HomeMy WebLinkAbout*DISCLAIMER* NOT ADOPTED The Orchards FEIS Final VERSION 9_8_2022FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL OF THE ORCHARDS
ORIENT, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK
PROJECT LOCATION: 13.3± Acres located at 2595 Orchard Street, on the northeast
side of Orchard Street, 17’ northwest of Halyoake Avenue, Orient
APPLICANT: East End Holding Company, LLC
P.O. Box 336
Mt. Sinai, NY 11766
Contact: Steven Martocello
(917)502-0101
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Southold Planning Board
54375 State Route 25,
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Contact: Donald J. Wilcenski,
Chair
(631)765-1938
PREPARER AND CONTACT: Town of Southold Planning Department
54375 State Route 25,
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Contact: Heather Lanza
(631)765-1938
Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C.
207 Hallock Road, Suite 212
Stony Brook, NY 11790
Contact: William J. Lahti, P.E.
(631)751-6433
With technical input from:
Steven Muller, P.G.
J.C. Broderick & Associates
1775 Express Drive North
Hauppauge, NY 11787
(631) 584-5492
Peter Dermody, C.P.G.
Dermody Consulting
32 Chichester Avenue, 2nd Floor
Center Moriches, NY 11934
(631) 878-3510
DATE OF PREPERATION: August 29, 2022
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
ii
AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENT: This document, together with the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Proposed Action, comprises the Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS). Copies are available for public review and
comment at the office of the Lead Agency. A copy of the DEIS is
also available for review at the Floyd Memorial Library located at 539
1st Street, Greenport, NY 11944, and the document is available online
at http://www.southoldtownny.gov.
DATE OF FEIS ACCEPTANCE:
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Purpose Of The Document ................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Organization Of The Document ........................................................................................................................... 1-2
2.0 Project Related Comments And Responses ............................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Project Background, Description And Design ...................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Project Purpose, Need, And Benefits.................................................................................................................... 2-7
2.3 Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................................................. 2-7
2.4 Permits And Approvals ......................................................................................................................................... 2-8
3.0 Natural Resource Related Comments And Responses ............................................................................ 2-8
3.1 Soils And Topography ......................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Water .................................................................................................................................................................... 3-2
3.3 Air ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3-21
3.4 Vegetation ........................................................................................................................................................... 3-21
3.5 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................................................... 3-22
4.0 Human Resources Related Comments And Responses ............................................................................ 4-1
4.1 Land Use And Zoning ........................................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Transportation And Traffic ................................................................................................................................... 4-9
4.3 Public Health And Safety/ Community Services .................................................................................................. 4-9
4.4 Aesthetic And Open Space ................................................................................................................................... 4-9
4.5 Archeological ...................................................................................................................................................... 4-14
5.0 Required Elements Comments And Responses ....................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Irreversible And Irretrievable Commitment Of Resources ................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Growth Inducing Aspects ..................................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.3 Use And Conservation Of Energy ........................................................................................................................ 5-1
5.4 Solid Waste Management ..................................................................................................................................... 5-2
5.5 Special Groundwater Protection Area .................................................................................................................. 5-2
6.0 Alternatives Comments And Responses ................................................................................................. 6-3
6.1 No Action ............................................................................................................................................................. 6-3
6.2 Preservation .......................................................................................................................................................... 6-3
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
iv
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Transcript of DEIS Public Hearing 12/7/2020
Appendix B – Public Commenter Identification List
Appendix C – Town Summary of Public and Town Staff Comments
Appendix D – Written Public Comments
Appendix E – Summary of Comments
Appendix F – Town Engineer Letter
Appendix G – Town Zoning Code 280-97 Farmland Bill of Rights
Appendix H – Town Yield Map 7/10/2013
Appendix I – Suffolk County Department of Health Services Article 6 Amended 12/01/2020
Appendix J – Excerpt for New York State Drinking Water Standards
Appendix K – SLOSH Map Orient
Appendix L – FEMA Firmette
Appendix M – Aquifer Characterization
Appendix N – Crop Irrigation Water Estimate
Appendix O – Nitrogen Budget Analysis for Proposed Action
Appendix P – Land Use Ecological Services Report 3/5/2021
Appendix Q – Guadagno Subdivision Map Approved March 7, 2012
Appendix R – NYS OPRHP CRIS Search Results
Appendix S – Town Register of Historic Landmarks
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
1-1
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT
This document is a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Proposed
Action known as The Orchards. The Orchards project is a proposed cluster subdivision
of 13.3025±acres of land identified as District 1000 Section 27 Block 1 Lot 3 on the
Suffolk County Tax Map. The property has street address 2595 Orchard Street, Orient
located within the Township of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York. The
Subject Property has 837± feet (non-continuous) along the North side of Orchard Street
beginning at a point 17±feet West of Halyoake Avenue. The Subject Property is located
within an agricultural district and was used as farmland to grow crops. The property is
undeveloped and has sat fallow since the early 2000’s.
A Draft EIS assessing the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action was
prepared for and accepted by the Town of Southold Planning Board (as Lead Agency
under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act) on September 28, 2020.
On December 7, 2020 the Town Planning Board conducted a public hearing on the Draft
EIS. The lead agency accepted public comments through January 11, 2021. On January
29, 2021 the Town Planning Board issued a summary of all substantiative comments
provided by the public, Town staff, and other agencies. As required by SEQRA, this
document addresses all substantiative comments provided during the hearing and
comment period.
The Final EIS provides the Lead Agency with the information necessary to complete its
SEQRA review. The Final EIS incorporates the Draft EIS by reference. The combination
of the DEIS and FEIS constitute the Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed
Action.
This document fulfills the SEQRA requirement for a Final EIS. After acceptance of this
Final EIS by the Lead Agency, the Lead Agency must provide a minimum ten-day period
before making their findings and final decisions on the Proposed Action.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
1-2
B. ORGANIZATION OF THE DOCUMENT
This document addresses all comments deemed substantiative by the Lead Agency.
Appendix A provides a transcript of the December 7, 2020 public hearing.
Appendix B is a list of all members of the public that submitted comments either during
the public hearing or in writing. Public commenters were assigned a unique identification
number with the format “P - ##”. Persons submitting multiple comments on different
dates were assigned a unique identification number for each date comments were
submitted. To aid the public in locating a response to their comments, the list of
commenters includes the comment number (“C - ##”) assigned to their specific comment.
A large portion of the comments were duplicative in nature. Duplicative comments were
not assigned a unique “C” number but were instead combined into the “C” comment
number most representative of the duplicative comment.
Appendix C of the FEIS contains a summary prepared by the Lead Agency of all
comments deemed substantiative. The summary includes all comments made verbally at
the public hearing, as well as all written comments received by the Lead Agency within
the comment period. Each comment was assigned a unique identification number in the
format “C - ##”, or “T - ##”. Comments beginning with a “T” are comments by the Town
of Southold staff. Comments beginning with a “C” are comments by all others. Thirty-
eight “T” numbers were assigned. Sixty-four “C” numbers were assigned.
Appendix D provides all written comments received by the Lead Agency. Each written
comment document has been marked with the “P” number for the person(s) making the
comment, and each comment within the written document has been marked with the “C”
number assigned to their comment.
Appendix E is a cross reference spreadsheet providing a brief summary of the subject
matter for each comment, the “C” number assigned to the subject matter of the comment,
the identification number (“P” number) for the person making the comment, the section
of the DEIS related to the comment being made, and the FEIS section where a response
to the comment is provided.
The FEIS responses are organized in the same manner as the DEIS. Each response is
provided within the section, and subsection, related to the comment. This document
fulfills the obligation of the Lead Agency in completing a Final EIS in accordance with
Title 6, New York Code of Rules and Regulations (6 NYCRR) Part 617.9.
See Table of Contents for full list of Appendices.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
2-1
2. PROJECT RELATED COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND, DESCRIPTION AND DESIGN
2.1.1- Comment C-3:
“Based on Town Code- Article XI Cluster Development 240-42 –H. (4): Roads, streets
and right-of-way may not be included in the calculation of the minimum required open
space. The area of the conservation easement is based on 16’ right of way for Lot #1
driveway. The State requires a 25-foot clearing and, in a letter, dated March 6, 2015 the
Town Highway Engineer said the Right of Way should be 25 feet. The additional 9 feet of
right of way increases the size of Lot #1 to 1.4744 acres and reduces the conserved area
by .1218 acres. This would bring the Conservation Area below the 60% required
threshold.”
Response to Comment:
The commenter is incorrectly applying the Town Code1. Section 240-42. H. (4) is related
to “roads, streets and right-of-way”. Section 240-3 defines road, streets and right-of-way.
Proposed lot #1 does not propose a “road, street or right-of-way” as defined by the Town
Code. Proposed lot #1 proposes a driveway. The driveway area is properly included in
the calculation of property area for lot #1.
2.1.2- Comment T-37, C-4:
“The flag lots do not meet the standards set in the code. The flags are excessive in length
and the lots do not meet the minimum lot area of the zoning district. The flags appear to
be a means to circumvent a standard lot and street arrangement.”
Response to Comments:
The subdivision map will be revised to meet Town Code.
2.1.3- Comment T-36:
“The subdivision design of the proposed action does not meet the Town Code subdivision
design requirements of Chapter 240. The design proposes four separate driveways where
the code requires a single entrance via a new road. Chapter 240-45. b (15) states the
1 “Town Code” as used throughout tis document refers to the “Code of the Town of Southold” as web published by
ecode360.com
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
2-2
following: Except in a conservation subdivision or open development area, subdivisions
where more than 300 feet of land fronts on a public street shall provide access to
proposed lots by way of a new street. Multiple building lots and fronting of more than
two building lots on an existing street shall be prohibited”
Response to Comment:
The subdivision map will be revised to meet Town Code.
2.1.4- Comment C-17:
“As mentioned above, the conserved area will not meet the 60% criteria for open space
when the Lot #1 and Lot #2 are corrected for code compliance unless some building lots
are eliminated.”
Response to Comment:
The Final Plat will meet all Town Code requirements.
2.1.5- Comment C-19:
“At the Planning Board hearing on April 6, 2015 the owner stated that “we are not going
to do spec houses” and yet the DEIS suggests that is the intent. The owner should clarify
how many houses he intends to build for himself, and will they be built on spec or for his
family? The proposed layout appears to maximize the profit from new homes, not
maximize the continuity of the open space or its viability as farmland.”
Response to Comment:
The DEIS necessarily defined baseline building sizes for purposes of analyzing potential
impacts. Absent a defined baseline, the impact analysis could not be completed.
Information as to whether or not the houses will be spec built or for his family is not the
scope and purpose of information required to be provided in a DEIS or FEIS. The purpose
of the DEIS and FEIS is to determine potential environmental impacts, and mitigation
measures.
2.1.6- Comment C-34:
“In addition, the street trees should not be in ROW- they are supposed to be on
private property- see Town Code- Article III Roadway Construction 161-44 B.”
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
2-3
Response to Comment:
The Final Plat will require street trees according to Town Code and as approved by the
Planning Board, taking into consideration impacts to viewsheds and agriculture where
appropriate.
2.1.7- Comment C-35:
“The subdivision should not be allowed to proceed. We have owned our 200-year-old
farmhouse for 26 years and in that time, development has very slowly changed the character
of the Village of Orient. We are now at a tipping point where the pace of development has
increased while we approach a precipitous limit in resources. 7 acres of corn is a Trojan
Horse that does not justify the density of development outlined in this subdivision
proposal.”
Response to Comment:
The density of the proposed subdivision is based on the number of lots, i.e. the “yield”,
that could be created on the Subject Property by applying the R-80 zoning district bulk
regulations. The applicant is not seeking any increase in density beyond that which is
permitted in the R-80 zoning district.
2.1.8- Comment C-36:
“The analyses of the Horowitz property should offer a guideline for the development of
“The Orchards” property, which is for all intents and purposes identical.”
Response to Comment:
Based on information presented by the commenter, the Horowitz property development
was a subdivision of a 60-acre farm, 40 years ago. A decision on the instant application
cannot be judged against a project from 40 years ago, on a much larger property, whose
location is not identical to the Subject Property, whose site-specific conditions with regard
to potential impacts are not demonstrated to be identical, and was evaluated without the
present-day benefit of the technological and information resources available to assess
potential impacts.
2.1.9- Comment C-40:
“Plan inconsistencies abound --- basic code compliance goes uncorrected, lot sizes
change, setbacks are modified and incomplete, irrigation well appears in different
locations or missing altogether.”
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
2-4
Response to Comment:
The Final Plat will correct any inconsistencies between the official Subdivision Map to be
filed and the Final Road & Drainage Plan.
2.1.10- Comment C-42:
“The Applicants impatience and reluctance to respond to key issues should not replace
nor lessen the Planning Departments authority to make plan modifications according to
Article IX Cluster Development, Section 240-4 A. Plan inconsistencies abound --- basic
code compliance goes uncorrected, lot sizes change, setbacks are modified and
incomplete, irrigation well appears in different locations or missing altogether.”
Response to Comment:
The Final Plat will correct any inconsistencies between the official Subdivision Map to be
filed and the Final Road & Drainage Plan.
2.1.11- Comment C-45:
“The determination by the Applicant to achieve 5 residential lots utilizing the R-40 lot size
and setback criteria is at the expense of the natural and scenic values of the open space
goals of the Cluster development provision and the Town’s vision. As discussed below, it
is even questionable as to whether the Cluster development approach, yielding only 8
acres of open space (including a 4,000-sf barn building), is the best thinking for the
development of the site and its impact to the community.”
Response to Comment:
The lot layout has not been finalized nor the use of the R-40 bulk schedule requirements.
The Lead Agency will determine whether any change to the subdivision design is
necessary to mitigate impacts in their findings.
2.1.12- Comment C-50:
“The split-cluster lot configuration created by allowing a larger residential building lot,
agricultural building and access road, all as part of the privately-held Lot 1, is excessive
and unacceptable, as all the benefits go to the Applicant/Developer with none to the
Town.”
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
2-5
Response to Comment:
The Lead Agency will be reviewing the design for any necessary mitigation measures in
their findings.
2.1.13- Comment C-56:
“The Subdivision proposed for this site is simply TOO DENSE. It is too dense
contextually at the corner of Halyoake and Orchards, and it is too dense for the resources
available.”
Response to Comment:
Appropriate mitigation for specific impacts will be considered by the Lead Agency in the
findings.
2.1.14- Comment C-60:
“The plan could be modified in ways that would be beneficial to the community AND to
the owner. Given the size of the lot to be subdivided, under a modified plan the developer
could easily still put the four or less “clustered” homes on eight acres instead of four
acres (one house per two acres instead of one house per one acre) and still have some
undeveloped open space under a modified plan.”
Response to Comment:
Section 240-42. B of the Town Code specifically requires cluster development of parcels
seven acres or greater in size, and preservation of farmland is also a goal of the Town.
2.1.15- Comment C-61:
“Most importantly, were the town to forbear on the clustering requirement, the result
would benefit the community by reducing stress on the local water supply from the undue
concentration of four potentially large homes on just four acres.”
Response to Comment:
Appropriate mitigation for water supply will be imposed in the mitigation measures the
Lead Agency identifies in the Findings.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
2-6
2.1.16- Comment C-62:
“The DEIS should provide an analysis of area home sizes and scales. As a form of
mitigation, to ensure that that the proposed homes do not create negative impact on
community character, the DEIS should discuss a required covenant that specifies
maximum allowable home sizes of a certain scale.”
Response to Comment:
The Lead Agency will consider whether further mitigation (beyond current Town Code),
is required to mitigate impacts to community character in their Findings Statement.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
2-7
2.2 PROJECT PURPOSE, NEED, AND BENEFITS
2.2.1- Comment C-18:
“The configuration of the conserved area is not conducive to agricultural use with
several notches that will be difficult to plant and maintain.”
Response to Comment:
The subdivision map will be revised to maximize the ability of the open space area to be
actively farmed.
2.2.2- Comment C-29:
“If these lots are sold at current prices for real estate in Orient, they will not be modestly
priced. The estimate of cost to build these homes in the DEIS is very conservatively posited
at $150/sf. Homes recently built in Orient are about twice that. So with the cost of land
being around $600 per acre, and the cost of a 3,500 sf home at $1,050,000, this is not the
type of housing that Orient “needs”.”
Response to Comment:
An environmental impact statement does not typically address the eventual selling price
of homes in a subdivision.
2.2.4- Comment C-51:
“Without further discussion of the serious negative impact on water supply and quality as
well as the important role the Open Space Conservation Easement document to define
restrictions, the Proposed Preliminary Plat (1-21-2015) itself clearly demonstrates that the
benefits to the Applicant/Developer far exceeds the Town’s nominal increase in the
property tax base.”
Response to Comment:
Any benefit to the Applicant is not demonstrative of a significant environmental impact.
2.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
No comments were received.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
2-8
2.4 PERMITS AND APPROVALS
2.4.1- Comment T-7:
“And discuss new SCDHS regulations requiring I/A OWTS in the near future.”
Response to Comment:
The Lead Agency will require mitigation for adverse effects to groundwater, and will work
with The Suffolk County Department of Health Services on this issue, which remains
of concern in Orient with its limited sole source aquifer.
2.4.2- Comment T-24:
“What is the plan if chloride is found in the well? Will the Town of Southold be notified?”
Response to Comment:
The comment relates to the proposed irrigation well. As per the approved New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) approved irrigation well
permit (see Appendix K of the DEIS), the owner/operator of the irrigation well is
required to have irrigation well water samples collected by a New York State ELAP
certified laboratory in June and October (the beginning and end of irrigation season) of
each calendar year, and submit a detailed chloride analysis by November of that same
calendar year. The sampling data must be submitted to the NYSDEC in tabular and
graphical form, and include all data collected since first use of the well. The reports
submitted to the NYSDEC are a matter of public record and are accessible to the Town
and public.
The NYSDEC has the authority, as stated in the permit conditions, to take certain actions
if the chloride concentration is rising or exceeds 65 mg/l including, but not limited to
reducing or restricting pumpage from the well. To put things into perspective, the New
York State Drinking Water Standards (see excerpt in Appendix J of the FEIS) sets a
maximum concentration limit of 250 mg/l for chloride and no limit for sodium for
potable water in the State of New York. As such, the NYSDEC threshold of 65 mg/l is
3.8 times lower than the concentration permitted in drinking water. The NYSDEC
chloride monitoring program is clearly intended to detect any significant rise in chloride
concentration well before the chloride concentration approaches or exceeds the allowable
drinking water concentration limits.
No specific notice to the Town of chlorides present in the irrigation well water is
intended as there is always chloride present in the groundwater drawn from the well, the
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
2-9
Town has no established concentration limit as to when notification would have to be
given, the NYSDEC is the governmental authority with jurisdiction over this issue, and
the NYSDEC yearly chloride reporting system provides the Town with access to monitor
chlorides independently, if they so choose to do so.
2.4.3- Comment C-46:
“In considering any proposed plan, it is essential to envision the full build-out and the
desire of developer and prospective homeowners to build to the maximum and then to
ensure privacy.”
Response to Comment:
The Lead Agency will consider the future buildout potential and whether or not
additional mitigation is required in their Findings .
2.4.4- Comment C-47:
“With small lot sizes as presented in the Proposed Preliminary Plat, the building lots
may be predisposed to seek ZBA waivers to reduce setbacks and other requirements to
accommodate a large house, pool, cabana/other accessory structures, and possible
tennis court on site.”
Response to Comment:
The right to petition the Town ZBA is a right of all property owners, just as the Town
ZBA has to authority to deny applications that do not warrant approval
2.4.5- Comment C-54:
“The Planning Board should require a second DEIS that provides a more in-depth analysis
regarding Orient water issues and the impact of the Proposed Development as well as an
Alternative Plan representing lower density and better lot configuration that mitigates
many of the non-water issues of equal importance to the community.”
Response to Comment:
The FEIS shall provide additional information to clarify the issues raised by public and
staff comments. Given the exhaustive process undertaken by the Planning Board to ensure
all public and staff comments were collected, and then addressed via the FEIS, requiring
a second DEIS would be prejudicial to the Applicant and is not appropriate when properly
applying the regulations set forth by the New York State SEQRA regulation
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
3-1
3. NATURAL RESOURCE RELATED COMMENTS AND
RESPONSES
3.1 SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY
3.1.1- Comments T-35; C-32:
“Note that the Suffolk County GIS Viewer map SLOSH layer identifies the parcel as being
affected by a Category 3 and 4 Hurricane. The only area excluded from the model is the
southwest corner of the parcel. How will future potential flooding be addressed?”
Response to Comments:
“SLOSH” refers to the Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes computerized
numerical model developed by the National Weather Service to estimate storm surge
heights taking into account atmospheric pressure, size, forward speed, and track data. As
stated, this is a numerical model, not an absolute determination that an overland surge from
a hurricane will affect the Subject Property.
As indicated on the SLOSH map for Orient hamlet (see Appendix K of FEIS), the majority
of the entire Orient hamlet is potentially subject to water inundation due category
1 and 2 hurricanes, which are less severe than category 3 or 4 hurricanes.
As indicated on the SLOSH map for the Subject Property, the Subject Property is
potentially subject to inundation due to category 3 and 4 hurricanes, as opposed to the
majority of Orient hamlet where lesser hurricane strengths could potentially cause
inundation by water. As indicated on the SLOSH map, proposed lot 1 and a portion of the
farmland could be inundated by a category 3 hurricane. Proposed lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 could
be inundated by a category 4 hurricane. As is true for the majority of Orient hamlet, the
Subject Property could not physically prevent a storm surge from potentially effecting the
propert y. Any stormwater inundation would recharge to the subsurface through the
naturally well drained Haven soils comprising the site (refer to DEIS Appendix H).
Based on FEMA flood hazard maps, the Subject Property is located within Zone X which is
an area of minimal flood hazard (see Appendix L of the FEIS). While there is no specific
flood elevation governing the design of the floor elevations in the proposed homes, general
good design practice will be followed wherein the homes are slightly elevated as compared
to the surrounding yard area so as to promote good drainage away from the structure and
to allow ponded water to recharge to the subsurface within the yard areas
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
3-2
3.2 WATER
3.2.1- Comment T-1:
As written in the DEIS “The Suffolk County Department of Health Services has already
granted approval for the siting and preliminary design of the five proposed sanitary
systems.”
The Town comment is “This statement is false. Appendix F contains a letter from the
SCDH Board of review that grants a variance with provisions. The letter and decision
language states “this waiver does not imply that your application will be automatically
approved”. The approval is specific to allow the use and treatment of known
contaminated groundwater in the area and to protect public health. Please retract all
statements making reference to Suffolk County Department of Health Services
“approval”.”
Response to Comment:
This is correct, the subdivision application has not yet received approval from the
SCDHS. There is some truth to the siting and preliminary design of the five proposed
sanitary systems having received some level of approval from the SCDHS in five
construction applications made on the yet-to-be created lots, however without subdivision
approval, final approval of those systems has not been given.
3.2.2- Comment T-2:
As written in the DEIS “The groundwater underlying the Subject Property contains
concentrations of certain contaminants in excess of New York State Drinking Water
Standards (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 2020), i.e.
Nitrates, Aldicarb-Sulfoxide and Aldicarb-Sulfone. Groundwater will be used to supply
domestic water to each of the proposed five dwellings. The potable water supplied from
each of the wells will be treated to reduce the concentration of the three contaminants to
below drinking water standards. When the used domestic water is discharged from the
homes, the total concentration of each contaminant shall be reduced from what the
influent would have been if no treatment were in place. Each of the five dwelling water
treatment systems effectively act as a “pump and treat” remediation system, thereby
aiding in improving the groundwater quality.”
The Town comment is “The DEIS claims a reduction of groundwater contamination.”
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
3-3
Response to Comment:
Yes, there will be a reduction in certain existing contaminants as described in the DEIS.
The statement is scientifically supported by the Law of Conservation of Mass. If, for
example, 1 gram of Aldicarb dissolved in groundwater flows into a filtration device, and
the filtration device removes 0.8 grams of Aldicarb, the treated water effluent from the
filtration device will have 0.2 grams of Aldicarb, which is a reduction in the amount of
the contaminant. New contaminants, however, will be introduced to the groundwater as a
result of this action, especially Nitrogen from the proposed traditional septic systems.
Mitigation for new contaminants is needed.
3.2.3- Comment T-3:
As written in the DEIS “The groundwater underlying the Subject Property contains
concentrations of certain contaminants in excess of New York State Drinking Water
Standards (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 2020), i.e.
Nitrates, Aldicarb-Sulfoxide and Aldicarb-Sulfone. Groundwater will be used to supply
domestic water to each of the proposed five dwellings. The potable water supplied from
each of the wells will be treated to reduce the concentration of the three contaminants to
below drinking water standards. When the used domestic water is discharged from the
homes, the total concentration of each contaminant shall be reduced from what the
influent would have been if no treatment were in place. Each of the five dwelling water
treatment systems effectively act as a “pump and treat” remediation system, thereby
aiding in improving the groundwater quality.”
The Town comment is “The claim is not voluntary as presented, rather is a requirement
of the SCDH approval”
Response to Comment:
Yes, this is true.
3.2.4- Comment T-4; C-13:
“Recognizing the levels of contaminants in groundwater, why wasn’t a nitrogen reducing
I/A OWTS proposed to treat total nitrogen load in the sanitary effluent thereby reducing
impacts to groundwater and surface waters?”
Response to Comment:
The impacts to groundwater from nitrogen have not been reduced to the maximum extent
feasible. Further mitigation in the form of I/A OWTS will be required.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
3-4
3.2.5- Comment T-6:
“Please provide a detailed analysis of the effectiveness of the conventional on-site
sanitary system versus an I/A OWTS in treating total nitrogen.”
Response to Comment:
This information is readily available from the SCDHS. In summary, the
Innovative/Alternative Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (I/A OWTS) treat and
remove a significant amount of Nitrogen using improved technology. The total Nitrogen
is reduced to less than 19 mg/l. Traditional septic systems do not have this capability and
therefore contribute significantly more nitrogen to groundwater in sanitary effluent.
Nitrogen pollutes the groundwater. It also ends up flowing into the creeks and bays
causing harmful algal blooms.
3.2.6- Comment T-8:
“Please provide a detailed technical analysis, study, and discussion regarding the sole
source aquifer and its characteristics including the depth of freshwater, freshwater lens,
saltwater/freshwater interface, water supply wells, flow rates, spacing of water supply
wells, other existing private water wells in the vicinity of the site.”
Response to Comment:
The detailed technical analysis, study, and discussion regarding the sole source aquifer
and its characteristics including depth of freshwater, freshwater lens, and
saltwater/freshwater interface is included in Appendix M.
Water supply wells (Generally) - The DEIS section 3.2, discusses the proposed potable
and irrigation water wells.
Water supply wells (Potable) - In accordance with SCDHS “Private Water Systems
Standards”, the potable water wells for the proposed five homes would be approximately
55 feet deep with the well screen starting at approximately 15 feet below grade. Each
well would have a yield rate of approximately 5 gallons per minute, which is the
minimum SCDHS acceptable yield rate.
Water supply well (Irrigation) - In accordance with the NYSDEC irrigation well permit
(Appendix K of the DEIS), the irrigation well be six inches in diameter with a maximum
depth of 45 feet. The well yield is limited to 175 gallons per minute with a maximum
annual pumpage of 4,000,000 gallons.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
3-5
Spacing of water supply wells – The proposed locations for the potable and irrigation
water supply wells is illustrated on the subdivision map submitted to the SCDHS in June
2019 (see Appendix F of the DEIS). The wells have been placed to conform to the
minimum distance requirement between potable wells and sanitary system components as
required by SCDHS design standards promulgated under Article 6 of the Suffolk County
Sanitary Code. The minimum distance between potable water supply wells (existing and
proposed), and sanitary system components, is 150 feet. The referenced plan also
indicates the location of existing private water supply wells within 150 feet of the Subject
Property.
3.2.7- Comments T-9; C-7; C-15:
“What is the aquifer’s capacity to support the proposed new homes and agricultural
use?”
Response to Comment:
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, under 6 NYCRR Part
602, known as the Long Island Well Program, is the governmental agency with direct
jurisdictional responsibility for water withdrawals greater than 45 gallons per minute on a
single property, except for public water supplies. The Long Island Well Program
contributes to the protection and conservation of available water supplies. Issuance of the
irrigation well permit by the governmental agency with direct responsibility for aquifer
protection and conservation is constructive notice that the aquifer has the capacity to
support the intended uses. Furthermore, the irrigation well permit contains conditions for
protection of the aquifer including water testing twice per year and chloride intrusion
monitoring.
Future conditions, including additional homes being built and possible drought make
water conservation a priority, especially for Southold Town, located on a peninsula with
a sole source aquifer. Mitigation to impacts to water quantity have not been mitigated to
the maximum extent practicable. Further mitigation for water usage from the proposed
homes will be required in the form of private well restrictions, build out restrictions,
water use restrictions, and best management practices.
3.2.8- Comment T-10:
“What is the water budget for the proposed action including agricultural uses?”
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
3-6
Response to Comment:
Based on SCDHS design criteria, each single-family home is considered to discharge 300
gallons per day of wastewater which includes consumption and excretion of water by the
building occupants, personal hygiene, laundering, and general maintenance. The total
water usage attributable to the five homes is therefore estimated to be 547,500 gallons per
year.
During limited periods of the year, the landscaping associated with the proposed
residential homes may require irrigation. The proposed residences draw irrigation water
from the same well as the potable water. For the purposes of estimating the water budget
for this project it is assumed that a maximum of 0.33 acres per building lot will require
irrigation for turf grass. Cormell Cooperative Extension published a guideline for
irrigation of turf. The recommendation for irrigation to supplement natural precipitation,
as it applies to the soil present on the Subject Property, is the application of 0.7 inches of
water per week during May; 0.7 inches twice per week during June, July, and August; 0.7
inches per week during September; and 0.5 inches per week during October. Applying
the suggested irrigation application rate, the total water usage attributable to domestic
irrigation for the five homes is estimated to be 1,093,155 gallons per year.
During limited times of the yearly growing season, the proposed crop may require
supplemental irrigation. At present, the proposed primary crop is anticipated to be corn.
Crop rotation is a fundamental part of good farming practice. For every five-year cycle, it
is anticipated that corn will be grown for 3 years and an alternate crop (such as
vegetables) will be grown in the remaining 2 years. For purposes of irrigation water
demand estimation, corn is being used as it is anticipated to be the crop with the higher
water demand.
An estimation as to the amount of water used for crop irrigation is subject to substantial
variation. The irrigation requirements for corn differs from alternate crops that will be
grown on the Subject Property. The following discussion is related to corn, which is
anticipated to be a crop with a larger irrigation water demand. The irrigation demand of
corn varies during specific stages of the plant’s development. If natural precipitation
meeting those varying demands for water occurs during those specific stages of plant
development, supplemental irrigation by use of the NYSDEC approved irrigation well
system will not be required. An analysis of the potential need for irrigation water during
the entire growing season is presented in Appendix N of the FEIS. The analysis was
based on using the yearly average precipitation that occurred on Long Island at the
monitoring station located closest to the Subject Property between 2010 and 2020
inclusive. That monitoring station is located in Laurel. The analysis demonstrates the
following:
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
3-7
• During the eleven-year precipitation period studied, the greatest amount of natural
precipitation that fell during the growing season occurred in 2011 and exceeded the
amount of water required for the growing season. This establishes the lower threshold for
irrigation water at zero gallons per year.
• During the eleven-year precipitation period studied, the average annual
precipitation during the growing season was 15.89 inches. This establishes the average
irrigation water demand requirement to be 2,038,466 gallons.
• During the eleven-year precipitation period studied, the least amount of natural
precipitation that fell during the growing season occurred in 2020. This establishes the
highest threshold for irrigation water at 3,486,368 gallons.
Based on the foregoing, the total water budget for the proposed project can be calculated
as follows:
During a best case no crop irrigation water demand year: 1,640,655 gallons
During an average natural precipitation year: 3,679,121 gallons
During a worst-case crop irrigation water demand year: 5,127,023 gallons
The lead agency recognizes that water conservation practices, especially for the
residential properties, need to be required to mitigate the impacts to groundwater and
protect the amount of potable water.
3.2.9- Comments T-11; C-9:
“What mitigation will be provided to prevent up-coning and salt water intrusion into
the aquifer?”
Response to Comment:
The proposed domestic water supply wells have a maximum depth of approximately 65
feet (approximate NAVD 88 elevation of -53 feet) and produce a flow rate of
approximately 5 gallons per minute. In accordance with SCDHS criteria, a minimum of 40
feet of groundwater shall be above the bottom of the well, thus the depth of the minimum
depth of the well is effectively set by statute. Freshwater is limited to the upper glacial
aquifer above the top of the lower confining unit 2 lying beneath the Subject Property. The
lower confining unit is a layer of Glacial Lake Clay 3 that serves as a physical separation
2 “Hydrologic Framework of the North Fork and Surrounding Areas, Long Island, New York”, U.S.G.S. 2004 ; Page
18
3 “Hydrologic Framework of the North Fork and Surrounding Areas, Long Island, New York”, U.S.G.S. 2004; P late
1E
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
3-8
between the freshwater above the clay layer and the saltwater beneath it. The vertical
hydraulic conductivity of the Glacial Lake Clay layer is only 0.1 feet per day (compared to
20 feet per day above the clay layer), indicating there is very limited vertical movement of
water through the clay layer. The elevation of the upper surface of the Glacial Lake Clay
confining unit of the aquifer is at an approximate NAVD 88 elevation of -71 feet 4. The
bottom of the domestic well casing will be at an approximate NAVD 88 elevation of -53
feet. There is a vertical separation of approximately 18 feet between the upper surface of
the aquifer confining unit and the well pump. The 18-foot vertical separation of the bottom
of the domestic well casing from the Glacial Lake Clay layer, coupled with the extremely
limited vertical movement of water (fresh or salt) through the Glacial Lake Clay layer and
very low well draw rate makes up-coning of saltwater into the domestic well a statistically
improbable occurrence. The existing geologic formation and vertical separation between
the bottom of the domestic well casing and the top of the Glacial Lake Clay layer
effectivel y prevents up-coning of saltwater into the domestic wells.
Furthermore, the relatively high hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer above the Glacial
Lake Clay layer allows the domestic wells to effectively operate without creating an up-
coning effect. Saltwater intrusion is still a possibility as more and more demand is made
on the aquifer, and sea level continues to rise. Therefore, additional mitigation is required
to ensure that potable freshwater continues to be available to the residents of Orient and
Southold Town.
Freshwater is limited to the upper glacial aquifer above the top of the lower confining unit 5
lying beneath the Subject Property. The lower confining unit is a layer of Glacial Lake
Clay 6 that serves as a physical separation between the freshwater above the clay layer and
the saltwater beneath it. The vertical hydraulic conductivity of the Glacial Lake Clay layer
is onl y 0.1 feet per day (compared to 20 feet per day above the clay layer), indicating there
is very limited vertical movement of water through the clay layer. The elevation of the
upper surface of the Glacial Lake Clay confining unit of the aquifer is at an approximate
NAVD 88 elevation of -71 feet 7. The bottom of the irrigation well casing will be at an
approximate NAVD 88 elevation of -30 feet. There is a vertical separation of
approximately 41 feet between the upper surface of the aquifer confining unit and the well
pump. The 41-foot vertical separation of the bottom of the irrigation well casing from the
Glacial Lake Clay layer, coupled with the extremely limited vertical movement of water
(fresh or salt) through the Glacial Lake Clay laye r makes up-coning of saltwater into the
4 “Hydrologic Framework of the North Fork and Surrounding Areas, Long Island, New York”, U.S.G.S. 2004; P late
3B
5 “Hydrologic Framework of the North Fork and Surrounding Areas, Long Island, New York”, U.S.G.S. 2004; page
18
6 “Hydrologic Framework of the North Fork and Surrounding Areas, Long Island, New York”, U.S.G.S. 2004; plate
1E
7 “Hydrologic Framework of the North Fork and Surrounding Areas, Long Island, New York”, U.S.G.S. 2004; plate
3B
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
3-9
irrigation well a statistically improbable occurrence. The existing geologic formation and
vertical separation between the bottom of the irrigation well casing and the top of the
Glacial Lake Clay layer effectively prevents up-coning of saltwater into the irrigation well.
Furthermore, the relatively high hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer above the Glacial
Lake Clay layer allows the irrigation well to effectively operate without creating an up-
coning effect, particular since the amount of time the irrigation pump runs per day is
limited, and the number of days the pump must run is limited.
Saltwater intrusion is still a possibility, and as a precautionary measure, the NYSDEC
irrigation well permit requires chloride sampling at the beginning and end of the growing
season, to aide in detecting saltwater intrusion before it becomes problematic. The chloride
monitoring limit set by the NYSDEC (65 mg/l) is significantly less than the chloride
concentration permitted in drinking water (250 mg/l), thus providing a significant margin
of safet y in detecting saltwater intrusion before the concentration approaches the
permissible concentration limit for drinking water. Agricultural irrigation wells are outside
the purview of this document, and it can be assumed the DEC will, in their monitoring
program, take appropriate measures if saltwater intrusion is detected in the farm’s
irrigation well.
3.2.10- Comment T-12:
As written in the DEIS “Based on the Subject Property size of 13.3± acres, Suffolk County
Wastewater Management could potentially allow as many as13 single family residential
homes to be constructed on the Subject Property.”
The Town comment is “This statement confuses the reader and the issues. Southold Town
zoning would not permit greater than one single family residential unit per 80,000 sq. ft.
in the R-80 zoning district regardless of the SCDH Article 6 density regulations. Please
clarify why this density on the parcel is not permissible.”
Response to Comment:
Section 3.2 of the DEIS is specific to water and the SCDHS, and mistakenly ignored the
zoning, which would not allow density at a higher rate than one lot per 80,000 sq. ft. If
there were no zoning, the Health Department would presumably allow the higher density
under their rules. This is not possible because Town zoning rules override the County’s
density allowances.
3.2.11- Comment T-13:
“The DEIS states that public water supply is unavailable for the Subject Property. It is
important to note that public water is not available for the entire surrounding area and
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
3-10
that potable water supply is obtained from a sole source aquifer, and in addition the test
wells show signs of contamination requiring filtration for any future homes on the site.”
Response to Comment:
Recognition of all of the items in the comment above are in the DEIS.
3.2.12- Comment T-14:
“The Planning Board disagrees with the statement made on page 3-6 that “Based on
SCDHS approval of the variance, which includes the engineering design layout for the
proposed sanitary system and potable water supply well for each proposed residential
home, no significant impact to the groundwater quality or quantity is anticipated.”
Response to Comment:
The impacts to groundwater have not been mitigated to the maximum extent practicable.
The fact that some other use of the property (agriculture) could potentially pollute the
groundwater more than traditional septic systems from the five homes is not adequate
rationale to minimize the mitigation. The use of I/A OWTS for the five homes will treat
and remove a significant amount of Nitrogen and thus reduce pollution to the maximum
extent practicable. Further mitigation than is proposed will be required to achieve
mitigation of impacts to groundwater.
3.2.13- Comment T-15:
“The Planning Board strongly disagrees with the statement also made on page 3-4
“SCDHS approval would not have been issued had the SCDHS review identified a
significant impact””
Response to Comment:
As Lead Agency, the Planning Board will work with SCDHS in their review of the
subdivision application to identify further mitigation of impacts to groundwater. SCDHS,
an involved agency, has not issued final approval of this subdivision. The process followed
so far with SCDHS had to do more with potable water to serve the proposed homes –
hence the only approval in place at the moment is the SCDHS Board of Review allowing
the homes to filter the water because the wells will yield only contaminated water. With
respect to impacts to groundwater from the septic systems, mitigation is both necessary
and feasible.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
3-11
3.2.14- Comment T-16:
The following Town comment relates to the proposed crop irrigation well: “What is
the projected gallons per day year over year?”
Response to Comment:
The irrigation well is intended to supplement natural precipitation when the amount of
precipitation is below that which is required for the crop being grown.
The growing season shall span roughly between May 15th and September 15th. For 241
days of the year, the daily irrigation water use shall be zero gallons per day.
During the growing season the amount of irrigation water being used will vary depending
on the water required for the crop being grown; the water demand of the crop at that
specific stage of its development; atmospheric conditions including wind speed,
atmospheric pressure, heat, and rate of evapotranspiration; and soil conditions including
the amount of free water available at various depths of the root zone. There is no one
specific answer to the question being asked.
An estimation of the amount of irrigation water required for the growing season was
prepared and is presented in Appendix N of the FEIS. The growing season is estimated
to be 124 days long. An estimation can be made based on the total irrigation water
demand for the season being broken down to a daily usage basis with an equal amount of
irrigation water being required each day of the growing season. For a year where there
is natural precipitation during the growing season equal to the average precipitation
recorded for the past 11 years on the North Fork of Long Island, the daily usage would
be 16,439 gallons per day during the growing season. In a worst-case scenario where the
natural precipitation during the growing season was equal to the lowest amount of
precipitation recorded for the past 11 years on the North Fork of Long Island, the daily
usage would be 28,116 gallons per day during the growing season.
The above daily estimates for irrigation water usage are based on a corn crop. Crop
rotation is anticipated. It is further anticipated that 2 out of every 5 years will have a lower
irrigation water demand as the crop being planted will have a lower irrigation water
demand than corn.
3.2.15- Comment T-17:
The following Town comment relates to the proposed crop irrigation well: “What is
the projected zone of influence from the well head?”
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
3-12
Response to Comment:
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, under 6 NYCRR Part
602, known as the Long Island Well Program, is the governmental agency with direct
jurisdictional responsibility for water withdrawals greater than 45 gallons per minute on
a single property, except for public water supplies. In accordance with State law, the
NYSDEC has issued approval for construction of an irrigation well (refer to Appendix K
of the DEIS). As such, the zone of influence of the irrigation well pump is, based on State
law, presumed not to adversely affect public health safety and welfare as they would not
have issued the permit.
The estimated zone of influence for the proposed irrigation well pump is a horizontal
radius of 85 feet from the location of the irrigation well. Refer to Appendix C of the FEIS
for the calculation details.
3.2.16- Comment T-18:
The following Town comment relates to the proposed crop irrigation well: “What are the
potential impacts to private wells in the surrounding area?”
Response to Comment:
Town Code section 280-97. B (see Appendix G of the FEIS) states “Agricultural
activities conducted on farmland, undertaken in compliance with applicable federal, state,
county and Town laws, rules and regulations, are presumed to be good agricultural
practices and presumed not to adversely affect the public health safety and welfare. We
find that whatever nuisance may be caused to others by such uses and activities, so
conducted, is more than offset by the benefits from farming to the community. Therefore,
all such activities shall be protected farm practices within the Town of Southold.” The
irrigation well is part of normal and customary “agricultural activities”. As such, the use of
the irrigation well is, based on Town law,” presumed not to adversely affect public health
safet y and welfare”.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, under 6 NYCRR Part
602, known as the Long Island Well Program, is the governmental agency with direct
jurisdictional responsibility for water withdrawals greater than 45 gallons per minute on
a single property, except for public water supplies. In accordance with State law, the
NYSDEC has issued approval for construction of an irrigation well (refer to Appendix K
of the DEIS). As such, the zone of influence of the irrigation well pump is, based on State
law, presumed not to adversely affect public health safety and welfare as they would not
have issued the permit.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
3-13
No short-term impacts to the surrounding existing wells are anticipated. The zone of
influence for the proposed irrigation well is 85 horizontal feet from the irrigation well
location (see Appendix C of the FEIS). The nearest existing well is more than 400 feet
away from the proposed irrigation well (see Appendix F of the DEIS). Over the long term,
however, the rising sea level, as well as the increase in drought occurrences due to climate
change may cause increased salt-water intrusion for wells in Orient, and so the need to
practice water conservation now, and mitigate future water consumption is necessary.
3.2.17- Comment T-19:
The following Town comment relates to the proposed crop irrigation well: “What are
mitigation measures for the potential impact?”
Response to Comment:
Town Code section 280-97. B (see Appendix G of the FEIS) states “Agricultural
activities conducted on farmland, undertaken in compliance with applicable federal, state,
county and Town laws, rules and regulations, are presumed to be good agricultural
practices and presumed not to adversely affect the public health safety and welfare. We
find that whatever nuisance may be caused to others by such uses and activities, so
conducted, is more than offset by the benefits from farming to the community. Therefore,
all such activities shall be protected farm practices within the Town of Southold.” The
irrigation well is part of normal and customary “agricultural activities”. As such, the use of
the irrigation well is, based on Town law,” presumed not to adversely affect public health
safet y and welfare”.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, under 6 NYCRR Part
602, known as the Long Island Well Program, is the governmental agency with direct
jurisdictional responsibility for water withdrawals greater than 45 gallons per minute on
a single property, except for public water supplies. In accordance with State law, the
NYSDEC has issued approval for construction of an irrigation well (refer to Appendix K
of the DEIS). As such, the irrigation well is, based on State law, presumed not to adversely
affect public health safety and welfare as they would not have issued the permit.
Furthermore, the NYSDEC well permit includes monitoring requirements for saltwater
intrusion, the right to require additional monitoring, and the right to modify the permit
conditions.
3.2.18- Comment T-21:
The following Town comment relates to the proposed crop irrigation well: “How will
up- coning of salt water be prevented”
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
3-14
Response to Comment:
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, under 6 NYCRR Part
602, known as the Long Island Well Program, is the governmental agency with direct
jurisdictional responsibility for water withdrawals greater than 45 gallons per minute on a
single propert y, except for public water supplies. In accordance with State law, the
NYSDEC has issued approval for construction of an irrigation well (refer to Appendix K
of the DEIS). The DEC will monitor the well for chlorides.
3.2.19- Comment T-22:
The following Town comment relates to the proposed crop irrigation well: “What are
the drought weather patterns for this location?”
Response to Comment:
A detailed review of this issue is presented in Appendix B of the FEIS. Based on the
100-year period from 1900-2000, the data compiled and analyzed by the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climate Data Center (NCDC)
indicates periods of drought are cyclical in nature, and the overall PHDI for the 100-year
time frame indicates the total PHDI for non-drought periods exceeded the total PHDI of
drought periods. Based on the total net positive PHDI, non-drought conditions exist.
3.2.20- Comment T-23:
The following Town comment relates to the proposed crop irrigation well: “What specific
best management practices will be employed to conserve water used to support crops or
livestock?”
Response to Comment:
Management of the crop fields shall include regular use of the evapotranspiration (ET)
data published by Cornell Cooperative Extension. The ET data will be used to help
determine when irrigation water needs to be applied.
Soil moisture readings shall be used, in concert with the ET data, to determine the
irrigation demand for the crop being grown. By monitoring the soil moisture in the root
zone, the amount of irrigation water applied to the field can be optimized, thereby
conserving water.
Irrigation water requirements vary greatly based on the type of crop being grown, and the
stage of growth. For example, the need to irrigate corn is critical at limited times during the
growth cycle of the plant. Irrigation during non-critical plant growth periods will be
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
3-15
minimized for conservation purposes, and as over-watering will increase expense (to
produce the irrigation water) while decreasing crop yield.
One aspect of crop seed selection shall be the water required to grow the crop. Some of the
more recent hybrid seeds require less water per growing cycle, thus minimizing the
irrigation water demand.
Best irrigation practices will be developed with the assistance of the Cornell Cooperative
Extension, Long Island Farm Bureau, New York Farm Bureau and the experience of local
farmers and other farming professionals.
3.2.21- Comment T-25; C-5; C-10; C-38:
“The Planning Board strongly disagrees with the statement “The impact of thirteen single
family homes discharging wastewater to the Subject Property is therefore deemed
acceptable by the SCDHS with regard to potential impacts to surface and groundwater
quality from the wastewater discharge.” There is no basis to support this assertion. Article
6 does not account for current conditions, is outdated and cannot supersede the Town
zoning on the parcel.”
Response to Comment:
The statement is retracted.
3.2.22- Comment T-26:
“The Planning Board strongly disagrees with the statement “The nitrogen load from the
proposed five single family homes is not anticipated to significantly impact surface or
groundwater as it represents only 38% of the volume of wastewater permitted to be
discharged by the SCDHS regulation intended to protect water quality.” There is not a
nitrogen load reduction from the permissible yield of 5 lots on the property. The SCDHS
requirements cannot be applied as a rationale to support mitigation.”
Response to Comment:
It is acknowledged that five new homes with traditional septic systems would have a significant
adverse impact on groundwater quality over time. The SCDHS has acknowledged this by
changing their requirements for septic systems so that every new home must now install an I/A
OWTS capable of reducing total Nitrogen to less than 19 mg /L. That this application began
prior to those rules being put in place does not erase the adverse impacts traditional septic
systems will have. Traditional septic systems do not remove nitrogen pollution from the effluent
and thus the groundwater is polluted with excess nitrogen. The land area could also be left fallow
and cause no additional nitrogen pollution. See more on the topic below.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
3-16
3.2.23- Comment T-27; C-16:
“Provide a detailed nitrogen budget for the parcel and uses.”
Response to Comment:
Appendix O of the FEIS shows a nitrogen budget for the action. It is a fact that the action
will increase the amount of total nitrogen from various inputs over existing conditions on
the parcel to the groundwater which does not currently meet NYS MCL for nitrates. Water
in test well #1 exceeded the Suffolk County test well standard of 6 mg/l of nitrates and in
test well #2; exceeded the NYS MCL for nitrates, Aldicarb Sulfoxide and Aldicarb Sulfone.
On December 17, 2019 the SCDHS Board of Review approved the Applicant’s variance
request to equip each dwelling with a potable water treatment system to reduce the
concentration of the target compounds to below the MCL.
The potential cumulative, adverse impacts from sanitary systems on ground and surface
waters require mitigation.
Page 3 of Appendix O provides a calculation of N loading attributable to sanitary waste for
the 5 single family residences as follows:
5 homes x 2.3 persons/home x (10 lbs. N/person/year) = 115 lbs. N per year (gross)
Conventional Sanitary system consisting of septic tank and leaching pools causes reduction
of N loading as follows:
Septic tank reduces N by 6%: 115 lbs N/year x 94% = 108.1 lbs/year
Leaching pool reduces N by 10%: 108.1 lbs/year x 90% = 97.3 lbs/yr (net)
Page 3 of Appendix O Calculation of N loading attributable to residential turf grass
fertilization:
71,874 SF x (2.04 lbs N/1,000 SF/yr) x 30% leaching rate = 44.0 lbs/yr
The poor rate of reduction of N in effluent by a conventional septic system is greatly out-
performed by the I/A OWTS. For example, the Hydro-action system has been proven to
reduce effluent to 10 mg/L of N. The rate of removal of N for I/A OTWS is typically at least
50% and has been measured as much higher in monitoring by the SCDHS.
A detailed nitrogen budget for proposed uses is presented in Appendix O of the FEIS. The
results indicating the pounds of nitrogen added to the Upper Glacial aquifer are summarized
below (pounds per year):
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
3-17
Minimum
Farmland
Irrigation Year
Average
Farmland
Irrigation Year
Maximum
Farmland Irrigation
Year
Project as Proposed
360.5 266.1 210.0
100% Farmland Use 425.5 267.8 240.2
3.2.24- Comments T-38; C-6; C9:
“There doesn’t appear to be enough mitigation proposed to avoid groundwater depletion,
salt water intrusion and groundwater pollution. Water usage is related to house size and
the area that is landscaped with plants that need frequent watering, including lawn area.
In addition, if agriculture is planned on the open space area, there will be even more
groundwater depletion from irrigation. This needs more specific evaluation of anticipated
water usage including landscape and lawn irrigation, agricultural irrigation and
household water use. Evaluate the water usage impact on water quantity, quality, saltwater
intrusion/up-coning, effects on neighboring wells. What mitigation will be provided for
these impacts?”
Response to Comment:
The annual water consumption for the 5 single-family residences is estimated at 1,500
gallons per day (GPD).
1. The NYSDEC approved well yield is limited to 175 gallons per minute with a
maximum annual pumpage of 4,000,000 gallons for lot 1 and is proposed to be used
for crop farming.
2. It is assumed that the lawn and landscaping on the private properties will be irrigated
using potable water from spigots located on each property.
Traditionally, around 40 percent (P.W. Grosser) or 600 gpd of the 1,500 GPD is expected
to be lost to irrigation with some amount of recharge loss (e.g., surface runoff,
evapotranspiration) to the aquifer.
The use of potable water to irrigate turf and landscaped areas poses a significant,
cumulative, long-term adverse impact and is unsustainable on the sole source aquifer
groundwater resources in Orient. The need to provide important areas for groundwater
recharge and reduce irrigated areas to minimize potential moderate to large impacts is
critical to preserve the long-term viability of the sole source aquifer in Orient.
Future conditions, including additional homes being built and possible drought make water
conservation a priority, especially for Southold Town, located on a peninsula with a sole
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
3-18
source aquifer. There are already homes in Orient experiencing salt-water intrusion and all
share the same sole source aquifer.
Potable water quantity is of utmost importance for the future. Mitigation to impacts to water
quantity have not been mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. Further mitigation for
water usage from the proposed homes is needed.
3.2.25- Comment C-11:
“The DEIS does not address the concerns for potential impacts to groundwater and
adjacent properties of discharge of pharmaceuticals, personal care products, VOCs,
pesticides or herbicides and fertilizers from the residential properties.”
Response to Comment:
Further mitigation to the greatest extent practicable of the impacts identified in this
comment are needed. These can be accomplished with the information already available
in the DEIS and this FEIS. See earlier comments and responses.
3.2.26- Comment C-12:
“The DEIS does not address the use of fertilizers and pesticides except to say that “Best
Management Practices” will be implemented. There is no mention of Integrated Pest
Management.”
Response to Comment:
The Lead Agency will require mitigation measures in detail for the residential properties in
their Findings for this potential impact.
The following Best Management Practices for fertilization, herbicides and pesticides on
each residential lot are expected to be required to reduce the introduction of nutrients and
synthetic herbicides and pesticides capable of entering the groundwater.
1. Only apply fertilizer if more than 20’ away from surface water or within 3’ of a
10’+ vegetative border; or within 3’ of surface water if the spreader has a guard
deflector shield or is a drop spreader.
2. Only apply organic fertilizers where the water-soluble nitrogen is no more than
20% of the total nitrogen in the mixture may be utilized on the lots.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
3-19
3. Maximum of 1 pound of nitrogen per 1000 square feet in any one application, with
a cumulative application of no more than 2 pounds per 1000 square feet per year.
4. Phosphorus containing lawn fertilizer is prohibited unless establishing a new lawn
or soil test shows that the lawn does not have enough phosphorus. The phosphorous
level must be 0.67 or lower unless a soil test indicates it’s needed.
5. Synthetic herbicides and pesticides will be prohibited.
6. The use of Agricultural Environmental Management (AEM) practices for
agricultural operations.
3.2.27- Comment C-31:
“While Aldicarbs will be filtered out by a system that is provided free to the homeowners-
there could be negative impacts from other contaminants.”
Response to Comment:
The I/A OWTS do not reduce the contaminant levels of certain pesticides, herbicides,
personal care products, VOC’s and pharmaceuticals, therefore specific target filtration is
often required by the SCDH. The best way to reduce these contaminants is to eliminate
their introduction at the source. As indicated above BMP’s are expected to be required to
mitigate cumulative, significant adverse impacts to water quality.
3.2.28- Comment C-41:
“Furthermore, seeking review and approval by the Suffolk County Health Department,
prior to Town’s SEQRA Determination, and Preliminary Plat Approval, is presumptuous
and leads to more confusion.”
Response to Comment:
Final approval from SCDHS has not yet been granted.
3.2.29- Comment C-52:
“As the adjacent property to the southeast, we will be the first impacted by the quality of
the groundwater as it flows towards Long Beach bay. Perhaps the most disturbing and
confusing series of events occurs between 2016 and 2019, where the Applicant’s test well
results in 2016 not only show the contamination but also SCDHS remarks regarding the
depth to water of less than 40 feet (Appendix J) and the need to restrict lot size conforming
to the current R-80 zoning. Then by 2019, different well test results appear to allow for the
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
3-20
SCDHS Board of Review & variance (Appendix G) where lot size restrictions are removed.
Is cherry-picking results an acceptable approach to ignoring a well-known and
documented concern regarding the fragile Orient water supply?”
Response to Comment:
The test wells installed in 2016 were not installed to the minimum depth required by the
SCDHS, which led to the SCDHS placing a restriction on the density of housing. New
wells were installed in 2019 to the proper depth required by the SCDHS.
The water quality test results from the 2016 wells showed the groundwater complied with
the New York State Drinking Water Standard. The groundwater obtained from the 2019
wells showed contaminants and this was the test well that met the requirements of the
SCDHS.
3.2.30- Comment C-53:
“Further, the DEIS spins the acts of contaminated water transformed by water filtration
technology to conclude that the filtered water discharged into the groundwater has no
impact to the water supply nor water quality, it is a benefit created by the development!
Really?”
Response to Comment:
It is less of a benefit, and more of an effect of filtering and treating the groundwater. Some
amount of groundwater will be filtered by treatment systems located within the residential
uses and as a result certain existing contaminant levels will be reduced. Of course, some
new contaminants, that cannot be treated, are likely to be added.
3.2.31- Comment C-58:
“Hydrogeological studies need to be done before a project of this size may be lawfully
done.”
Response to Comment:
The commenter provides no statute requiring a hydrogeological study to support the
statement.
3.2.32- Comment C-63:
“As is well known and documented, the hydrogeologic setting of the North Fork is most
vulnerable. With maximum water pumping from below ground, evidence of salt water has
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
3-21
begun to intrude into the aquifer. This situation is exacerbated by the permanent water
level shifts and global warming trends, as local ground water tables are trending toward
dropping permanently. Changing sea levels due to global warming can be expected to
affect coastal drinking water wells by raising the level of salty water.
Based on the above information, determining the availability of groundwater in the area
through hydraulic testing is needed.”
Response to Comment:
The Suffolk County Department of Health Services is the governmental agency with direct
jurisdictional responsibility for protecting the water resources of the entire County (see
section 760-602 in Appendix I of the FEIS), including the hamlet of Orient.
No hydraulic testing was required by the governmental agency with direct jurisdictional
responsibility, and an affirmation that adequate on-site water supply could be provided to
the five proposed homes was issued in the form of the variance from the SCHDS Board of
Review.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, under 6 NYCRR Part
602, known as the Long Island Well Program, is the governmental agency with direct
jurisdictional responsibility for water withdrawals greater than 45 gallons per minute on a
single property, except for public water supplies. The Long Island Well Program
contributes to the protection and conservation of available water supplies. Issuance of the
irrigation well permit by the governmental agency with direct responsibility for aquifer
protection and conservation is constructive notice that the aquifer has the capacity to
support the intended uses. No hydraulic testing was required by the governmental agency
with direct jurisdictional responsibility for the irrigation well.
3.3 AIR
No comments were received.
3.4 VEGETATION
3.4.1- Comment T-28:
“The Environmental Resource Mapper website was consulted and the parcel is located
within a Significant Natural Community layer (occurs to the east and west of the parcel).
This layer shows areas within a 1/2 mile of the significant natural communities shown in
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
3-22
the layer above. The natural community identified is Marine Back Lagoon Beach Bay. If
project impacts are being assessed at a location within this vicinity layer, the nearby
significant natural communities should be considered in the assessment. Please discuss the
potential adverse impacts to the Significant Natural Community.”
Response to Comment:
No significant environmental impact is anticipated. Refer to Appendix P of the FEIS for a
detailed anal ysis.
3.4.2- Comment T-29:
“Please contact the NYS Natural Heritage Program to determine if protected vegetation
species occur on site.”
Response to Comment:
None of the New York State protected species historically observed in Orient will be
adversely impacted by the proposed action. Refer to Appendix P of the FEIS for a detailed
analysis.
3.4.3- Comment C-14:
The comment states, in pertinent part “The DEIS…offers “turf grass” in the unfarmed
open space.”
Response to Comment:
Irrigation of turf areas and landscaping is one of the largest consumers of potable water
(SCWA). As such the use of potable water to irrigate turf and landscaped areas poses a
significant, cumulative, long-term adverse impact on the potable water supply and the sole
source aquifer groundwater resources in Orient. The area allowed to be irrigated will need
to be mitigated to reduce irrigation required and mitigate impacts to the quantity of
groundwater.
3.5 WILDLIFE
3.5.1- Comment T-30:
“The DEIS does not include a discussion on the eastern box turtle, as a New York State-
listed species of Special Concern. The species requires some measure of protection to
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
3-23
ensure that the species does not become threatened. Species of special concern are
protected wildlife pursuant to Environmental Conservation Law section 11-0103(5)(c)”
Response to Comment:
Refer to Appendix P of the FEIS for a detailed discussion.
3.5.2- Comment T-31:
“Correspondence from DEC and the New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP)
indicates that no agency records currently exist for northern long-eared bat on the parcel,
however, this is not a definitive assessment on the current or future use of the site by the
species. It is recommended that Ms. Michelle Gibbons at the NYSDEC is contacted at 631-
444-0306 to determine if the habitat is suitable for the species habit (sic). Please provide
an assessment of these species potential for occurring on or using the site.”
Response to Comment:
Refer to Appendix P of the FEIS for a detailed discussion. In addition to Appendix P, it is
noted that although the proposed project will not provide good future habitat, some box
turtles may be present on the property at the time of construction. Mitigation for a direct
taking of individual turtles is possible by conducting sweeps of the area prior to clearing
and grading.
3.5.3- Comment C-33:
“While there may, or may not be any threatened or endangered species inhabiting this site,
there are certainly plenty of deer there. The DEIS suggests that the wildlife (squirrels,
rabbits and birds) will move to the adjacent conserved properties and the repopulate the
site, avoiding the subject of deer altogether. The 8’ deer fence that will inevitably surround
the farmed area will not allow the deer to repopulate this site. As more and more fences
are erected the deer become more of a problem for homeowners who do not wish to, or
cannot fence in their properties, and to drivers as the deer dart across the roads instead of
open fields.”
Response to Comment:
Town Code section 280-97. B (see Appendix G of the FEIS) states “Agricultural
activities conducted on farmland, undertaken in compliance with applicable federal, state,
county and Town laws, rules and regulations, are presumed to be good agricultural
practices and presumed not to adversely affect the public health safety and welfare. We
find that whatever nuisance may be caused to others by such uses and activities, so
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
3-24
conducted, is more than offset by the benefits from farming to the community. Therefore,
all such activities shall be protected farm practices within the Town of Southold.” If a deer
fence is erected for the purpose of crop protection, it would be part of normal and customary
“agricultural activities”. As such, erection of a deer fence is, based on Town law,”
presumed not to adversely affect public health safety and welfare”.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
4-1
4. HUMAN RESOURCES RELATED COMMENTS AND
RESPONSES
4.1 LAND USE AND ZONING
4.1.1- Comment T-5:
“Note that the Planning Board requires I/A OWTS for all new subdivisions in the hamlet
of Orient.”
Response to Comment:
Noted.
4.1.2- Comment T-20:
“Identify an open space use permitted by Chapter 240 Subdivision of Land of the Southold
Town Code that would use much less potable water and still meet the landowner’s
goals.”
Response to Comment:
Town Code section 280-97. A (see Appendix G of the FEIS) states “The Town Board of
the Town of Southold finds that farming is an essential activity within the Town of
Southold. Farmers provide fresh food, clean air, economic diversity and aesthetic open
spaces to all the citizens of our Town. In addition, land in agricultural uses requires less
tax dollars for services than does land with residential or commercial development.
Accordingly, farmers shall have the right to farm in Southold without undue interference
from adjacent land owners or users.” Use of the open space as farmland is protected by the
Town Code, and preservation of agricultural land is a key element of numerous Town of
Southold plans, studies and reports. The Applicant wishes to exercise his right to farm
within the open space.
4.1.3- Comment T-34:
“The Southold Town Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2020. Please assess the
project to the document. Include an assessment on climate change and sea level rise.”
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
4-2
Response to Comment:
The proposed project encompasses many of the objectives and goals stated in the 2020
Southold Town Comprehensive Plan (TCP). An overview is as follows:
Land Use & Zoning (Chapter 3) -
a.) As stated in the TCP, “one of the defining features of the character of Southold is its
agriculture.” The largest land use category in Southold Township is residential (33%)
followed closely by agricultural (30%). The proposed project includes both of the
predominant land uses in the Township.
b.) The TCP presents Goal 9 that states “Retain and Advance the Business of
Agriculture”. The project shall retain 60% of the Subject Property area for the purpose of
agriculture with the intent to return the agricultural land to productive use. Goal 9 is
fulfilled by the Proposed Action.
c.) The TCP presents Goal 10 that states “Continue to Preserve Farmland and Open Space.”
It goes on to state “Southold’s character is created in large part by its open spaces,
including farmland, natural lands, and parks.” The majority of the Subject Property shall
be farmland, which is consistent with the character and goal set forth in the TCP. Goal 10
is fulfilled by the Proposed Action.
d.) The TCP discusses the hamlet of Orient in specific terms . The TCP states “Orient’s
character is defined by its farms and its traditional hamlet center with narrow streets lined
by trees and historic buildings. Agricultural land uses cover over a third of the hamlet’s
land area.” The Subject Property is not within the hamlet center. The majority of the Subject
Property shall remain as farmland, which is consistent with the character of Orient as
described in the TCP.
Transportation & Infrastructure (Chapter 4)-
a.) As stated in the TCP, Goal 1 is to reduce stormwater runoff. The project shall conform
to the Town requirements for stormwater control. Stormwater run-off from the roofs of
the proposed homes shall be directed to underground stormwater leaching facilities where
the water can recharge to the aquifer below.
Community Character (Chapter 5)-
The Proposed Action is for the return of nearly 8 acres of agricultural land to active crop
farming use, constructing an agricultural barn, and constructing five single family homes.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
4-3
The TCP specifically identifies agriculture as being a significant character in the
Township of Southold. The Town Code goes further and encourages and protects the
rights of persons to farm, even if certain nuisances are created as a result of the farming
operation via the Farmland Bill of Rights in Chapter 280-97 of the Town Code. As such,
the agricultural aspect of the Proposed Action (i.e. the agricultural barn and crop farming)
is in keeping with the community character as defined by the Town’s own publications.
The five proposed single-family homes also conform to the community character in
many ways. A summary is as follows:
• The proposal meets the density requirements of the Town Code
• Section 240-42. B of the Town Code requires clustering of the proposed single-
family homes. Clustering is also part of the 2020 Southold Town Comprehensive
Plan as discussed elsewhere in the FEIS. This establishes the mandate that the single-
family homes must be clustered and that a clustered arrangement of homes is
appropriate for the community character of the surrounding area.
• The only question remaining with regard to the proposed four single family homes is
the appropriate location for the clustered homes. This final question is answered by
Town Code section 240-43. B and the 2020 Southold Town Comprehensive Plan. The
Town Code states “The location of open space lands shall be determined in general
accordance with the goals of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan and in particular with
the Southold Town Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy to provide an
interconnected network of open space and farmland. The Town Comprehensive Plan
states, in pertinent part under Objective 1.3, “Design both standard and conservation
subdivisions involving farmland to enhance farming and minimize potential
incompatibility with residential neighbors by incorporating the following into the
design: Design the location of the open space/farmland so it is contiguous with other
farmland”. The proposed farmland occupies the westerly portion of the Subject
Property. The land abutting the Subject Property along the westerly property line is part
of a subdivision map approved by the Town Planning Board on March 7, 2012 (see
Appendix Q of the FEIS – Final Plat of Patrick Guadagno). The Guadagno subdivision
includes a 6-acre Open Space Conservation Easement and a future agricultural barn.
The proposed farmland on the Subject Property has been placed to be contiguous with
the open space /farmland on the Guadagno property, which is consistent with Objective
1.3 in the TCP. No greater view shed can be provided than what is afforded by placing
the two large tracts of farmland/open space immediately adjacent to each other, thus
maximizing the open space character of the community. Placing the four clustered
homes on the westerly side of the Subject Property would result in a disconnect
between the two open space tracts of land and interrupt the view shed.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
4-4
• The size and location of each individual proposed single-family residence is governed
and restricted by the Town Code regulations for maximum lot coverage, required
minimum setbacks, and height, just as all the other homes in the surrounding area are
likewise governed by the same regulations. It may be necessary, however, to further
mitigate the visual impacts of future homes if the Planning Board finds they have not
been mitigated to the greatest extent feasible.
a.) The TCP sets forth an Objective 1.1 to “Identify important scenic resources” and
“Develop and adopt a Town Scenic Resources Map to achieve greater protection of
viewsheds in the application review processes including assessment to the New York State
Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and the Local Waterfront Revitalization
Program (LWRP) policy standards and recommendations.” As stated by the Town, a
formalized map identifying important viewsheds does not exist. The Proposed Action
establishes an area of protected farmland contiguous to an abutting protected open space
area.
b.) The TCP sets forth an Objective 1.4 to “Enhance scenic qualities through design
standards and innovative site planning and architecture in public and private development
projects” by developing “voluntary structural design standards for residential
architecture”. Currently the Town Zoning Code governs the manner in which a residential
home is designed. If the Town Objective was one day fulfilled, the standards for residential
home design would still be voluntary. In either case, the design of the proposed residential
homes would be governed solely by the limitations set forth in the zoning code. The
proposed homes will comply with the requirements of the Town zoning code applicable
to their design.
c.) The TCP sets forth Objective 1.5 to “Protect scenic vista outside the hamlet centers
by clustering compatible developments in existing residential or commercial areas to
prevent sprawl”. The objective goes on to state “Cluster and consolidate new
development close to hamlet centers to encourage vitality and affordability.” The Subject
Propert y is located in an existing residentially developed area, which is consistent with the
Objective stated in the TCP.
d.) The TCP sets forth Goal 2 to “Protect Cultural Resources”. The Proposed Action is
consistent with that Goal. A Phase I archaeological investigation was performed for the
Proposed Action in June 2015 (see Appendix P of the DEIS). It was determined that the
Proposed Action had no impact on any archaeologically significant items. A search was
made on the New York State Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation web
site on February 4, 2021. As indicated by the search results (see Appendix R of the FEIS),
no NYS OPRHP listed landmarks exist in the immediate vicinity of the Proposed Action.
Two “undetermined” sites are indicated on the NYS OPRHP map. The two sites are
located at 675 Holyoake Rd. and 2610 Orchard St. respectively. Both sites had building
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
4-5
inventories submitted in 1988 which resulted in the NYS OPRHP issuing the
“undetermined” status designation. A search was made of the Town of Southold “Town
Register of Historic Landmarks” last updated October 18, 2017 (see Appendix S of the
FEIS). The Town landmarks having an Orchard Street address are not within the
immediate vicinity of the Subject Property. No Town landmarks are listed with a
Halyoake Road address.
e.) The TCP sets forth an Objective 4.1 to “Elevate and preserve the Town’s natural
heritage through preservation of the working landscapes and waterscapes and the people
who interact with them. It goes on to state “Protect agricultural lands in Southold Town.”
The Proposed Action is consistent with that goal through the permanent protection of
nearly 8 acres of agricultural land.
Natural Resources and Environment – Water resources (Chapter 6)-
An extensive discussion regarding groundwater resources is included elsewhere in the
FEIS. This section shall be limited to addressing the groundwater related issues with direct
correlation to the Southold Town Comprehensive Plan.
a.) Goal 1 “Conserve Water Quantity”. The proposal is not consistent with this
goal as it does not mitigate to the greatest extent practicable the conservation of
water quantity.
b.) Goal 2 “Protect Groundwater Quality”. The proposal is not consistent with this
goal as it does not mitigate to the greatest extent practicable the water quality of
groundwater.
• “Objective 2.9- Work with regulatory agencies to reduce pesticide and
herbicide use on residential properties”. While the future residential home
property owners cannot work directly with regulatory agencies in support
of the Town’s objective, the owners have a vested interest in minimizing
the use of pesticides and herbicides as the drinking water for their homes
is obtained from the groundwater supply located directly below their
properties. They are not served by public water supply wells as other parts
of the Township are. Excessive application of pesticides and herbicides on
the Subject Property could have a direct negative impact to the future
homeowners.
• “Objective 2.14- Work with regulatory agencies and institutions to
reduce nitrogen and phosphorous loads to groundwater due to residential
fertilizer.” While the future residential home property owners cannot work
directly with regulatory agencies in support of the Town’s objective, the
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
4-6
owners have a vested interest in minimizing the use of fertilizers as the
drinking water for their homes is obtained from the groundwater supply
located directly below their properties. They are not served by public water
supply wells as other parts of the Township are. Excessive application of
fertilizers on the Subject Property could have a direct negative impact to
the future homeowners. Adherence to existing laws regarding fertilization
of residential properties including, but not limited to: Prohibition on using
lawn fertilizers containing phosphorous except for new lawn
establishment; No application of fertilizer between December 1 and April
1; Maximum fertilization rate of 1 lb per 1000 SF/ year for turf is
appropriate and expected of the future homeowners.
c.) Goal 3 “Protect Surface Water Quality”, The proposal is not consistent with
this goal as it does not mitigate to the greatest extent practicable the water quality
of surface water. Excess nitrogen from the proposed traditional septic systems
will enter the groundwater, which in turn flows into the bay and will reduce the
surface water quality and lend towards creating harmful algal blooms.
Natural Resources and Environment – Land Resources (Chapter 6) -
a.) Goal 1 “Protect Soils and Geologic Features” of the TCP includes Objective
1.1 “Protect agricultural soils from conversion to other land uses”. The statement
of the Objective includes, in pertinent part, “Reduce the loss of Prime
Agricultural Soils and Soils of Statewide Importance to development through
clustering of residential density”. The Proposed Action is consistent with Goal 1
of the TCP. Nearly eight acres of agricultural soils will be permanently preserved
as part of the Proposed Action by clustering of the proposed residential homes.
Economic Development (Chapter 7) -
a.) Goal 4: “Preserve and Encourage Industries that Support Existing and Future
Agriculture and Aquaculture Uses” of the TCP includes multiple Objectives
related to the Proposed Action.
• Objective 4.2 “Work with the Long Island Farm Bureau, Peconic Land
Trust and Cornell Cooperative Extension to create community
seminars and events focused on prominent issues including how to
start up a small agricultural business and where to go for help or find
available resources and land.”36 The proposed project embraces the
Towns goal. The Applicant seeks to begin a small agricultural business
as envisioned by the Town’s goal. The Applicant is a member of the
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
4-7
Long Island Farm Bureau and has relied upon the expertise of the
Cornell Cooperative Extension, as well as other farmers in the area, to
develop a proposed plan of action to return a significant portion of the
Subject Property to active agricultural use.
Agriculture (Chapter 9) -
a.) Goal 1: “Retain and Advance the Industry of Agriculture”. The Proposed
Action includes the permanent conservation of nearly 8 acres of land (60% of the
Subject Property total land area) for the purpose of agriculture. In addition to
conservation, the Proposed Action anticipates returning the agricultural land to
productive use. Approval of the Proposed Action fulfills Goal 1 of the TCP.
• Objective 1.3 “Continue to protect farmland from conversion to a non-
agricultural use.” The Proposed Action is consistent with Objective
1.3 of the TCP. Nearly 8 acres of agricultural soils will be permanently
preserved as part of the Proposed Action.
b.) Goal 2 : “Protect Prime Agricultural Soils from Depletion , Removal , and
Excessive Erosion.” The Goal goes on to state, in pertinent part, “Encourage crop
rotation, where appropriate”. The Proposed Action includes growth of row crops.
It is anticipated that the primary crop will be corn. Crop rotation is a necessary
part of growing corn. It is anticipated that crop rotation will be an integral part of
the farm operation where alternate vegetables will be grown in lieu of corn in
certain years. This fulfills the Town’s stated Goal.
c.) Goal 3: “Promote Best Management Practices for Agricultural Pesticides and
Herbicides”. Management of pesticide and herbicide applications is critical to the
farm operator as the crop yield can be dramatically affected, and there is a
substantial cost for use of the products. The farmer has multiple incentives to
minimize the amount pesticides and herbicides used in the operation. As
expressed in the DEIS, Best Management Practices will be employed as will
Agricultural Environmental Management. The specifics of how these will be
implemented depends upon a multitude of considerations including, but not
limited to, the crop being grown, the stage of crop growth, the weather patterns,
the type of crop disease or infestation, and the extent of the disease/infestation,
and is beyond the scope of a FEIS. The future farm operator has a vested interest
in minimizing use of these products.
Land Preservation (Chapter 10) -
a.) Goal 1: Farmland “Continue to promoter farming with an overall goal
of retaining at least 8,000 acres (80 percent of the current agricultural acreage) in
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
4-8
agriculture”. The Proposed Action embodies the Town Goal with the permanent
preservation of nearly 8 acres of agricultural land.
4.1.4- Comment C-37:
“Likewise, the introduction of farming is questionable due to its intensive use of
groundwater. The limit of “The Orchards” to two building lots would also better conform
with the present environment in this part of Orient.”
Response to Comment:
The Subject Property is agricultural land. The Town Code, the 2020 Southold Town
Comprehensive Plan, and numerous other Town documents/studies/reports encourage
use of agricultural land for farming purposes. The Town Code section 280-97 includes
the Farmland Bill of Rights which provides farmers the right to farm without interference.
4.1.5- Comment C-39:
“This Proposed Preliminary Plat does little to address the many concerns expressed early
on and are still relevant today. In fact, this Proposed Preliminary Plat is a clear disregard
for the goals for future land use and zoning reflected in the Town’s Vision Statement and
Comprehensive Plan as well as County and State Conservation planning.”
Response to Comment:
The Lead Agency will address issues as reflected in this FEIS.
See item 4.1.3 above
4.1.6- Comment C-64:
“The adjacent residential development proposed on the subject site as well as the nearby
homes will be negatively impacted for years to come if proper testing is not required
and if (sic) Open Space Conservation Easement does not provide restrictions for
use/activities, crop limitations, and the water related issues.”
Response to Comment:
Appropriate measures will be taken to mitigate impacts as described in the DEIS and
this FEIS in other sections.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
4-9
4.2 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.2.1- Comment C-2:
“The contribution to traffic also seems fundamentally understated. Whatever the
database that was used for the calculation, if one makes the reasonable assumption that
these houses are likely to be sold to young families fleeing the city, the assumption of
fewer that two trips a day per household seems absurd.”
Response to Comment:
As stated on page 4-7 of the DEIS, the trip generation data was extracted from the
Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual using the peak hourly flow
for all times of the week for Land Use Code 210 (single family residential). The Trip
Generation Manual is based on extensive studies and is the industry standard for
estimating trip generation rates.
4.3 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY/ COMMUNITY SERVICES
No comments were received.
4.4 AESTHETIC AND OPEN SPACE
4.4.1- Comment C-1:
“The proposal to place a suburban development of this magnitude in this location
will fundamentally change the character of this part of Orient Village.”
Response to Comment:
The location of the five proposed single-family homes conform to the
community character as defined by the Town’s own publications. A summary is as
follows:
• The Town Code provides the foundation for establishing community character
through its regulations regarding allowable use, density of housing, square footage
of housing, height of the house, setbacks from the property lines, and buffers. The
Town Code assigned a residential zoning district designation to the Subject Property.
This establishes residential use as legally permissible.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
4-10
• . The Town Code states “The location of open space lands shall be determined in
general accordance with the goals of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan and in
particular with the Southold Town Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy to provide
an interconnected network of open space and farmland.
The Town Comprehensive Plan states, in Objective 1.3, “Design both standard and
conservation subdivisions involving farmland to enhance farming and minimize
potential incompatibility with residential neighbors by incorporating the following
into the design: Design the location of the open space/farmland so it is contiguous
with other farmland”. The proposed farmland occupies the westerly portion of the
Subject Property. The land abutting the Subject Property along the westerly property
line is part of a subdivision map approved by the Town Planning Board on March 7,
2012 (see Appendix Q of the FEIS – Final Plat of Patrick Guadagno). The Guadagno
subdivision includes a 6 acre Open Space Conservation Easement and a future
agricultural barn. The proposed farmland on the Subject Property has been placed to
be contiguous with the open space/farmland on the Guadagno property, which is
consistent with Objective 1.3 in the TCP. Therefore the four clustered homes must
be placed on the easterly side of the Subject Property. This is consistent with
maximizing the open viewshed of the area by placing the two farmlands contiguous
with each other.
4.4.2- Comment C-20:
“While the DEIS indicates that the five homes will be “modest sized” with footprints of
approximately 1750 sf and overall square footage of 3,500 sf. Once the lots are subdivided,
it seems that the Town has almost no control over what will be built on the individual
lots. There is presently almost no limitation on the sizes of the homes, and while there
are very stringent oversight of what is built in the nearby Historic District, there are no
rules at all about the design quality of these homes. These “structural design
components”, potentially very LARGE homes, will have clear negative impact on the
“visual quality and scenic resources” at the very center of Orient.”
Response to Comment:
The DEIS evaluated homes with a footprint of 1,750 sq.ft. Mitigation to ensure the
footprints of the homes do not exceed this will be required in the form of a legal instrument
binding this and all future owners to the footprint sq. ft. cap. The footprint sq. ft. cap will
mitigate the negative impacts that are possible if maximum build out is allowed. Maximum
buildout would cause a greater consumption of natural resources and potentially negatively
impair the enjoyment of viewsheds by permitting homes that are out-of-context homes in
mass and scale that would be visible to users of the adjacent public roadways.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
4-11
4.4.3- Comment C-21:
“Table 1 of the DEIS has the Total Area of buildings as .2927 acres, which seems to be
based on 5 houses with footprints of 1,750 sf + 4,000 sf barn. Page 4-10 of the DEIS states
“A primary purpose of the Bulk Schedule for Residential Districts is to ensure properties
are developed in a manner that provides the appropriate amount of open space between
building lots with appropriately sized buildings. Thus, the size and location for each of
the proposed homes are limited”. Unfortunately, this is not the case, the houses can be
almost unlimited in size based on the Bulk Schedule.”
Response to Comment:
The DEIS evaluated homes with a footprint of 1,750 sq. ft. Mitigation to ensure the
footprints of the homes do not exceed this will be required. See response to 4.4.2-
Comment C-20 above.
.
4.4.4- Comment C-22:
“For the residential lots, landscape buffers per 240-43 are not indicated and
potential hedges and fences are not addressed.”
Response to Comment:
The Planning Board will ensure that the subdivision map meets the Town Code.
4.4.5- Comment C-23:
“Additionally, the 4,000-sf barn is directly on axis with the view from Old Farm Road.”
Response to Comment:
As noted, the visual impacts of the future barn have not been mitigated to the greatest
extent practicable. Further mitigation of the visual impacts of the future barn are
required.
4.4.6- Comment C-24:
“The rural nature of the Orchard and Halyoake corner is still mostly intact, and will
be permanently spoiled by the addition of four potentially massive houses.”
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
4-12
Response to Comment:
The impacts to Community Character have not been mitigated to the greatest extent
practicable.
4.4.7- Comment C-25:
“This proposal does not “enhance the visual quality and protect scenic resources” and
there are no safeguards in place to ensure that the structures that will be built will not
seriously detract from the visual qualities of the area.”
Response to Comment:
The impacts to Community Character have not been mitigated to the greatest extent
practicable.
4.4.8- Comment C-26:
“We would like to see a full visual impact study showing the impact of the maximum
sized homes and barn.”
Response to Comment:
The impacts to Community Character have not been mitigated to the greatest extent
practicable.
4.4.9- Comment C-27:
“Considering the proximity to the Orient Historic District and to the Hallock Farm
Complex, the houses and the barn should all be contextual in design, restricted in height
above natural grade, and limited in footprint in order to maintain the aesthetics and
character of the area.”
Response to Comment:
The Subject Property does not lie within the Orient Historic District and is not subject
to its design requirements as the requirements are specific to the Historic District, not to
properties that lie within a certain distance from the Historic District.
4.4.10- Comment C-43:
“The subject site at 13.3 acres is currently guided by the area’s R-80 zoning district
and is informed by its historical context and the goals represented by the Village of
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
4-13
Orient Historic District with its eastern boundary at Tabor Road, just 880 feet from the
subject site.”
Response to Comment:
The Subject Property does not lie within the Orient Historic District and is not subject
to its design requirements as the requirements are specific to the Historic District, not to
properties that lie within a certain distance from the Historic District.
4.4.11- Comment C-44:
“Moreover, the surrounding properties defining the existing neighborhood character
reflect lot sizes between 1.5 acres to 6 acres providing a rural, not suburban, landscape
profile.”
Response to Comment:
The proposed cluster subdivision and the resulting lot sizes are required by section 240-
42.B of the Town Code.
4.4.12- Comment C-48:
“For example, in the proposed Preliminary Plan, the full build-out scenario for the very
crowded east and southeast portion of the subject site would result in negating any
historical reference to “famous” Hallock Farm and its Halyoake approach and natural
or scenic values along the 701 feet of combined Halyoake Avenue frontage and the
Orchard Street portion east of the existing house on Lot 4.”
Response to Comment:
The proposed clustering and lot size are required by section 240-42.B of the Town Code.
The siting of the residential lots is in accordance with Town’s requirement for the
proposed farmland to be placed contiguous to any other farmland that may abut the
propert y.
4.4.13- Comment C-49:
“Any scenic value associated with the remaining Orchard Street frontage
(approximately 400 feet west of Lot 4) is similarly diminished as 8 foot deer fencing would
surround all of Lot 1 (residential house, agricultural barn, and open space), the driveway
entrance and gate, the residential building on a 1.35 acre lot and the separate 4,000
square foot barn all stand in the way and interrupt any scenic value perceived to be
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
4-14
gained by the relatively small (under 8 acres) open space under the “cluster”
configuration of the subject site lots.”
Response to Comment:
The Town has stated in numerous publications previously discussed in the FEIS
agricultural use is a priority in the Township. This includes the Farmland Bill of Rights
contained in section 280-97 of the Town Code which states, in pertinent part”
“Agricultural activities conducted on farmland, undertaken in compliance with
applicable federal, state, county and Town laws, rules and regulations, are presumed
to be good agricultural practices and presumed not to adversely affect the public health
safet y and welfare. The proposed home for the farmer, the proposed agricultural barn,
and the deer fence are all usual and customary parts of agricultural activities and are
therefore presumed by the Town not to adversely affect the public.
4.4.14- Comment C-55:
“The Open Space Conservation Easement “sample” (2011) provided in Appendix C is
irrelevant to subject site’s scale and complexity of the proposed development as presented
in the Proposed Preliminary Plat”
Response to Comment:
The Town has not presented the Applicant with a proposed Open Space Conservation
Easement document specific to the Subject Property. In the interest of providing as much
information as possible to the public through the DEIS process, the Easement applicable
to the abutting parcel to the west, was provided as a general guide as to what may be
expected in the Easement for the Subject Property.
4.5 ARCHEOLOGICAL
No comments were received.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
5-1
5. REQUIRED ELEMENTS COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5.1 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF
RESOURCES
5.1.1- Comment T-32:
“This claim that the agricultural land lost by the proposed construction is 1.12 acres is
not correct. The total agricultural land lost is equal to the acreage of all areas proposed
for development. Please provide the total estimated agricultural lands lost.
Response to Comment:
The DEIS estimation of agricultural land lost was based on the criteria set forth in the
State SEQRA regulation. Specifically, the criteria for the evaluation is “irreversible and
irretrievable”. Using that criteria, agricultural land is lost when the agricultural soil is
permanently disturbed and removed, as occurs when a home foundation is installed,
sanitary systems are installed, and driveways are installed. An “irreversible and
irretrievable” loss of agricultural land will occur.
If the criteria of “irreversible and irretrievable” are modified to include all areas proposed
for development, it is estimated that 5.319 acres of agricultural land will be lost,
calculated as follows:
Proposed total area of lot 1 buildable area: 1.3526 acres
Proposed total area of lot 2: 0.987 acres
Proposed total area of lot 3: 1.143 acres
Proposed total area of lot 4: 0.9184 acres
Proposed total area of lot 5: 0.918 acres
5.2 GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS
No comments were received.
5.3 USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY
No comments were received.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
5-2
5.4 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
No comments were received.
5.5 SPECIAL GROUNDWATER PROTECTION AREA
No comments were received.
6-2
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Orchards Subdivision Application September 2022
6. ALTERNATIVES COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
6.1 NO ACTION
No comments were received.
6.2 PRESERVATION
No trust, individual or governmental entity has ever tendered a financial offer to the
Applicant for the purpose of purchasing the land with the intent of 100% preservation as
open space.
6.2.3- Comment C-59:
“I would prefer that the land stay completely undeveloped and unused to maintain the
openness of the area and to preserve the quality and sustainability of the water supply.
However, I realize that the land will likely be developed in some way.”
Response to Comment:
Noted.