
ecological or functioning remediation value—a landscape of lawn and hedges built in attempts to please
the eyes of hotel guests,does not deserve OUR limited supply of freshwater.
The letter submitted by SCWA included In the FEIS in appendix K states :"SCWA recommends the use of
smart irrigation control systems and drought tolerant plantings to promote conservation". Lawn and
hedges, particularly newly installed lawn and large hedges take a tremendous amount of water to
establish. Planting any large specimen like they are calling out for in their landscape plans, is not drought
tolerant planting and requires a gross overuse of fresh water.
Further review of the landscape plans,which claim to be drought tolerant and so far only include lawn,
hedges and trees all requiring ample water.There is only one type of drought tolerant species on the
planting plan(juniper)which happen to be non-native.The proposed plan of lawn and hedges will require
a significant amount of maintenance with heavy machinery(lawn mowing,hedge trimming,etc)and will
be a source of ongoing noise and gas fumes from heavy machinery.The plan is stock full of privet-the
cheap invasive species overused by landscapers to bound rich people in their properties,characteristic of
most homes on the South Fork.There are many native alternatives to privet such as Aronia.Noting there
are only 5 new species listed to be planted for an entire 5.65 acres,6 if you count'lawn'.This landscape
plan is a huge parking lot,a pond with no fish,and lots of lawn and generic mass plantings consistent with
a Holiday Inn.
The list of species included in the landscape plan is the following:
- Leyland cypress(non-native,high water requirements for large species to get established,
moderate water for established species)
- Acer Rubrum October Glory—Native to low/wet areas;requires moderate to heavy water
- Cornus Florida var.Rubra—Prefers moist soil.
- Ligustrum ibolium(Privet)—Non-native,Highly Invasive.The amount of privet hedge proposed
onsite will require a significant amount of pruning with machinery multiple times per year.The
machinery required to do this will generate a substantial amount of extremely loud noise for long
periods of time.
-Juniperus Davurica 'expansa'—Non-native(native to Japan).
Large monocultures of plant massings as proposed foster the quick spread of pests and disease. I value my
home garden and plant collection and would like not to be on the receiving end of that.I will also be
shaded out of afternoon sun by their newly planted hedgerow.There are so many native drought tolerant
plants to choose from.The proposed landscape plan reads as a bland canvas of overused plants typically
seen in front of strip malls.The landscape'design'is indicative of a client and a designer who don't care
about maintaining sense of place and fostering a healthy ecology.The existing species that are
predominant onsite,that are extremely valuable habitat and food sources for pollinators and wildlife are
juniperus virginiana,prunus serotina(native cherry),as well as solidago(golden rod).
Wastewater calculations are undervalued.Applicant should be requested to revise elements that are not
calculated for such as swimming pool,hot tubs, laundry,and excess showering by pool/beach goers
staying at hotel.When completed,the numbers for sanitary flow will increase and affect the wastewater
treatment plan thus increasing the amount of treated effluent that gets pumped back into the Southold
aquifer.Without the missing elements listed above, DEIS states that approximately 3.2 million gallons of
treated effluent per year will be sent to the leaching pools and recharged back into the aquifer.Treated
effluent contains nitrogen,harmful bacteria and microorganisms as well as endocrine disrupting
pharmaceuticals such as caffeine and synthetic hormones.This is another potential public health issue
that would be introduced by proposed plans.
Very important—high water use additions to plan were left out of the sanitary flow calculations.Why was
the spa excluded from the sanitary flow calculations?Anyone who has ever had a luxury spa service
knows the water use involved is far more than a typical shower(scrubs,facials,wraps,specialty
baths/soaks). How,after adding a 250-person event space,did the water calculations/sanitary not change
significantly?They're only accounting for 5gallons per day/per seat for the 250guests.Why is that they
are using a higher number for the restaurant(10gallons per day/per seat).Are the 250 guests not eating
or flushing the toilet?How is this accurate?Who fact checked this data?
FEIS states"Accordingly, no adverse noise impacts will occur from the hosting of events indoors on the
subject property or from the overall operation of the proposed development".This statement is
impossible to achieve.Who prevents 250 people from going outside for fresh air,for smoke breaks at a
wedding,noise generated from traffic flow through site,the inevitable honking during traffic back-ups
when the wedding empties out or the buses are turning in. I can hear a car pull in with music at 7-eleven
across the street. I will surely be able to hear the resulting noise from a 250 person wedding,a restaurant
and a hotel with a rooftop lounge.Not to mention trucks and crews entering late night and early morning
to set up and break down such events. Noise control mitigation measures proposed in FEIS are
inadequate. Nothing they have proposed,including temporary noise barriers,will effectively block music
and voices from disrupting me.The event/wedding space is literally in my backyard.How am I supposed
to maintain quality of life when there will be a large party happening every weekend? A rooftop lounge is
not fitting for the Southold 'hamlet'character. My professional portfolio includes the design and
construction of such spaces. I can say for certain that a "30"monolithic glass barrier" (waist height)is not
going to reduce noise from a second story rooftop lounge and its resulting use.
On a personal level,my quality of life will be severely negatively impacted both during construction and
when the hotel is up and running.Dust generated during construction will pose health and safety issues.
The top two inches of soil contain pesticides,arsenic,mercury and possibly other metals such as lead.One
environmental technician to effectively monitor and potentially hose down a 6.75 acre site is not an
adequate mitigation measure and is not humanly impossible given the scale of the site.This is a public
health issue.Applicant is putting my household at risk.This is my land I grow my food own.There will
undoubtedly be contaminated dust on surfaces of vegetables,contaminated dust migrating and settling
into my soil,and contaminated dust in the air I breathe.What consequences does the applicant bear
when I become sick?
DEIS States 46 cars per hour are expected entering the site,only several feet from my living room,on a
typical Saturday morning.That driveway will see more cars than most residential streets in Southold.For
an event such as a wedding,where all 160 parking spots onsite are filled at the same time,not only will
there be a traffic jam on the main road,there will be a slow migration of bumper to bumper vehicles next
to me as I try to enjoy dinner at my kitchen table.Delivery trucks will be entering before and after events
to set up and break down.This happens during early morning and late night hours.I am already woken by
delivery trucks pulling in and out of 7-Eleven. Now I will be woken by delivery trucks pulling into the
Enclaves.Why should I personally bear the burden of noise,dust,exhaust,and headlights of cars and
delivery trucks servicing hotel guests? I do not see any mitigation measures in the DEIS related to such
pollution caused by vehicles entering the site.The location of the proposed entry access way turns my
property into a corner lot of a busy intersection.I encourage the applicant to relocate the driveway and
parking to the west side of the restaurant only so that I don't personally suffer.
DEIS states outdoor events for up to 250 people using 160 parking spots.What if each car does not have 2
or more people in it.That could be up to 125 more cars or more.Where do they park?Along the main
road in front of my house in my garden? FEIS states"Due to the anticipation such as weddings, birthday
parties,etc on the subject property,additional parking over the required supply will be provided"—
QUESTION:Where is this going?What is the overflow parking plan?
In appendix I it states that"Upon implementation of the proposed action,it is expected that most hotel
guests will frequent the hamlet center businesses,taking advantage of the hamlet's walkability and
business offerings.It is expected that the proposed hotel will serve as a catalyst for existing businesses to
extend evening operating hours and potentially encourage the development of new business in this part
of Southold."It's no secret that Jonathan Tibbet newly owns a large majority of said businesses within
walkable distance.This statement may be true,but it's self fulfilling.Jonathan Tibbet,not the community,
will be the main profiteer.
I am concerned that Jonathan Tibbet's fast paced game of Southold Monopoly is getting out of control.
Image attached. It is such a disappointment to see that one man's hasty vision is coming to fruition so
quickly,literally erasing the history and charm our town is known for.Jonathan Tibbett now owns North
Fork Table and Inn,the former Town and Country Real Estate,the 56995 Main Road residence and Huge
Barn(which is an event space although he has denied this to my face—telling me it's just a space for him
and his friends to hang out in), the residence just south of the railroad tracks off of Road B which now
connects all of his properties east of Road B to the site of the Enclaves.Separating the Enclaves and his
newly purchased Cacci or as they are calling'Southold Venue'(event space)is only the boatyard of which
the owner has showed up on his behalf at all public hearing meetings in support of the project—so there
will be no surprise when a connection is passed through there. In addition to these large connecting
parcels we know he owns Einstein Square and the Shoals.There's not much left folks.Everything has been
branded in decorator white with black trim and smooth gray granite,adorned with multiple sky high
'alien'sculptures. Is this the culture Johnathan Tibbet and Andrew Giambertone spoke of bringing to
Southold Town in the public hearings? Diagram attached below.
w, scMaa �now
Y
1
i I�Ii i�l� r I III 'jl�i
I I;
6 �
I
I,
Y i
�I II� Iii
IY! 61 ill i -
9�! I
pl it
v
nm�
John Tibbett's'Southold East' Monopoly showing connected Parcels.What is the master plan for all of
these spaces?
Regards,
Lauren E. Barry
Ib c„rye aray, ct plant c fa_m
347-452-321
RECEIVED
Aid:12 wmm
Southold Town
From: grapecart@aol.com Planning Board
Sent: Monday, April 2S, 2022 7:44 PM
To: Lanza, Heather;Terry, Mark; Cummings, Brian A.
Cc: Michaelis,Jessica; Palmeri, Allison
Subject: [SPAM] - Comments of opposition to the proposed Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant
Dear Southold Town Planning Dept. Board Members,
Thank you for extending the April 11, 2022 public hearing period two weeks for written comments to the proposed
Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant.
Unfortunately I wasn't able to attend the April 11th Planning Dept. public hearing in person, but participated via zoom.
Thank you for offering this service.
I support the comments made at the April 11th hearing by Marina DeLuca of Group for the East End as well as the
excellent comments and well researched information from the woman who focused on the traffic issue. During the
October 14, 2021 ZBA public hearing, several speakers repeatedly requested that an independent and more current traffic
impact study be completed to accurately analyze and objectively gauge how traffic at the proposed Enclaves Hotel and
Restaurant will impact residents and drivers. As stated earlier--much has changed within Southold Town since the 2019
traffic impact study submitted by the developers of the Enclave project.
Additionally, I'm concerned about the dual role the firm Nelson, Pope, Voorhis has in representing the developers of The
Enclave, while at the same time Southold Town increasingly relies on NPV to serve as an impartial advisor to the town.
This calls into question a conflict of interest that I personally find most troubling.
Given the sheer scale and scope of the proposed and extensive Enclave project, taking the time to obtain an independent,
current and objective traffic impact study is essential and the only fair thing to do for the residents of Southold Town.
Thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns and thank you for your many years of service on the Southold Town
Planning Board.
Sincerely,
Mary Dowd
1
From: Donna Baldridge <trapacat@icloud.com>
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 3:39 PM !
To: Lanza, Heather PR 2021
Subject: [SPAM] -The Enclave,
Soutno"G" —Fo"i-vn`,
Planning Board
I attended the last hearing about the Enclave . It was nothing short of a joke. What a disgrace that the zoning
board gave so much courtesy to an expensive attorney who was SO obviously doing a filibuster. And racking up
his hourly fee. How nice for him!
Those attending the hearing in the audience had jobs to go to, children to feed, elderly parents to attend to, etc.
etc. So by the time the citizens of the town were even ALLOWED to speak, it was game over. As members of
our zoning board, you have been tasked with protecting the quality of life which we pay for dearly via our taxes.
The disruption to our town that this project will bring is just so damn OBVIOUS. And yet, the lame excuses
from the zoning board just keep on coming.
Traffic impact, water impact, environmental impact. Why do we not hear about those concerns? Because they
simply CANNOT be addressed with a project of this magnitude. There is absolutely no good that will come of it
except depleting our resources, crowding our beaches and parks, causing gridlock and a host of other incredibly
awful consequences.
The argument that the town needs this for our economy is absolutely ridiculous. Our economy is booming. Our
roads are choking. The population has recently increased dramatically,jobs are going begging, services are
unavailable, home prices are out of reach. A suffering economy? I think not.
Do the right thing and reject this project. It is being created to serve ONLY outside interests. It is a terrible idea
for our community and for our environment. Don't take your orders from corporate interests who care about
their own interests, not those of the township. This project simply CANNOT be approved.
Donna Baldridge
6155 Hortons Lane, Southold
Sent from my iPad
From: maggie merrill <maggiemerri1125@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 5:11 PM
To: Lanza, Heather; Michaelis,Jessica F....
Subject: Planning Board - Enclaves application - public comment I APR5 02?,
._ oui 'i r
Members of the Planning Board, Planning Board
Thank you for extending the public comment period for the pending Enclaves application. Many questions were raised at the
hearing two weeks ago. How does the public find out if the Developer answered them? Do we need to file a FOIA request and
if so how do we identify the document correctly and know what to ask for?My hope is that you will request more information
from the Developer and inform the public.
This project will set a precedent for all the other hotel projects as well as other developments that we know will be presented
to the Planning Department in the near future. It is important that it be scrupulously examined,and thoughtfully considered.
Has the Planning Board,as well as the Town of Southold considered the cumulative effect of multiple hotel applications on
traffic, infrastructure, and our natural resources?
I believe the public's frustration comes from hearing about a comprehensive plan for over a decade,that has been made
official and approved two years ago-only for it to sit unused.The hotel developers are the one's using it to quote that"we
need more places to stay,"— but does that take into account the hundreds of airbnbs in Town that rent for 1-3 nights on
average in 3 bedroom homes, hosting an average of 7 people (that would equal 4 hotel rooms)?(See www.airdna.co) Does it
take into account the two hotels that have since been renovated, (Soundview and the Shoals)those that were under used and
soon to be renovated (Sunset Motel and Silver Sands)?And can we handle that many new visitors overall?Southold Town and
the Planning Board should implement the Comprehensive Plan, including change code, before allowing major developments
that will forever change not just the character of our Town, but may be responsible for depleting our resources to the point of
no return.
The Planning Board is the public's last line of defense. Please take the time to consider the residents as well as the developer,
Please consider the cumulative effect this will have on us,as opposed to addressing each project in and of itself. Please take
the time you need.We only get to do this once.
Thank you,
Maggie Merrill
Southold, NY
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
From: Lucille Jones <utydickinson@gmail.com> R �. I
Sent: Monday, P April 25, 2022 12:25 PM
To: Lanza, HeatherPR 2
�U �
Subject: [SPAM] -The ENCLAVE
.. "
�outhoidro-w-
Planning Board
I am writing this letter in regard to the Enclave. I live on Town Harbor Lane, which will be directly and
significantly affected by this development(as will the entire Founders neighborhood).
I have lived in Southold for thirty-five years, having recently retired from teaching in Southold Elementary. In
my opinion, this project represents everything that the vast majority of my neighbors and friends are opposed to
when it comes to preserving the character and integrity of our wonderful town.
After attending the last hearing and commenting on Zoom, I came to the sad realization that the Board does not
seem interested in answering to the "locals". When asked to address the traffic study (which is outdated),
monitoring of 100 guests per event, the new event space that was glossed over,parking and noise issues...we
heard crickets. It saddens me that big money once again prevails. In the blink of an eye, we will become the
new Hamptons.
Please do the right thing:
1. Conduct another traffic study.
2. Forget the 100 guest-max and think about the wait and kitchen staff, entertainment,housekeeping,
maintenance, security, management, etc. With the restaurant and "new event space", you're looking at upwards
of 150 per weekend night.
3. Scale down the project.
Sincerely,
Lucille Jones
From: Julia Earley <juliae12@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday,April 25, 2022 2:31 PM
To: Lanza, Heather EQUVE]
Subject: [SPAM] -The Enclave plans for ruining our small town AFT 2 5 2022
ou5R
To whom it may concern, Planning Board
I am writing today with utmost concern that the development plans of The Enclave are going to have a
devastating impact on our small community, most notably for those of us who live in Founder's Landing as I
do. I do not believe that the concerns that were voiced in the ZBA meeting were thoughtfully considered by
those on the board. All of us who live in Southold have seen the changing patterns over the past 3 years, and
the enormous increase in the volume of visitors that impact our beaches, our traffic and our everyday lives. This
is all happening without the onslaught of all the proposed development projects. The belief that these projects
are not going to impact those of us raising our families here is preposterous.
A traffic study that was conducted more that 5 years ago needs to be addressed. Why is it acceptable when
clearly things have changed? What about our Park District? Are the visitors to this hotel allowed to park and
spend time at our beaches when they are already so overcrowded that those of us that live here and pay taxes
often cannot find a spot on the sand. How is this in keeping with the Southold comprehensive plan? The
enormous scale of this project will certainly have a monumental effect on our ability to conduct our daily lives.
I urge those board members to look at the tangible concerns that all of my neighbors and myself have over this
project right in our backyard. Do you really believe that the scale of this project will not have negative impacts
on our beautiful community?
Sincerely,
Julia Earley
115 Hobart Road
Southold,NY
From: Drianne Benner <driannebenner@att.net>
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 2:03 PM 'EU1,V"ED
To: Lanza, Heather
Subject: Enclaves Traffic Study APR 2 202?
out ow n
Planning oar
Hi Heather,
Traffic congestion is one of the key concerns for the location of this hotel. Generally speaking, does the Town do
an independent traffic study for large scale projects such as this?
Does the current traffic study underestimate the amount of potential future traffic due to the use of a few
assumptions? Such as the type of hotel property it would be (business hotel versus a resort hotel) and source of the
bulk of the traffic (coming in from the west)? Is there a range of traffic flow that is considered,meaning worst case
to best case, and does the planning staff do that work using a conservative yardstick?
Thank you,
Drianne
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
From: Sharon <smchugh@optonline.net>
Sent: Monday,April 25, 2022 3:19 PM
V)R 2 5 207Z
To: Lanza, Heather
Subject: Enclave Hotel a thola taw
o a'n
Planning Board
I am writing in regard to the Enclave Hotel. I live on Town Harbor Lane&will be directly affected by this
development. I am very worried about the traffic and the study that was submitted is outdated and needs to be
done again.
The project is too large for the area& does not fit the character of the neighborhood. It will increase traffic
down Town Harbor Lane because guests will want to use the beach at the end of the street. That is going to
change the character of our neighborhood. It saddens me that We are becoming the new Hamptons. Big money
and big developers doing land grabs. Once it's done, it's done.
Sincerely,
Sharon McHugh
Sent from my iPhone
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
U4
w
To: Town of Southold Planning Board RECET
PR 19 2022
From: Margaret Steinbugler Southol 'To-w-i
PO Box 345 Planning Board
1405 Cedar Beach Road
Southold, NY 11971
(631) 765-9346
nofommsl @yahoo.com
Date: April 11, 2022
,Subject: Observations and Analysis related to the Traffic Impact Study for Proposed
Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant, Hamlet of Southold, Town of Southold, prepared by
Dunn Engineering Associates, dated June 2019
Abstract: A review of the Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Enclaves Hotel and
Restaurant(TIS) has identified;several potential flaws in the analysis, and in the
resulting data, which call into question the applicant's assertion that the proposed
project will have "minimal impact°' on traffic in the area (FEIS, p. 49). Calculations
performed during this review predict hourly traffic volumes 351/6—72%6 higher than
those predicted in the TIS. These hourly traffic volumes represent traffic growth of
between 5% and 7.4%, in contrast to the applicant's-assertion that the project will
result in less than a 4%traffic increase.
Summary
Potential flaws noted in the TIS include:
• Unsupported assumptions of a west/east traffic distribution of 60/40. These
factors heavily influence predicted traffic volume but appear to have no basis in
data or analysis.
•
ation:
Undo Ast calculationbased
P on restaurant square footage and data from the
Institute of Traffic Engineers(ITE) Trip Generation Manual (TGM), 1&
edition, predicts restaurant-driven traffic increases 20-36% higher than the
TIS predicts.
o A calculation based on restaurant square footage and data from the
Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE)Trip Generation Manual (TGM), 9r"'
edition, predicts restaurant-driven traffic increases 55-751 higher than the
TIS predicts.
• Underestimated hotel trip generation:
o A calculation based on the ITE TGM 9t' edition indicates hotel-driven traffic
increases 47% higher than the TIS predicts.
o A calculation based on ITE TGM 9th edition land use code (LUG) 310 for
Hotel indicates traffic increases 80% higher than the TIS predicts for
Saturday peak.
• Failure to identify a predictable traffic issue: Nelson + Pope conducted a traffic
analysis focused on special events which revealed traffic backups would occur for
events with 100 or more guests. The TIS failed to identify this predictable issue.
• Lack of adherence to guidelines within the ITE TGM:
o The TIS uses trip generation rates outside the bounds of the ITE TGM, in
conflict with ITE TGM guidance.
o The TIS failed to collect data to establish local trip generation rates as
recommended by the ITE TGM when the project's parameters are outside
the ITE TGM data bounds.
■ In such cases the ITE TGM recommends a study including 3—5
sites. The TIS has zero such studies.
Table A summarizes the vehicle trips per hour predicted in the TIS (baseline), trips
per hour predicted in this analysis (alternative analysis), and the percentage increase
of the alternative analysis over the baseline. The bases for these values are
presented in the Detailed Discussion section.
The alternative analysis trips per hour combined with a more conservative
assumption that 80% of the traffic comes from the west (vs. the TIS value of 60%)
results in traffic increases of 6.7%for weekday AM peak, 6.9% - 7.4% for weekday
PM peak, and 5% —6.6% for Saturday peak, in contrast to the applicant's assertion
that the project will result in less than a 4% increase in traffic.
It should be noted that this analysis's estimates of increased traffic will ripple through
the TLS's intersection capacity analyses and may change their outputs and
conclusions.
pVWVkday
t Traffic Impact Alternative Analysis Percent Increase in
Use IS, Baseline Traffic Over Baseline
Wkday Sat. Wkday Wkday Sat. Wkday Wkday Sat.
PM Peak AM PM Peak AM PM Peak
Peak Peak Pea Peak Pea Peak
Quality
Restaurant 12 22 25 21 30-34 30-41 75% 36- 20-
55% 64%
Business
Hotel 1 17 17 21 25 25 38 L470%/6 47% 80%
Total 29 39 46 46 55-59 62-79 58% 41- 35-
51
Table A: Summary of Vehicle Trips per Hour
Recommendations
The Traffic Impact Study was performed as part of the State Environmental Quality
Review (SEQR) process for which the ZBA was lead agency. The SEQR process is
designed to identify adverse environmental impacts of projects (including traffic) and
to mitigate them. In light of this analysis I recommend the Planning Board (or the
ZBA, if appropriate) require a fresh traffic study be performed that:
• Adheres to the guidelines of the ITE Trip Generation Manual and ITE Trip
Generation Handbook
• Avoids extrapolating data beyond suggested limits
• Collects local relevant trip generation rates
• Incudes sensitivity analyses to assess the effect of a range of trip generation
rates
• Includes a data-based assessment of fraction of traffic likely to arrive from,
and exit to, west and east directions
• Assesses the ripple effect of traffic volume changes on the intersection
capacity analyses
Following completion of a new traffic study, I recommend the Planning Board (or the
ZBA, if appropriate) revisit the question of whether additional mitigations to traffic
impacts are necessary.
Although not addressed in this review, an additional advantage to a new study would
be that it could account for the increase in population and local traffic resulting from
the COVID-19 pandemic.
Detailed Discussion
My review entailed a careful reading of the TIS; a reyiew of the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (TGM), 9t'� Edition, Volume 1:
User's Guide and Handbook; and volumes 2 and 3 containing trip generation rates;
and calculations (a) intended to reproduce and cross-check the Site-Generated
Traffic shown in Table 2 of the TIS, and (b) intended to assess the overall traffic
growth due to the project.
I divide my observations and findings into two sections: one including those that are
potentially significant and which could affect the TIS's conclusions; and one including
other observations regarding the TIS which reflect on the study's quality and
thoroughness but would not likely impact its conclusions.
Potentially Significant Observations and Findings
This section notes TIS elements that influence its conclusions but which may be
unsupported, limited, or otherwise unsound. This section addresses four elements of
the TIS that make up the foundation of its conclusions: traffic directional distribution,
restaurant trip generation, hotel trip generation, and application of the ITE TGM in the
TIS.
Traffic Directional Distribution
In the FEIS the applicant states "The proposed project will generate 46 trips during
the Saturday peak hours of traffic, and this represents a less than four (4) percent
increase in traffic on Route 25 in front of the site," (FEIS, p. 50). This conclusion is
heavily influenced by assumptions regarding traffic directional distribution.
The TIS traffic directional distribution assumes that 60% of traffic arriving will come
from (and depart to) the west and 40%,,will arrive from (and depart to) the east_ This
assumption is justified with the statement(TIS, p. 27) "The weight of the population
within the capture area of the hotel and restaurant is heavily weighted to the west."
The TIS presents no population data for the capture areas of the hotel and restaurant
and provides no analysis to validate this assumption.
Data to substantiate this critical assumption could have been found or collected.
Census data for the project's capture area could have been looked up and
presented. Evaluations of traffic to and from nearby restaurants could have been
made, but were not. A survey of B&B owners or of other local hotels and motels
could have been performed to assess distribution of their guests from west and east;
one might reasonably assume that such data from hotels and motels in Riverhead
and Greenport would bracket the range of traffic distribution that a hotel in Southold
hamlet would experience, but it appears no such data was sought. In the absence of
any substantiating data for this assumption, a sensitivity of the outcome to a more
conservative traffic distribution should be made. As an example, if 90% of the traffic
A-
for Saturday peak arrived from the west, the traffic increase would be approximately
6% (not less than 4%).
An additional directional distribution assumption about the fraction of trips entering
and exiting the site is embedded in TIS Table 2 but not discussed. The ITE TGM trip
generation data sets report, for each set, the percent of vehicles entering and exiting
the site when the data was collected. It appears that the TIS adopted the
entering/exiting split associated with the data set used, but performed no sensitivity
study to assess the impact of other entering /exiting traffic splits.
Restaurant Trip Generation
Questions can be raised about the accuracy of the restaurant trips shown in the TIS
Table 2. Using the ITE TGM 9th edition per seat trip generation rate and the
assumed 60/40 west/east traffic source split, I was able able to reproduce the traffic
trips in TIS Table 2 for the quality restaurant (land use code [LUC] 931)with 74 seats.
However, the ITE TGM also contains contains trip generation data for LUC 931,
quality restaurant, based on square footage. Trip generation rates for this land use,
per 1000 sq ft, are 5.57 trips for AM peak hour, 9.02 trips for PM peak hour, and
10.82 trips for weekend peak hour. Applying these rates to the proposed 3806 sq ft
restaurant results in 21, 34, and 41 trips for AM peak hour, PM peak hour, and
weekend peak hour, respectively.. The corresponding trips in the TIS Table 2 are 12,
22, and 25 trips respectively. Applying the area-based trip generation data predicts
75%, 55%, and 64% more trips at these times than the TIS predicts.
The ITE Trip Generation Handbook (p. 3) emphasizes the need for care in selecting
the independent variable for traffic studies, noting "The choice of independent
variable can be one of the most important decisions in calculating trip generation."
Given this criticality, it is curious that the TIS fails to mention the availability of the
area-based trip generation data and lacks any discussion about independent variable
selection. This is a clear gap.
It should be noted that the TIS was based on the ITE TGM 10th edition, and it is
possible the trip generation data for the 10th edition changed for some LUCs from the
9th edition. I was unable to access the 10th edition (the staff at the Southold Free
Library is working to find a copy), but was able to find a sub-set of the 10th edition trip
generation data in a table at:
s:l/LkTLAr.I�!.lale r g n. o /site df pjlti lesl leattac tw�L lic �,ygLks/oa e
/966lite land use list 10th edition.
This source reports a trip generation rate of 7.8 trips per 1000 square feet of gross
floor area for a quality restaurant, PM peak hour (whether weekday or weekend is
unclear). For the proposed project's 3806 sq ft restaurant, the associated number of
trips would be 30 (= 3.806 * 7.8). Thirty is 8 trips greater than the 22 trips stated in
the TIS Table 2 for weekday PM peak and 5 trips greater than the 25 trips stated for
5
Saturday peak, and represents 36% more weekday PM trips and 20% more Saturday
peak trips.
Hotel Trip Generation
Using the ITE TGM 9th edition data for LUC 312, business hotel, I was unable to
reproduce the trips reported in TIS Table 2. The Table indicates 17 trips each for
weekday AM peak and weekday PM peak, and 21 trips for Saturday peak. The ITE
TGM 0 edition trip generation rate for a business hotel„ weekday, peak period of
generator, is 0.57 trips per occupied room. This indicates 26 trips (= 0.67 * 4 ),
which is 47% greater than the value of 17 trips in the TIS Table 2.
The ITE TGM 9th edition does not offer trip generation rates for business hotels-on
weekends. To reach an estimate for weekend trips, I applied the trip generation rate
per occupied room for LUC 310, Hotel, Saturday peak, of 0.87. For a 44-room hotel
the estimated trips would be 38 (= 0.87 * 44)for 100% occupancy. Thirty-eight is 17
trips greater than the 21 trips stated in the TIS Table 2, and represents 80% more
trips. It would be a fair criticism of my analysis to point out that the `hotel' land use
code was not applied in the TtS, but this example shows how very sensitive the trip
results are to the LUC selection. In fact none of the hotel LUCs exactly capture the
nature of the proposed hotel, which suggests that the TIS should have included a
sensitivity analysis assessing the influence of LUC selection on predicted trips.
Independent Review of the TIS
As part of my analysis I reviewed the project FEIS Appendix E, Transportation
Correspondence. Appendix E is a report from the firm Nelson + Pope regarding a
traffic sensitivity analysis conducted, I believe at the request of the ZBA, to determine
what level of traffic during special events might trigger significant traffic and on-site
circulation issues. As part of their analysis N+P needed data on traffic generation
rates for special events. Finding none in the ITE TGM, they sought data elsewhere
and found that the New Jersey Department of Transportation offers trip generation
information for banquet halls. N+P used this NJ DOT banquet hall data to assess
special event traffic at the proposed site and determined that for events with 100
guests or more, driveway back ups could occur and traffic control personnel would be
needed.
1 mention the N+P study because its conclusion regarding the need for traffic control
personnel for special events demonstrates that the TIS did not adequately assess
those traffic conditions. In short, the TIS" failed to identify an important and
predictable traffic issue.
Application of the ITE TGM in the TIS.
The ITE TGM 9th edition notes (p. 12) "The plots in Trip Generation cover only the
range of independent variables for which data are available. Caution should be used
s
if extrapolating the data beyond the ranges provided because no information has
been supplied to document trip generation characteristics beyond the given ranges."
Table B compares the independent variables for the proposed project with the range
of the same independent variables for the ITE trip generation data. It is clear that the
project's independent variables are well outside the bounds of the ITE data,. It is not
clear how the TIS exercised caution in using the ITE data outside its recommended
bounds, or if it did so at all.
Land Use Code Independent Variable for Range of Independent
the Proposed Project Variables in the ITE TGM
9m ed
Quality Restaurant
(LUC 931) 74 seats 100—500 seats
Business Hotel
(LUC 312) 44 rooms 107— 126 rooms
Table B: Comparison of Proposed Project Independent Variables to ITE TGM
Ranges
The ITE Trip Generation Handbook (p. 15) notes "If the size of a site is not within
the range of data points presented in Trip Generation for the land use, the analyst
should collect local data and establish a local rate" (emphasis is in the source text).
As shown in Table B, the parameters of the proposed project are not within the range
of data in the Trip Generation Manual, hence to be consistent with ITE
recommendations, the applicant should have collected data to establish a-local trip
generation rate for a hotel and restaurant of similar size (note this trip generation data
is separate and distinct from the traffic volume data the applicant collected in July
and early August 2018).
The ITE Trip Generation Handbook (p. 16) recommends that when trip generation
studies are needed due to the handbook data not covering the range of the proposed
project, then those studies should include "three to five sites that truly meet the
recommended site selection criteria..." The TIS did not include a single trip
generation study.
Other Observations and Findings
In reviewing the TIS and other traffic-related elements of the FEIS, 1 noted a number
of gaps and quality issues. In contrast to the points made in the previous section,
do not believe that these would materially alter the trip generation predictions or the
report conclusions. However, taken in totality they suggest a lack of attention to
detail and the absence of a robust report review process and thereby cast doubt on
the overall quality of the TIS analysis and report.
7
Presumably the report was reviewed internally by Dunn Engineering Associates prior
to release to their client, and subsequently reviewed by the client, P. W. Grosser
Consulting Engineers, prior to submission to the Town of Southold. If these reviews
occurred it is difficult to understand the persistence of the gaps and errors listed
below. In my opinion, the Town of Southold deserves better.
I noted the following gaps and errors in the TIS. These are representative and not a
complete list:
A. The ITE TGM (p. 15) notes "If the site is located in a downtown setting, served by
significant public transportation, or is the site of an extensive demand management.
program, the site is not consistent with the ITE dataand the analyst should collect
local data and establish a local rate" (emphasis is in the source text). The proposed
project is located in downtown Southold hamlet, although it is not served by
significant public transportation nor does it enjoy an extensive demand management
system. My guess is that this inconsistency alone would not affect the TIS results.
However, given this statement in the ITE TGM, the TIS should include a discussion
justifying the applicability of the ITE data to a downtown location, but it does not.
B. The TIS (p. 14) notes that traffic volume data was collected at four locations at
weekday morning peak, weekday afternoon peak, and Saturday peak in 2018:
1. Boisseau/Hobart and NYS Rte. 25
2. Locust Lane and NYS Rte..25
3. The 7-11 driveway and NYS Rte. 25
4. Town Harbor Lane and NYS Rte. 25
In fact the TIS Appendix "Traffic Volumes" presents data from five intersections:
1. Boisseau/Hobart and NYS Rte. 25
2. Locust Lane and NYS Rte. 25
3. Locust Lane and the 7-11 driveway
4. The 7-11 driveway and NYS Rte. 25
5. Town Harbor Lane and NYS Rte. 25
For locations 1 —4 in the second list above, the Appendix includes weekday morning
(7 am 8 am), weekday afternoon (4 pm--5 pm), and weekend (Saturday) I I am—
2 pm data. However for intersection 5, Town Harbor Lane and NYS Rte. 25, only the
Saturday data is included in the Appendix. It is not clear why the weekday morning
and afternoon peak data for Town Harbor Lane and Rte 25 are not included in the
Appendix. It is not clear why the data collected at Locust Land and the 7-11
driveway is included in the Appendix but not referenced in the text.
C. In Figure 7 of the TIS, for travel arriving from the west, it appears that the weekday
AM and PM traffic estimates are reversed (ie, 14 is indicated as the AM value and 11
as the PM value, but my calculations suggest 11 should be the AM value and 14 the
PM value; this would be consistent with TIS Table 2 which indicates lower traffic in
the AM than in the PM).
D. The TIS makes a number of qualitative statements that lack technical basis and
definition of threshold for significance_ This is inconsistent with good engineering
reporting practice. The following are several, but not all, examples:
D-1: It is stated (p. 15) that nth a well-designed access plan, it is expected
that the proposed development will not lead to an undue increase of the rate
of accident occurrence along the Main Road (Rt. 25) in the immediate vicinity
of the site." What is the technical basis for why this is "expected"?What is the
threshold is for an "undue increase" in accidents?
D-2: It is stated (pp. 51-52) that the addition of 3 more heavy trucks to a
baseline of 33-heavy trucks per hour`will not be recognizable during the
infrequent times of peak activityn and that two additional heavy trucks per hour
will not generate an "undue burden on the surrounding community." No
evidence is offered for these conclusions. No interviews with the community
are presented to gauge their sensitivity to increased truck traffic. No standard
is cited to indicate the threshold between recognizable and unrecognizable
truck traffic increase.
D-3: It is stated (p. 34)that"...there were no currently planned projects...that
would generate significant enough traffic to impact conditions at the Study
intersections," but no threshold of what would constitute `significant' is
provided.
D-4: It is stated (p. 42) that"The results of this [unsignalized capacity
analysis] indicate that particularly during the weekday AM and PM peak hours
of traffic the study intersections work well and the completed project will have
no significant impact on traffic operations." No threshold of what would
constitute "significant impact" is provided.
D-5: It is stated (p. 58) that"...the development of the site, as proposed, will
not cause a significant negative impact on traffic conditions." No threshold of
what would constitute "significant negative impact' is offered or discussed.
E. It is stated (p. 58) "...with the proposed access plan, and the implementation of the
recommended improvements, the development of the site, as proposed, will not
cause significant negative impact on traffic conditions" [my emphasis]. However it is
stated (p. 34, under "Planned Roadway Improvements") "Our review revealed no
projects involving the reconstruction and improvement of roadways serving the
proposed Enclaves prior to its expected completion." It is not clear what, if any
improvements are recommended.
F. Typographic and usage errors: the TIS contains many errors of English usage as
well as what appear to be typographic errors. Examples include:
9
Ntl
a. Table 1 (p. 20) summarizes traffic accident data on Rt. 25 and at intersections near
the proposed project for years 2015—2017.
• For the intersection of Rt. 25 at Town Harbor Lane, 9 accidents each are
entered in the table for the not reported (NR), property damage only (PDO),
injury (INJ) and FATAL categories for 2015. This is almost certainly an error,
but its inclusion in the report stands out.
• For the same area, the three-year total in the accident type category the
numbers 0 and 2 are incorrectly totaled to get 0.
• For the area of Rt. 25 between Boisseau / Hobart and Locust Lane,for the
"lighting conditions" count for the 3-year total, the numbers 4 and 1 are
incorrectly totaled to-8.
• For the Rt. 25 and Boisseau / Hobart intersection the value for the `lighting
conditions"for the 3-year total is missing; it should be 6.
• My best effort suggests the total number of accidents in the area for 2015-
2017 was 32. The text of the TIS uses 33 for the total number of accidents.
b. Thirteen instances where "then" is used where "than"would be correct
c. "Where" used instead of`'were" (p. 37)
d. "abd" used instead of"and" (p. 58)
A Final Thought
If you the reader have made it this far, I applaud your perseverance. Thank you for
reading. The assessment of traffic for the proposed development brings to mind the
theory of the wisdom of crowds. We have an expert analysis, which appears to be
flawed, that concludes traffic impact will be insignificant. We have a crowd of
community members who have commented in-person and in writing that they predict
the traffic impact will be noticeable and large. Given the issues with the TIS, my
(unscientific) hunch is that the crowd has it right on this one.
�n
Michaelis,Jessica
From: Lanza, Heather
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2022 11:04 AM
To: Randy Wade; Cummings, Brian A.; Michaelis,Jessica �" 2022
Subject: RE: Comments on Enclaves Parking
Southold Town
Planning Board
Your comments have been received and will be reviewed by the Planning Board and made part of their public
record.
From: Randy Wade [mailto:vision4me@me.comj
Sent:Tuesday, March 15, 2022 10:22 PM
To: Lanza, Heather<heather.lanza@town.southold.ny.us>; Cummings, Brian A.
<brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>; Michaelis,Jessica <jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: Comments on Enclaves Parking
Dear Planning Department and Board,
Please accept these comments on the Enclaves.
The Enclaves hotel and restaurant was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals with the
understanding that the 100 person event space, "was not evaluated as a catering hall; use of this
space must remain clearly accessory to the primary use as a small scale hotel." In looking at the
proposed parking with an understanding that this "small scale hotel" was to be a small world unto
itself, the parking should be much reduced.
The following calculations result in a reasonable number of parking spaces. It will allow for a signifiant
tree buffer to benefit hotel guests; and if native trees and understory are used, it would benefit the
environment and wild life of Southold especially bird species and pollinators.
Hotel rooms = 44 parking spaces
Restaurant = 25 spaces (assume the the restaurant will be of a quality to capture at least 1/3 of the
hotel guests or one night out of a 3 day stay so 50 patrons.)
Workers = 10 (some will work days in housekeeping, some will work evenings in the restaurant and
some workers should be encouraged to arrive by walking, transit or bicycle.)
For the 100 seat event space, 88 could be guests in the 44 rooms. Allow parking for 12 = 6 spaces.
Total (without accounting for those patrons or workers who arrive by train, bus or walking) = 85
parking spaces
Current plan = 128 (including with 6 ADA & 4 pervious)
Thus the plan should remove 43 parking spaces.
Thank you for considering this in your review of the Enclaves proposal. Southold will benefit from
policies that encourage greenery and minimize hardscape, even pervious hardscape, for excessive
parking.
Randy Wade
i
Michaelis, Jessica
From: Terry, Mark - -~
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2022 8:05 AM
RECEIVED
To: Michaelis, Jessica
F
Subject: FW: Right Turn Only from Enclaves Hotel NiAR III7
2112,
so-6thold-row
(Planning Board
From: DDaly1159 <ddaly1159@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2022 3:24 PM
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>; Cummings, Brian A. <brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: Fwd: Right Turn Only from Enclaves Hotel
Hi Mark and Brian,
Could you please co firm if my letter below was received by the planning board, or who I should send this email to? I
have not heard back from Heather.
Thank you,
Dave Daly
Begin forwarded message-
From: DDaly1159<ddaIv1159@ rnaiLcom>
Date: March 10, 2022 at 10:40:53 AM MST
To: heathr laaiza@Yc wrn.sout aold.n .us
Subject: Re: Right Turn Only from Enclaves Hotel
Hi Heather-could you please confirm that my letter below was received and that i sent it to the correct
place?
Thanks,
Dave
On Mar 8, 2022, at 10:46 AM, DDaly1159 <dd ly1. 59@,Pmail.com>wrote:
Dear Southold Planning Board,
I am writing to you in support of the current proposal that traffic from the new Enclave
Hotel in Southold be routed as "right turns only" from their property on Main Road.
I have lived at 525 Daly Lane (at the end of Town Harbor Lane) for many years and have
extensive experience with the intersection of Town Harbor Lane and Main Road.This
intersection is directly across from the new Enclave Hotel property and it is a very
challenging intersection. Immediately west of this intersection is a bus stop for the S92
which blocks the view of traffic heading east.The 7-11 parking lot is immediately west
1
of the S92 bus stop and often has cars waiting in the center of Main Road to make a left
into 7-11. From the east, cars are often approaching this intersection at 50+ MPH and
have not yet slowed down for their approach into town.The result is a very dangerous
and challenging intersection with obstructed visibility, even without the additional
traffic from the Enclave Hotel. I often opt to make a right turn (east) out of town harbor
lane even when my destination is west to avoid a dangerous left turn with obstructed
views. I have witnessed countless accidents and near accidents at this intersection over
the years.
I beg you to prevent left turns out of the Enclave Hotel property.This intersection
cannot handle any additional complexities.All Enclave traffic should be directed right
(west) out of the property, in a similar fashion to the IGA Grocery Store's right turn only
exit on main road.Allowing left turns from this new hotel will undoubtedly result in
additional accidents and possibly deaths.
Please only allow right turns from the Enclave hotel.
Sincerely,
David M. Daly
525 Daly Lane
Southold NY 11971
914-602-3339
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
z