Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix COFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY January 29, 2021 Mr. Steven A. Martocello 24 Miller Woods Drive Miller Place, NY 11764 SO.N PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD A -30 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Telephone: 631 765 -1938 www. s outholdtownny. gov Re: DEIS Comments and FEIS Preparation for the Proposed Standard Subdivision The Orchards SCTM #1000- 27 -1 -3 Zoning District: R -80 Dear Mr. Martocello: The Planning Board has confirmed at the January 25, 2021 work session that the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) will be drafted by you, as agreed, and reviewed by the Planning Board. Enclosed is a summary of the comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Please refer to the following Laserfiche link for the complete set of comments. 1. Go to the Town of Southold website wNV���.southoldtotivnu %.,oi; 2. Click on Town Records /Weblink/Laserfiche Icon; 3. Click on the Planning Department folder; 4. Click on Applications; 5. Click on Standard Subdivisions; 6. Click on Pending; 7. Click on SCTM #1000- 27 -1 -3. If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Izespectfull C— �' 4�) D-�� Donald Wilcenski Chairman Enc. Southold Town Clerk for Southold Town Board Scott Russell, Southold Town Supervisor Southold Town Engineer Orient Fire District Southold Police Department NYSDEC - Stony Brook Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Planning Department Southold Highway Department Southold Architectural Review Committee File A -31 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Compilation of Public and Planning Board Comments on the DEIS The Orchards SCTM# 1000- 21 -7 -3 Note: The comments are not arranged in a particular order. January 29, 2021 C -3 1. Two aspects of this project appear to not be code compliant: Based on Town Code - Article X1 Cluster Development 2401- 42- H.(4): Roads, streets and rights -of -way n7ay not be included in the calculation of the minimum required open space. (Friedman) C- 3;C -17 2. 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 41 to 1.4744 acres and reduces the conserved area by. 1218 acres. This would bring the Conservation Area below the 60% required threshold. C -4 ;. Based on Town Code Article X1I Design Standards 240 -45 for flag lots: D. Flag lots: The Planning Board may per7nit a lin7iled 7711777ber offlag lots in o residential subdivision plat provided they5•e well shaped, then are generally larger than usual lots... (1) to assure that the flag lot is of adequate size and shape, a, flag lot located within the residential zones shall contain at least the 777ininn1n7 lot area.. of the applicable zoning district an which it is bulk of the lot, exclusive (?f the area contained in the flagpole access strip. SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Both Lots 2 and 3 are flag lots and they are NOT larger than usual lots, I am not sure what "usual lots" means, but the average size of 17 abutting lots is 2.5 acres, based on current tax maps. I would suggest that Lots 2 and 3 should therefore be at least the minimum required in R -80 zoning which is 80,000 square feet. C -4 4. Lot #2 is inadequately sized for R -40 zoning, which requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 sq. ft. When the 3,169 sq. ft. access strip is deducted from the area of Lot 42, the result is below the 40,000 sq. ft. threshold. C -5;C -6 5. The Positive Declaration states "The impacts of the new sanitary systems proposed on down gradient surface water must be assessed ". The DEIS suggests that Suffolk County Sanitary Code would yield 13 homes, and therefore 5 is a mitigation of impact. Town Bulk Regulations would only allow 5 homes so the proposal should not be held up against the County standards. The DEIS proposes standard sanitary systems and merely states that since the SCDHS gave them approval, it must be okay. C -5 6. To my knowledge, the DEIS does not assess the impacts of sanitary systems on down gradient surface water at all. Provide a hydrological assessment of groundwater properties on site including depth of the freshwater lens, directional flow, and the saltwater /freshwater interface, as well as the amount of nitrogen and other potential pollutants projected to reach the estuary via groundwater flow over time, and the impact on nutrient loading to the estuary as well as proposed mitigation. C -6 7. Impacts on Groundwater The DEIS does NOT adequately address the site - specific availability of groundwater for the proposed use and there seems to be no consideration for water conservation. C -9 The DEIS does not address the effects on the quality of the water for the area population. The proposed subdivision has the potential to impact the fi-esh water supply for the whole village. Positive Declaration 2a "Potential adverse impacts to groundwater quality and quantity could be severe and boundless and must be assessed. The probability of the impact occurring is moderate and could affect the area population" A -32 A -33 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD According to the Southold Town Comprehensive Plan... Southold will need additional water sources by 2030" I believe this assumes that the infrastructure is in place to provide Orient with water from the aquifer areas included in the Special Groundwater Protection Areas. Since that infrastructure is not in place, the sole source aquifer in Orient needs to be protected too! According to the Comprehensive Plan, the pace of "build -out" has already picked up, and the predictions of a few years ago should be adjusted... to COVID -19 water demand from houses being used frill time. In addition to the five new homes proposed, the DEIS states that the NYSDEC permit allows maximum of 4 million gallons a year to be used for crop irrigation, This is a staggering number, equivalent to 62 -120 homes. The DEC approval requires testing the C -8 irrigation well for salt -water intrusion twice a year, acknowledging the threat of salt water intrusion. If salt water intrusion occurs in the irrigation well it likely means that there will be salt water intrusion in neighboring residential wells too. C-8 8. Identify the salt water interface and evaluate the impacts of pumping. Provide a hydrological assessment of groundwater properties on site including, depth of the freshwater lens, directional flow, and the saltwater /freshwater interface. Positive Declaration 2d: "Assessment of potential impacts to groundwater front new sanitary systems (pharmaceuticals and personal care products) pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers must be included. Impacts to adjacent properties must also be discussed ". C -11 9. 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. The DEIS does not C -12 address the use of fertilizers and pesticides except to say that "Best Management Practices" will be implemented. There is no mention of Integrated Pest Management. I am not a farmer, but I am told that sweet corn is especially susceptible to pests and can require frequent pesticide applications (more than once a week). Is this really appropriate in a residential area, and in particular within 100' of two private wells? The wells for 2650 Orchard and Lot #2, along with the irrigation well for the proposed farmland are within 100' of the proposed farmed acreage (these areas should be mapped, cannot be used as SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD farmland and should be deducted in all area calculations). Even with Integrated Pest Management, most of the pesticides used to control corn pests are toxic sprays. C -13 10. The DEIS does not (propose the use of I/A sanitary systems, proposes a crop that requires C -14 an abundance of fertilizer and pesticides and offers "turf grass" in the unfarmed open C -11 space. There is no mention of how the new sanitary systems might mitigate the impact of the pharmaceutical, personal care products etc. C -7 11. The DEIS does not address the quantity of water available based on projected water use for this project and the homes that share this resource. 12. Positive Declaration 2f.A discussion of the current groundwater quality, contamination and impacts on the proposed action and adjacent properties must be included: The water on the site was in fact found to contain excessive nitrates and Aldicarbs. The DEIS states that the homes will require filters for excessive Aldicarbs. According to SCDHS private Water Systems Standards 406.4 -15 if water exceeds MCL and treatment is required a "covenant regarding water treatment must appear on all realty subdivision and development maps" I don't see this covenant on any C -13 site maps. The test well for Lot 2 also exceeded the allowable for Nitrates, and yet an I/A Sanitary system was not proposed. C -6 13. What will the effects be on neighboring properties quality and quantity of drinking water? C -6;C -7 14. The overall impact of the additional demand for water has not been assessed and the overall impact of wastewater has not been assessed. C -7 15. Why is there no consideration given for conservation or alternative sources of irrigation water, such as using drip irrigation, gray water recycling and rain water collection? C -14 16. Why isn't there any mention of drought - resistant plantings or limitations on irrigation and fertilization for the areas anticipated to be "turf grass ?" C- 7;C -12 17 Why was a potentially water and pesticide intensive crop selected for farming? 4 A -34 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD C -13 18. Why weren't I/A sanitary systems proposed at the outset, and if the SCDHS has approved the site plan, will I/A sanitary systems be required (after July 2021)? C- 3;C -17 19. Positive Declaration 3a "The conversion of farmland to residential use is INCONSISTENT with the Town of Southold Local Waterfront revitalization Program Policies" As mentioned above, the conserved area will not meet the 60% criteria for open space when the Lot #1 and Lot #2 are corrected for code compliance unless some building lots are eliminated. The configuration of the conserved area is not conducive to agricultural use with several notches that will be difficult to plant and maintain. C -45 20. Why is Lot 1 separate from the other lots? C -45 21. Why is the designated area for the barn separate from the Lot 1 house? This does not seem to conform to the intent of the code. The DEIS argues that the sale of four homes / home lots is necessary to support the agricultural uses. When this proposal was first submitted, the owner said that this was going to be a family compound, which presumably would not generate incorne to support the agricultural uses. Lot #1, which has been presented as the owner's personal residence is not clustered with the other lots, instead it is in the northwest corner of the site to take advantage of conservation easements of neighboring properties rather than be clustered with the other homes. The split cluster layout of the site does not suggest a family compound, it looks more like a plantation except that the low lying land to the southeast will not be populated by farm workers, but by wealthy second home owners who can afford 1 -2 million dollar homes. At the planning board meeting on April 6, 2015 the owner stated that "we are not going to do spec houses" and yet the DEIS suggests that is the intent. The owner should clarify how many houses he intends to build himself, and will they be built on spec or for his family? The proposed layout appears to maximize the profit from new homes, not maximize the continuity of the open space or its viability as farmland. C -24 22. Impact on Archeological Resources - Based on historical maps, this appears to be "virgin" land, never having been built on. However, there are adjacent parcels which are included in the Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Southold as having historic value. 5 A -35 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD C -24 23. Impacts on Aesthetic Resources Positive Declaration 5a. "The potential impact for the siting and scale of homes could be moderate to large based on lot size." While the DEIS indicates that the five homes will be "modest sized" with footprints of approximately 1750 sq. ft. and overall square footage of 3,500 sq. ft.. Once the lots are subdivided, it seems that the Town has almost no control over what will be built on the individual hots. There is presently almost no limitation on the sizes of the homes, and while there are very stringent oversight of what is built in the nearby Historic District, there are no rules at all about the design quality of these homes. These "structural design components ", potentially very LARGE homes, will have clear negative impact on the "visual quality and scenic resources" at the very center of Orient. Based on 20% lot coverage, the FOOTPRINTS of these houses can be up to: Lot 1 approximately 11,783 sq. ft. (not including additional ROW acreage) Lot 2 approximately 8,600 sq. ft. (based on current non - compliant plat) Lot 3 approximately 9,960 sq. ft. Lot 4 approximately 8'000 sq. ft. Total Buildable (House)Area 46,343 sq. ft. Barn footprint 4.000 sq. ft. Total Area of Buildings 50,343 sq. ft. equals 1.16 acres Table I of the DEIS has the Total Area of buildings at 0.2927 acres, which seems to be based on 5 houses with footprints of 1,750sq. ft. +4,000 sq. ft. 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 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 much larger based on the Bulk Schedule. Provide the maximum permitted house size and lot coverage for each lot and discuss potential mitigation, including limiting future house size or lot coverage by covenant, increasing the setbacks to reduce the size of the building envelope or other mitigation that might be considered. NON - COMMENT 24. Positive Declaration 5 continued: "Mi»imize introduction q design components (including wility lines, lighling, signage and fencing) i•vhich Yvozuld be discordant with the existing scenic components and characle/)" i A -36 A -37 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD 25. On page 4 -10 of the DEIS the project shall provide aesthetically pleasing views of the open space and active farmland" Clearly, there will need to be an 8 foot fence surrounding the agricultural land. The statement that this will be an "aesthetically pleasing view" of an 8 foot fence and the owner's home in the distance, is highly subjective. For the residential C -22 lots, landscaped buffers per 240 -43 are not indicated and potential hedges and fences are C -23 not addressed. Additionally, the 4,000 sq. ft. barn is directly on axis with the view from Old Farm Road. C -20 26. Positive Declaration 5a continued: "Protect visual quality associated with agricultural land, open space and natural resources. " Two of the properties associated with the Hallock Farm are within 500 feet of the proposed subdivision. These properties, along with several others just outside of the 500' buffer, are indicated on figure 5.1 of the Southold Comprehensive Plan as listed by the Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities. The Hallock Farm was an innovative and prosperous farm that helped shape the community of Orient. As I have mentioned in past correspondence, Halyoake Avenue was formerly the driveway approach to Hallock Farm from Orchard Street. 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. This proposal does not "enhance the visual quality and protect scenic resources" and there are no safeguards in place to insure that the structures that will be built will not seriously detract from the visual qualities of the area. We would like to see a full visual impact study showing the impact of the maximum sized homes and barn. C -27 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. Provide a visual impact analysis of the anticipated structures; include views from all adjacent public roadways. C -4 28. Based on design standards established by 240 -45 both of the non- compliant flag lots Should be eliminated. 7 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD 29. Assessment of the No Action Alternative These six points outlined in the DEIS are of questionable mitigation value: C -35 (1) "Return the fallow agricultural land to open space to productive use" Is there anything stopping this owner from farming this land as is? (2) "Permanently protect 60% of the agricultural land comprising the subject C -28 property from future development through environmental conservation easement" Even more of the property could be open space or the land could be sold to a trust or individual who would preserve all of the land as open space. (3) "Create new modest size residential homes to provide additional housing in the community" If these lots are sold at current prices for real estate in Orient, they will not be C -29 modestly priced. The estimate of cost to build these homes in the DEIS is very conservatively posited at$150 /sq. ft.. 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 sq. ft. home at $1,050,000 this is not the type of housing that Orient "needs ". (4) "Control of vegetation to enhance scenic vistas from the abutting roadways. C -20 " This DEIS claims that the view sheds will be improved because the land will be cleared of overgrowth and if no action is taken "existing vegetation would go unchecked and eventually consume the property ". 1 don't believe anyone would object to the owner maintaining his vacant property. (5) "Increase the annual tax revenue" This cannot be denied. However, the increase in density and use of limited C -30 resources doesn't offset this gain. The conversion of farmland to residential use in order to produce tax revenue on the one hand is contradictory to the use of preservation funds to conserve farmland on the other. C -31 (6) "Removal of contaminants from the aquifer via filtration of domestic water for proposed homes" While Aldicarbs will be filtered out by a system that is provided free to the homeowners -there could be negative impacts from other contaminants. The following concerns mentioned in the Full Environmental Assessment Form, were not mentioned in the Positive Declaration. N A -38 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD C -32 30. Site was prone to ponding and flooding. While the site is not in a currently designated FEMA flood zone, it is susceptible to storm surge. Part of lot 45 is located in an area expected to be impacted by a storm surge of 6 -8 feet above normal, with the majority of the lots 2, 3, and 4 in storm surge zone 3 (9 -12 feet above normal) Provide a discussion on the potential threats from flooding on the parcel, include sea level rise projections. C -33 31. While there may, or may not be any threatened or endangered species inhabiting this site, there are certainly plenty of deer there. The DEIS suggests that the wildlife (squirrels, rabbits and birds) will move to the adjacent conserved properties and then repopulate the site, avoiding the subject of deer altogether. The 8' deer fence that will inevitably surround the fanned 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. Include an in -depth discussion on the impacts to wildlife, including protected species. See comment below. C -8 32. Concerned about impact on surface waters and oil ground water use of 4,000,000 gallons per year for crops and the potential for this use to cause saltwater intrusion. C -12 33. DEIS does not adequately address fertilizer and pesticide impacts to groundwater from the proposed agricultural use. C -7 34. Has there been an assessment on using drought tolerant plants, gray water recycling, drip irrigation? Include an assessment of the use of these types of water conservation measures. C -6 35. Has there been analysis to assess the potential impact on neighboring properties drinking water and overall demand requirement for water in the area? Include the potential impact to groundwater and impacts on private wells in a detailed hydrological study as mentioned above. C- 20;C -26 36. Concern about aesthetic impacts and the building of "McMansions ". Size (square footage, height) of homes along with landscape and fencing should be part of an overall visual impact study. 9 A -39 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD C -24 37. Concern that proposal is not aligned with Comp Plan, Orients history and character. 38. The Town's recently adopted Southold Town Comprehensive Plan could not be clearer in its vision and goals to protect town character, its environment and aesthetic so that, "Southold retains much of its small -town charm" (Goal Five: Protect the Town Character). NON - SPECFIC COMMENT In order to truly fulfill this vision and achieve these goals for Southold's future, every development proposal should be met with the highest level of scrutiny and the willingness to collaboratively arrive at appropriate mitigation measures to create the best possible development outcome. Given this, we find the DEIS to be inadequate in a number of key sections pertaining to character and water resources. 39. Impacts to Water Resources: With regard to wastewater, the DEIS summarizes that the impacts to ground and surface C -5;C -6 water quality are negligible based on the fact that the subdivision map could provide a density of thirteen homes when only five are proposed. This reasoning completely disregards the actual impact of wastewater on water quality by relying on a circumstance that is impossible due to the zoning. This logic is detrimental and should be addressed within the DEIS by requiring an analysis of the actual impacts the proposed five homes will impart on water resources. It is notable that the Town of Southold, in its Positive Declaration (July 2015), specifically called out impacts of proposed sanitary systems on nearby surface waters of the greater Peconic Estuary systems, which continues to experience the deleterious effects of excess nitrogen loading emanating from standard, single - family sanitary systems. The DEIS is inadequate in addressing these impacts. C -13 40. Incorporate a comparative analysis of the impacts of the use of the proposed standard sanitary systems for the five homes versus the use of I/A OWTS. It's important to note that on October 6, 2020, Suffolk County passed legislation modifying its Sanitary Code to require the incorporation of the alternative systems for all new construction throughout the County. The County's regulations take effect in July of 2021. This recommendation is bolstered by the Town of Southold's recently adopted, Southold Town Comprehensive Plan recommendations: Bullet 5 - "Require the use of (1 /A OWTS or future technologies to achieve the highest level of effluent treatment in new construction projects" (page 15). II1� A -40 A -41 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD NON - SPECIFIC 41. It would be irresponsible to omit this consideration from the EIS given the above - COMMENT mentioned circumstances. 42. House Size and Scale C -20 The DEIS does not provide analysis of the size and scale of homes in the adjacent areas to determine what "modest" might consist of and how the size of the proposed homes could have a negative impact on community character, aesthetic and the preservation of viewsheds. Additionally, the DEIS makes zero mention of the Orient community's desire to maintain such character. These desires are explicitly called out in adopted Town studies and community - driven endeavors. Address how the proposed home size and scale conform to the following statements. The Southold Town Comprehensive Plan (one of the Orient community's main goals) F. Ensure future residential development in the hamlet is in keeping with and at a scale consistent with the hamlet's character. This goal can be nzet, in part, through the implementation of this chapter's Goal 2, which contains a subsection on updating regulations for Residential Uses including home sizes (Page 41). It is important to note that the Orient community strongly favors the protection of community character through the use of limitations on building sizes. The Orient Plan Propositions (May 2020), noted, "No construction shall be permitted that would result in overall housing size (usable square footage) that is out of scale with the existing housing in the immediate neighborhood; this provision shall be in addition to zoning requirements, including lot coverage, setback, height and other limitations" . (Note that the Orient Plan is a plan generated by the Orient Association, a local civic C -62 association). Provide an analysis of area home sizes and scales. As a form of mitigation, to ensure that the proposed homes do not create negative impact on community character, the DEIS should discuss a required covenant that specifies maximum allowable home sizes of a certain scale. C -6; C -8 43. Concerned about potential adverse impacts to the Orient Historic District, C -1 groundwater /aquifer (e.g. salt water intrusion), community character, and the lack of A -42 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD assessment of these in the EIS. These need to be assessed. The current plan shows five residential lots, as well as an agricultural building and access road, utilizing R -40 zoning. C -26 Using R -40 and the split cluster configuration does not achieve a rural, open space goal, nor does it preserve the natural and scenic values of the Town and village. We would like the DEIS include a full visual impact study showing maximum sized homes and barn. C -9 44. The proposed subdivision has the potential to impact the fresh water supply for the whole village. What will the effects be on neighboring properties quality and quantity of drinking water? The overall impact of the additional demand for water has not been assessed and the overall impact of wastewater has not been assessed. The applicant should be required to identify the salt water interface and evaluate the impacts of pumping. C-1 1;C-12 45. The DEIS does NOT address the concerns for potential impacts to groundwater and adjacent properties of discharge of pharmaceuticals, personal care products, VOCs, pesticides, fertilizers or herbicides from the residential properties. C- 12;C- 13;C -14 46. The DEIS does not propose the use of I/A sanitary systems, proposes a crop that requires an abundance of fertilizer and pesticides and offers "turf grass" in the unfarmed open space. There is no mention of how the new sanitary systems might mitigate the impact of any of the discharge. C -6 47. Hydrological studies need to be done. Concerned about impacts to aquifer and impacts from ferry operation. C- 1;C- 2;C -3;C -6 48. Concern about impacts to character and increase in traffic, contiguous open space, water supply and disruption to wildlife. C -6;C -8 49. Concerned about impacts (strain) on aquifer (seasonal use, water levels, demand from homes and irrigation, saltwater intrusion, costs and need for additional wells) Include a discussion on the seasonal use (increase in GPM) of groundwater in the hydrological study mentioned above. C- 56;C -6 50. Subdivision is too dense for character and resources available, concerned about impact to sole aquifer from sanitary systems, irrigation and property maintenance. The cumulative 12 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD A -43 build out could lead to impacts to ground and surface and waters. Discuss the cumulative impacts over a long duration on ground and surface water in greater detail. Include the impacts from nutrients, pollutants, fertilizers. herbicides, pesticides, storm water runoff. C -1 51. Two of the properties associated with the Hallock Farm are within 500 feet of the proposed subdivision. These properties, along with several others just outside of the 500' buffer, are indicated on figure 5.1 of the Southold Comprehensive Plan as listed by the Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities. The Hallock Farm was an innovative and prosperous farm that helped shape the community of Orient. The rural nature of the Orchard and Halyoake corner is still mostly intact, and will be permanently spoiled by the addition of four potentially massive houses. The 13.0 acre site is currently guided by the area's R -80 zoning district and is also informed by its historical context and the goals represented by the Village of Orient Historic District, with its eastern boundary at Tabor Road, just 880 feet from the site. Discuss the potential adverse impacts on the parcel referred to as Hallock Farm and the Orient Historic District. C -45 52. The current plan shows five residential lots, as well as an agricultural building and access road, utilizing R -40 zoning. Using R -40 and the split cluster configuration does not achieve a rural, open space goal, nor does it preserve the natural and scenic values of the Town and village. C -26 53. We would like to see a full visual impact study showing maximum sized homes and barns. C -6 54. Another key issue is the lack of a thorough environmental impact study on groundwater. The application requirement is for six new wells including an irrigation well with DEC permit to pump 4 million gallons /year; anticipated irrigation for turf grass; and five new standard residential sanitary systems. The most critical shortcoming in the DEIS is the impact of the development (particularly its density) on both water supply and quality. A potential impact and barn from the project would be depletion of the groundwater supply lying beneath the property. There is no analysis regarding the severe limitations of Orient's aquifer and groundwater supply. The proposed subdivision has the potential to C -9 impact the fi•esh water supply for the whole village. What will the effects be on neighboring properties quality and quantity of drinking water? The overall impact of the additional demand for water has not been assessed nor has the overall impact of 1J A -44 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD wastewater. The DEIS does NOT address the concerns for potential impacts to C -11 groundwater and adjacent properties of discharge of pharmaceuticals, personal care products, VOCs, pesticides, fertilizers or herbicides from the residential properties. The C -13 DEIS does not propose the use of I/A sanitary systems, proposes a crop that requires an C- 12;C -14 abundance of fertilizer and pesticides and offers "turf grass" in the unfarmed open space. C -8 55. The applicant should be required to identify the salt water interface and evaluate the C -13 impacts of pumping; and there is no mention of how the new sanitary systems (I /A OWTS) might mitigate the impact of any of the discharge. C -1 56. Concerns about impacts to aesthetics, character (low density, rural ambiance, colonial architecture). DEIS does not appear to address multiple aesthetic and practical risks /impacts. C -5;C -6 57. Very concerned about overdevelopment and impacts on groundwater, nitrogen input and chemical runoff into surrounding bays. C -40 58. Multiple Plans: Conditionally Approved, Proposed, and Preliminary Referenced in the DEIS (pages 2 -3, 2 -4, 2 -12, 3 -5, 3 -6, 4 -2, Appendix) are different plans used as a basis for different reports. The initial review reflected the "5 Lot" Yield Map (6 -5 -2005) based on Existing R -80 Zoning, the Conditionally Approved Sketch Plan (6 -15 -2013) (Appendix P) and the Existing Resource & Site Analysis Plan (10 -17 -2017) based on Sketch Plan Lot Configuration. The Applicant's significant departure from the Conditionally Approved Sketch Plan is represented by the Proposed Preliminary Plat for Standard Clustered Subdivision (1 -21 -2015) (Appendix B). This Proposed Preliminary Plat does little to address the many concerns expressed early on and are still relevant C -39 today. In fact, this Proposed Preliminary Plat is a clear disregard for the Town Code, and goals for future land use and zoning reflected in the Town's Vision Statement and Comprehensive Plan as well as County and State Conservation planning. Regardless, the DEIS seeks to defend the Proposed Preliminary Plat and fails to demonstrate its benefits. More proposed and premature plans are put forth in an effort to provide mitigation and support for the proposed development scheme. ■ Existing Resources & Site Analysis Plan (11-18-2017) based on Proposed Preliminary Plat Lot Configuration (Appendix C) [L' A -45 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD ■ Proposed Subdivision Map with Corrected Building Envelopes (July 8, 2020) (Appendix Y) ■ Proposed Subdivision Map with Sanitary Systems and Water Wells for Suffolk County Department of Health Services June 18, 2019 (Appendix G). C -40 59. Plan Inconsistencies Abound - -- basic code compliance goes uncorrected, lot sizes change, setbacks are modified and incomplete, irrigation well appears in different locations or missing altogether. Furthermore, seeking review and approval by the Suffolk County C -41 Health Department, prior to Town's SEQRA Determination, and Preliminary Plat Approval leads to more confusion. We strongly suggest that the Planning Board use its authority to modify the Proposed Preliminary Plat and provide a more equitable and fair balance between the Applicant's interests and the Town s Vision. For example, fewer number of lots, more reflective of the R -80 regulations and neighborhood character, achieved by removing the Lot I residential building lot, reallocating excess lot area to remaining four lots or less. An alternative design can then be assessed for its impact on critical water issues. C -6 60. Perhaps the most critical shortcoming in the DEIS is the impact of the development (particularly its density) on both water supply and quality, covered in Section 3.2 for a total of 4 72 pages. On page 3 -4, there is recognition that "The subject site is not served by a community water supply. A potential impact fi-om the project would be depletion of the groundwater supply lying beneath the subject property." However, the DEIS avoids any hydrogeologic analysis regarding the severe limitations of Orient's groundwater supply. In fact, a document search for the word "aquifer" is virtually absent from the DEIS, except for in the Town's Positive Declaration in Appendix A. 61. As the adjacent property to the southeast, we will be the first impacted by the quality of the groundwater as it flows towards Long Beach Bay. Perhaps the most disturbing and confusing series of events occurs between 2016 and 2019, where the Applicant's test well results in 2016 not only show the contamination but also SCDHS remarks regarding the depth to water of less than 40 feet (Appendix L) and the need to restrict lot size conforming to the current R -80 zoning. Then by 2019, different well test results appear to allow for the SCDHS Board Review & Variance (Appendix H) where lot size restrictions are removed.' 15 A -46 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD C -52 Is cherry- picking results an acceptable approach to ignoring a well -known and documented concern regarding the fragile Orient water supply? 62. The Applicant's DEIS continues to push the Suffolk County Health Department lot size determination that 13 houses can be supported, but that the proposed plan only provides for 5 houses and an irrigation well for farming. Further, the DEIS spins the facts of contaminated water transformed by water filtration technology to conclude that the filtered water discharged into the groundwater has no impact to water supply nor water quality, it is a benefit created by the development! C -12 The Applicant's DEIS addresses water related issues and the use of fertilizer associated with the farming of the open space by simply assigning it to NYSDEC reporting (for subject site only) and best farming management practices. The broad -brush statements about this and other issues require more specification. C -56 63. On prior occasions, the Planning Board and others have expressed concerns relating to water issues and development densities. For example, as recent as June 27, 2017, the Planning Board disapproved ZBA #7063, a proposed variance request to split a 4.2 acre parcel in a R -80 zone at 2050 Platt Road (SCTM 1000- 27 -1 -9), recognizing the sensitive area of Orient and its sole source aquifer and the impact on ground and surface waters as a result of increased residential density. 'The "Settlers at Oysterponds" subdivision created in 1984, located directly opposite the subject site at Halyoke Avenue and Orchard Street, was also challenged by constraints and concerns surrounding water issues, influencing the density and configuration of the lots. A proposed plan for 47 house lots on 67 +- acres was reduced to 10 building lots (minimum 5 acres) due to water and other concerns. C- 6;C -45 64. The Planning Board should require 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. C -55 65. The open space easement sample provided in Appendix D is not necessarily comparable to what would be included in an easement on the subject property. There were only two residential lots in the sample easement's subdivision. In addition, any future open space Iry SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD easement on the subject property would necessarily need to include any mitigation measures identified in the future findings of this SEQRA process. C -1;C -9 66. The Planning Board should evaluate the impacts of any Proposed Subdivision plan at every stage of development, as the full implementation is the reality that the community will experience for years to come. C -4 67. The flag lots proposed are inadequately sized based on Town Code Article X11 Design standards for such lots. Based on current tax maps and the size of the abutting lots, any flag lots would need to be 2.5 acres to be larger than usual. 68. Further, it is clear from the DEIS that there must be assessed further the; C -5 1. Impact on Surface'Water C -6 2. Impact on Ground Water C -6;C -8 69. Concern that the DEIS has NOT adequately addressed the specific availability of groundwater use, and there seems to be no consideration for water conservation. We all are keenly aware in Orient Village that salt water intrusion into our fresh water supply potentially impacts the entire area. The proposal requiring 4 million gallons per year for crop irrigation is an extraordinary number that represents the equivalent requirement for sixty (60) to one hundred (120) homes. In addition, the DEIS does not fully address the C -12 potential impact of fertilizer and pesticides to the ground water, especially since the corn crop proposed requires a once a week pesticide application, which are potentially toxic to ground water and thus nearby well systems. Has there been any consideration for drought resistant plantings, gray water recycling, drip irrigation as options for water conservation? Has there been analysis to assess the potential impact on neighboring properties drinking water and the overall demand requirement for water- in the area? There are high levels of nitrates in our soil and thus in our well water along with other contaminant materials. All of this requires the need for substantive in home filtration systems. C -20 70. We are further concerned as to the aesthetic impact of the proposed subdivision. Though the owner states that "we are not going to do spec houses ", there seems to be no control in place as to what gets built on the individual lots. Orient is a community that MUST require very careful thought with respect to the how land is developed. Our concern, and that of other owners we talk to, is that the threat of developers building "McMansions" 17 A -47 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD will take away from the charm and aesthetic of Orient. Recently, there has been housing development that if left unchecked will change forever that which we all appreciate so much about our village. C- 20;C -21 71. Thoughtful consideration as to the visual quality of the property is essential to protect scenic resources. Size (square footage, height) of homes, along with landscape, fencing C -26 should be part of an overall visual impact study. MM C -6 72. The main concern is the water table. We have well water along with our neighbors in the area. How much water is available before it is completely exhausted? And, you KNOW they will be putting in swimming pools as well. Every new house being built in the area includes a swimming pool not to mention pools being the new addition to the homes already here. C -36 73. The analyses of the Horowitz property subdivision, done in the 1980's in Orient, should offer a guideline for the development of "The Orchards" property, which is for all intents and purposes identical. By this standard, the property should support no more than two building sites, with carefully separated building envelopes to prevent intensive draw on the aquifer in any one area. C -6;C -7 74. The introduction of farming in addition to the five new homes is questionable due to its intensive use of groundwater. C -56 75. The limit of "'The Orchards" to two building lots would also better conform with the present environment (community character) in this part of Orient C- 1;C -56 76. The proposal to place a suburban development of this magnitude in this location will fundamentally change the character of this part of Orient Village. Currently, there is a feeling, for the many residents who walk or bike regularly on Orchard toward Narrow River, of leaving the village proper for a more rural environment, with houses set back or shielded by fences and trees, punctuated by brushland and woodland. The area in question bordering Halyoke is an important part of this feel. To replace it with five houses and a barn that is completely out of proportion with existing structures in the lM• A -49 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Village is to destroy a fundamental part of the Village's character. "View" is not a function of how far one can see but of what one sees. C -2 77. 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 than two trips a day per household seems absurd Clarify the methodology used to generate vehicle trams and provide a more in -depth discussion on the potential adverse impacts from traffic on local roadwa s. C -57 78. Barbara Friedman's letter presents a succinct view of the issues and concerns of the community of neighbors near the proposed sub- division. Many of these concerns have been the focus of the Orient Association for years, such as house size and water conservation. My question to you is whether the review of the DEIS would incorporate all of these concerns. This is a process question. What is within scope of the DEIS and what is outside of the scope of the DEIS? Regardless, the issues concerning water use, quality, and availability are all properly part of a DEIS. My question is then is what are the water monitoring systems and tools in place that are used to assess the adequacy of the proposed development in an area that is part of a larger fragile ecosystem, one that will increasingly be prone to floods, saltwater intrusion, and higher groundwater elevations that come with sea level rise? C -64 79. Nancy and Mark Ferraris submission of Equity Environmental Engineering LLC report (Attachment A) Address these comments in detail. 19 A -50 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD December 7, 2020 Public Hearing Comments' (Note repeated comments were not included) C- 6;C -56 1. DEIS does not address impacts. Concerns about water supply and quality overlooked. Developer should introduce an alternative plan with less density that meets Town goals. The word aquifer does not occur in the DEIS and that is a concern. C -2 2. Concerns about traffic and tranquility adding more driveways also presents a safety risk (safety of pedestrian and bicyclists not addressed). Multi directions traffic flow will increase in front of property and threat of accidents will increase. The roads are narrow and are meant for fewer cars. Concerns about increase in construction and farm vehicles. Questions 6 vehicle trips per day in DEIS. The houses are not moderate in size they will disrupt our C -1 character. Issues of aquifer and noise pollution from farm equipment. Does not agree with minimal need for community service claim. C- 6;C -32 3. Concern about impact to water quality and permanent harm from five houses and low elevations where lots are located. Change in character of neighborhood. C -6 4. Concerned about water issues related to project— site between Platt and Narrow river road C -13 failed because of DEIS impacts on water and water flow. Concerns about conventional septic systems and how that will impact area. Water problems exist now. 5. Does not mitigate the action — DEIS just stated and restated sq ft. and site considerations. C -24 Did not address adverse impacts from houses and on scenic area — corner. DEIS states that C -4 the SCDH approved and does not think that is the case. Concern about flag lot size. Platt C-7 road on plan is actually Holyoke. Concern about water availability. 20 A -51 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Town of Southold Planning Department Staff Comments The Planning Board staff has reviewed the resubmitted Draft Environmental Impact Statement For Subdivision Approval The Orchards (DEIS) dated August 2020 and have the following comments and questions: 1. Page 1 -3. "The Suffolk County Department of Health Services has already granted approval for the siting and preliminary design of the five proposed sanitary systems. " T -1 This statement is false. Appendix G contains a letter from the SCDH Board of Review that grants a variance with provisions. The letter and decision language states that "this waiver does not imply that your application will be automatically approved". The approval is specific to the 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 ". 2. Page 2 -7. "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 fi°om each of the wells will be treated to reduce the concentration of the three contaminants to below drinking water standards. When the used domestic tivaler is discharged from the homes, the total concentration of each contaminant shall be reduced fi-om what the it f.utent would have been il'no trealmcnl here in !lace. Each of the five divelling ivater treatment systems ejjeclively act as a " pinnp and treat " remediation system, Thereby aiding in nn 71.0011 Y the 1.011 ldhraler c 110li1 " T -2 The DEIS claims a reduction of groundwater contamination. The claim is not voluntary as T -3 presented, rather is a requirement of the SCDH approval. Recognizing the levels of T -4 contaminants in groundwater, why wasn't a nitrogen reducing VA OWTS proposed to treat 21 r-A SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD total nitrogen load in the sanitary effluent thereby reducing impacts to groundwater and T -5 surface waters? Note that the Planning Board requires I/A OWTS for all new subdivisions in T -6 the hamlet of Orient. Please provide a detailed analysis of the effectiveness of the T-7 conventional on -site sanitary system versus an I/A OWTS in treating total nitrogen. And discuss new SCDHS regulations requiring I/A OWTS in the near future. 3. Page 3 -3 Section 3.2 Water. The DEIS does not adequately describe the characteristics of the sole source aquifer and the hydrologic conditions on the parcel. Although it is recognized that the aquifer within this area is not included as a NYSDEC Critical Environmental Area, the potential adverse impacts to groundwater quality from sanitary systems and homeowner T -8 practices is moderate to high. Water usage from agriculture is also expected. 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 T -9 water wells in the vicinity of the site. What is the aquifer's capacity to support the proposed T -10 new homes and agricultural use? What is the water budget for the proposed action including T -11 agricultural uses? What mitigation will be provided to prevent up- coning and salt water intrusion into the aquifer? 4. Page 3 -4 "Based on the subject property size of 13.3± acres, Suffolk County Wastewater Management could potentially allow as many as 13 single family residential homes to be constructed on the subject property. " T -12 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 qualify why this density on the parcel is not possible. The statement is also located on page 3 -7 and should also be qualified. T -13 5, 3 -4 The DEIS states that public water supply is unavailable for the subject property. It is important to note that public water is not available for the entire surrounding area and that potable water supply is obtained from a sole source aquifer, and in addition the test wells show sins of contamination requiring filtration for any future homes on the site. A -53 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD 6. Pages 3 -5 and 3 -6 The SCDHS issued a report dated January 19, 2018 (see Appendix N). The sampling revealed the water in test well #1 exceeded the Suffolk County test well standard of 6 mg1l of nitrates, but did not exceed the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) permitted by Part 5 of the New York State Sanitary Code (The State of New York 2018). The water in test well #2 exceeded the MCL for nitrates, Aldicarb Sulfoxide and Aldicarb Sulfone. Each of these contaminants are commonly found in the groundwater surrounding the subject property and are most likely attributable to the former use of the subject property, and surrounding properties, as farmland. each of the proposed residential homes (see Appendix G). On December 17, 2019 the SCDHS Board of Review approved the Applicant's variance request (see Appendix H). Each dwelling shall be equipped with a potable water treatment system to reduce the concentration of the target compounds to below the MCL. The Aldicarb treatment removal devices are free to the homeowners in Orient and are funded by the SCDHS through Bayer Scientific. The construction of the five residential homes, and associated water treatment systems, shall have a positive impact on groundwater quality as each treatment system shall remove the Aldicarb contaminants from the groundwater supply. 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 ivell for each proposed residential home, no significant impact to the groundwater quality or quantity is anticipated. The variance granted by the SCDH Board of Review as provided in Appendix G of the DEIS does not imply approval of the subdivision design layout nor does it find that no significant impact to the groundwater quality or quantity is anticipated. The variance granted was in the interest of public health and was relevant only to whether there was potable water on site. The variance document states the following: "The granting of this variance is not a formal; approval to divide the parcel, or to construct new dwellings or install new sewage disposal systems or onsite private wells on the subject site ". 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. " 2; A -54 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD The SCDH Board of Review is not charged with the reviewing of a projects potential moderate to large significant adverse impacts to ground and surface water as a result of sanitary waste disposal, solid waste disposal, landscaping and the application of herbicides, fertilizers and pesticides. This statement should be clarified. 7. Page 3 -6. The installation of an irrigation well over a sole source aquifer with known contamination to a depth of forty-five feet (45'), a maximum flow rate of one hundred seventy -five (175) gallons per minute and maximum annual production of four million (4,000,000) gallons of water is a concern. It is recognized that the permit issued by the NYSDEC requires chloride intrusion monitoring in June and October of each year by a New York State FLAP certified laboratory. T -16 What is the projected gallons per day year over year? T -17 What is the projected zone of influence from the well head? T -18 What are the potential impacts to private wells in the surrounding area? T -19 What are mitigation measures for the potential impacts? 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. T -21 How will up coning of salt water be prevented? T-22 What are the drought weather patterns for this location? T -23 What specific best management practices will be employed to conserve water used to support crops or livestock. T -24 What is the plan if chloride is found in the well? Will the Town of Southold be notified? 8. Page 3 -7. The Planning Board strongly disagrees with the statement "The impact of thil-teen single fanlih, homes discharging wasteii,ater to the subject property is therefore deemed acceptable bl- the SCDHS vi ith regard to potential impacts to 5117 face and groundwater T -25 duality.i•oln the i- Vastewater 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. The presentation and continued comparison in the DEIS that attempts to "give 24 A -55 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD credit" for the 5 lots mandated by the Southold Town Code residential bulk schedule versus the 13 lots that are not even possible is confusing to the reader. Please clarify that the 13 lots are not possible. 9. Page 3 -7 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 T -26 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. T -27 Provide a detailed nitrogen budget for the parcel and uses. 10. Page 3 -8 Section 3.4 vegetation. The DEIS states that "Since no species offlora or fauna were identified as rare, threatened or endangered by the NYSDEC's Natural Heritage Program via the Resource Mapper, the removal of the existing habitat is not anticipated to have a significant negative impact. " The Environmental Resource Mapper website was consulted and the parcel is located within a Significant Natural Community layer (occurs to the east and west of the parcel). This layer shows areas within a 1/2 mile of the significant natural communities shown in the layer above. The natural community identified is Marine Back Barrier Lagoon Long Beach Bay. If project impacts are being assessed at a location within this vicinity layer, the nearby T -28 significant natural communities should be considered in the assessment. Please discuss the potential adverse impacts to the Significant Natural Community. Note that the Rare Plants and Animals layer occurs just south of the parcel. Old or potential records include: Common Name: Marsh Fimbry Scientific Name: Fimbristylis castanets Date Last Documented: 1938 -08 -25 Location: Orient Point NYS Protected: Threatened 25 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Common Name: Small- flowered Pearlwo►t Scientific Name: Sagina decumbens ssp. decumbens Date Last Documented: 1910 -06 -20 Location: Orient Point NYS Protected: Endangered Common Name: Marsh Straw Sedge Scientific Name: Carex hormathodes Date Last Documented: 1926 -06 -01 Location: Orient NYS Protected: Threatened Common Name: Sea -pink Scientific Name: Sabatia stellaris Date Last Documented: 1910 -09 -19 Location: Orient Point NYS Protected: Threatened Common Name: New Jersey Pine Barrens Tiger Beetle Scientific Name: Cicindela patruela consentonea Date Last Documented: 1944 -10 -02 Location: Orient NYS Protected: Unlisted Common Name: Large Grass- leaved Rush Scientific Name: Ancus biflorits Date Last Documented: 1928 -08 -01 Location: Orient NYS Protected: Endangered Common Name: Scotch Lovage Scientific Name: Ligztslicum scolhicum ssp. scothicum Date Last Documented: 1980 -07 -11 A -56 26 A -57 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Location: Orient NYS Protected: Endangered Common Name: Golden Dock Scientific Name: Rumex fueginus Date Last Documented: 1926 -10 Location: Orient NYS Protected: Endangered Common Name: Woodland Agrimony Scientific Name: Agrinionia rostellata Date Last Documented: 1932 -08 -22 Location: Orient NYS Protected: Threatened Common Name: Short -fruit Rush Scientific Name: Juncus brachycarpus Date Last Documented: 1940 -07 -30 Location: Orient NYS Protected: Endangered T -29 Please contact the NYS Natural Heritage Program to determine if protected vegetation species occur on site. 12. Page 3 -9 Section 3.5 Wildlife T -30 The DEIS does not include a discussion on the eastern box turtle, as a New York State - listed species of Special Concern. The species requires some measure of protection to ensure that the species does not become threatened. Species of special concern are protected wildlife pursuant to Environmental Conservation Law section 11- 0103(5)(c). Northern lone eared bat 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 27 A -58 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD recommended that Ms. Michelle Gibbons at the NYS DEC is contacted at 631- 444 -0306 to determine if the habitat is suitable for the species habit. Please provide an assessment of these species potential for occurring on or using the site. 13. Page 5 -1 The DEIS states that the "The total estimated agricultural land lost by the proposed construction is 1.12 acres (48,750 SQ. FT.). Based on the total property area of 13.3025 acres, the agricultural land lost represents only approximately 8% of the total property area. The remaining 92% of the subject property agricultural land shall be used for agricultural purposes, bushes, trees, lawn, landscape areas, and natural vegetation. " 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 the areas proposed for development. Please provide the total estimated agricultural lands lost. 14. Page 6 -1 Section 6 -2 Preservation The DEIS states that "The Preservation alternative would eliminate benefits provided by the proposed project. A brief summary of the benefits that would be lost include: 1. Return fallow agricultural land to productive use." T -33 This statement is not correct. The preservation of property by the Town or other qualified entity does not preclude returning land to agriculture. T -34 15. 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. T -35 16. 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? T -36 17. The subdivision design of the proposed action does not meet the Town Code subdivision design requirements of Chapter 240. The design proposes four separate driveways where the code requires a single entrance via a new road. Chapter 240 -45 B (15) states the following: Except in a conservation subdivision 01" open developinellt 01 -ea, subdivisions where more than 300 feet of land fronts on a public street shall provide access to proposed lots by 28 A -59 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD way of a new street. Multiple building lots and fronting of more than two building lots on an existing street shall be prohibited. T -37 In addition, 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. See code section cited below: 240 -45 D. Flag lots. The Planning Board may permit a limited number of flag lots in a residential subdivision plat, provided that they are well shaped, they are generally larger than usual lots, their accessway is essentially straight and not excessive in length and their arrangement will not create traffic difficulties on the street system and would not be a means to circumvent a standard lot and street arrangement which might otherwise result in a generally better platting of the subdivision and adjacent lands. (1) To assure that the flag lot is of adequate size and shape, a flag lot located within the residential zones shall contain at least the minimum lot area of the applicable zoning district in which it is situated, within the bulk of the lot, exclusive of the area contained in the flagpole access strip. (2) In allowing flag lot arrangements in subdivision, the Planning Board may require either a formal private lane or common access driveway to service such lots and may require that such lanes or common access driveways be made part of the improvements to be undertaken and made part of a performance bond (3) The Planning Board may adopt, further policies or regulations to assure compliance with these requirements, including design and legal specifications for the creation of lanes and common access driveways over such flag lot arrangements. T -38 18. There doesn't appear to be enough in itigation 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 /upconing, effects on neighboring wells. What mitigation will be provided for these impacts? 29 A -60 Attachment A Nancy and Mark Ferraris 3585 Orchard Street ♦ Orient NY 11957 nancyferraris @me.com ♦ 516.375.8149 January 11, 2021 Ms. Heather Lanza, Director Town Planning Department Town of Southold Town Hall Annex Building - 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Via Email: heather ,lanza @town.southold.ny.us mark. terry@ town. southold.ny. us Re: Draft EIS for Subdivision Approval of "The Orchards" - Dated August 2020 Proposed "Cluster" Subdivision" 2595 Orchard Street, Orient NY SCTM # 1000 -27- 1 -3 Dear Director Lanza and Board Members: The following is a supplement to our November 23, 2020 submission. Since the last public hearing on December 7, 2020, we engaged an environmental consulting firm, Equity Environmental Engineering LLC, to provide a preliminary review of the water quality and quantity issues presented in the Draft EIS. The preliminary findings and outstanding concerns are as follows: Water Quality: Groundwater Test Results in DEIS 1. Groundwater samples from 11/17/2015 a. Wells #1 and #2 were installed to a total depth of 42 feet below grade. b. Neither Well #1 nor Well #2 showed exceedances of the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) of any compounds. 'Equity Environmental Engineering LLC specializes in the identification and resolution of environmental problems relating to property site selection and condition assessment, environmental assessment reviews on the state and local level, geologic /hydrogeologic investigation and remediation of sites known or suspected to be contaminated by hazardous materials, as well as engineering design, environmental permitting, discharge prevention plans, and litigation support. Nancy and Mark Ferrans A -61 2. Groundwater samples from 8/17/2017 a. Wells #1 and # 2 were installed to a total depth of 65 feet below grade. b. Well #1 had nitrate concentrations in excess of the Suffolk County test well standard of 6 mg /L, but below the MCL of 10 mg /L. c. Well #2 had nitrate concentrations in excess of the Suffolk County test well standard of 6 mg /L and in excess of the MCL of 10 mg /L (11.2 mg /L) Well # 2 had an exceedance of the MCL (2.0 ug /L) of aldicarb sulfone (4.2 ug /L) and an aldicarb sulfoxide (6.0 ug /L) exceedance of the MCL of 4.0 ug /L. e. Well #2 had a concentration of 1,2- dibromoethane that equaled the MCL of 0.05 ug /L. Outstanding Concerns: • The DEIS proposes to treat the water by using a Point of Entry Treatment System at the main water line that will require monitoring, and change out of treatment units on a continuing basis. What will ensure that monitoring and appropriate action will take place on a regular basis? • Although some of the contaminant concentrations in the August 2017 sampling event exceeded the Suffolk County Test Well Standard, most of them were below the National Drinking Water Standard. However, with an increase in pumping to accommodate the residential demand for the development, would higher concentrations of contaminants be drawn into the wells? Water Quantity: North Fork Aquifer Profile 1. USGS Reports Information on North Fork Groundwater Quantity 2 a_ "Fresh ground water on the North Fork is contained within a series of four hydraulically isolated freshwater flow systems that extend through the upper glacial and Magothy aquifers. These freshwater flow systems are bounded laterally by saltwater (in areas near the shore), and at depth by saline ground water. The movement of fresh ground water in this area is controlled by the 2 Hydrogeologic Framework of the North Fork and Surrounding Areas, Long Island, New York Water - Resources - Investigations Report 02 -4284 prepared by USGS in cooperation with the Suffolk County Water Authority (2004); Hydrogeologic- Setting Classification for Suffolk County, Long Island, New York With Results of Selected Aquifer -Test Analyses by Richard A. Cartwright (1997); USGS Open File Report 96 -457 Nancy and Mark Ferraris A -62 hydraulic properties and boundary conditions of the freshwater flow systems, and by the distribution of hydraulic head within and adjacent to them." "The extent of fresh ground water on the North Fork is limited by the natural hydrologic boundaries of the freshwater flow systems and, therefore, by the hydraulic stresses that control the rate at which freshwater enters and exits the system. Freshwater is separated from denser saltwater by a zone of diffusion at the freshwater - saltwater interface, which acts as a relatively impermeable boundary that moves gradually in response to changes in the balance between recharge and discharge. The absence of any hydraulic connection to the Greenport flow system or the Orient flow system indicates that freshwater within these two flow systems can be replenished only through recharge from precipitation. Freshwater above the lower confining unit is hydraulically connected to freshwater beneath this unit in three areas —near Mattituck Creek, southwest of James Creek, and near the northwestern shore of Flanders Bay — where the lower confining unit is absent." c. Freshwater -Salt Water Interface "This hydrogeologic setting is restricted to the eastern forks of Long Island and represents freshwater lenses that are bounded laterally and below by saltwater. The freshwater lenses are isolated from the rest of Long Island's fresh groundwater system and, therefore, have no adjacent freshwater source that could provide recharge." "The North Fork contains a series of freshwater lenses, that generally decrease in thickness eastward. Thicknesses range from about 550 ft (Bohn - Buxton and others, 1996) at the western end of the North Fork to about 90 ft (McNees and Arav, 1995) near the eastern end and approach zero close to the shore." "Under natural (non - pumping) conditions, the position of the freshwater /saltwater interface represents a relatively static balance of fluid pressures of the freshwater and the denser, underlying saltwater. The position of this interface can shift in response to changes in pumping and other hydrologic stresses." "Movement of the freshwater /saltwater interface results in a zone of diffusion, and excessive withdrawals from public - supply wells can cause upconing of saltwater and move the interface far enough inland to cause contamination of the freshwater supply. The other major source of groundwater degradation in this hydrogeologic setting is surface contaminants, especially pesticides and fertilizers used on the many farms in this area; Soren and Stelz (1984) cited widespread contamination by the highly toxic carbamate pesticide, aldicarb (trademark TEMIK, Union Carbide Corp. 1) on the North and South Forks." As is well known and documented, the hydrogeologic setting of the North Fork is most vulnerable. With maximum water pumping from below ground, evidence of salt water has begun to intrude into the aquifer. This situation is exacerbated by the permanent water level shifts and global warming trends, as local ground water tables are trending toward dropping permanently. Changing sea levels Nancy and Mark Ferraris A -63 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. Outstanding Concerns • The Draft EIS provides no evidence that hydraulic testing has been or is scheduled to be performed. The purpose of the test is to determine the ability of the aquifer to support the proposed pumping and to design the pump system that is appropriate for the local conditions. The location of test should be on the subject property in question. • If the pump test shows that the available flow rate is less than that needed for the development as proposed, restriction on the scope of the proposed development will required and the proposed plan modified. 2. Agricultural Irrigation 3 The Draft EIS provides a NYS DEC letter dated July 30, 2018 provides for an Irrigation Permit that allows pumping of groundwater from the surficial aquifer for irrigation use. It states that: "Installation and operation of one (1) 6 -inch diameter irrigation well to a depth of 45 feet and equipped with a pumping capacity of 175 gallons per minute (gpm) ". It also states that he Annual Pumpage is limited to 4 million gallons per calendar year. Since there is no mention of conservation efforts in neither the SCHDS nor the NYSDEC, it is undetermined as to whether these conditions are appropriate for this subject site and the larger Orient and North Fork community. Outstanding Concerns: • Although the permit authorizes the capacity of 175 gpm, the Draft EIS does not provide pump testing evidence that this capacity can be supported by the groundwater supply, particularly with full build -out of the proposed plan combined with aggressive, unrestricted, agricultural use of the open space designated as part of Lot 1. • Typically, irrigation pumping rates are higher than residential pumping rates, putting greater stress on the aquifer, and potentially increasing the lowering of the water table and saltwater intrusion. Furthermore, a dry season can make it worse. 3 NYS DEC Permit ID 1- 4738 - 04435/00001- Modification # 1 Expiration Date 6/28/2027 Nancy and Mark Ferraris 4 A -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 Open Space Conservation Easement does not provide restrictions for use /activities, crop limitations, and the water - related issues. Highlighting the shortcomings of the Draft EIS as it relates to water quality and quantity is of the utmost importance. The Planning Board's evaluation of the Open Space Conservation Easement will also be critical as it needs to address many issues that will guide the subdivision and its impact on the community well into the future This priority, along with the many other factors detailed in our November 23rd submission, clearly supports the need for the Planning Board to demand better from the Applicant. Thank you very much for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, ­It YL c Lu.tui) Nancy and Mark Ferraris Nancy and Mark Ferraris