Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix D-1A -65 fj lj l , RECEIVED --- -- - Commenter P -1 October 19, 2020 OCT 2 3 2020 Southold Town Planning Board Southold Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Route 25 PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: The Orchards, 2595 Orchard Street, Orient We are homeowners at 3780 Orchard Street, just a few lots east and across the street from the site under consideration for the Orchard Development. The Environmental Impact Statement deftly paints a seriously misleading picture of the impact of this project. 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. 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 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. Everything about this plan suggests a serious downgrade from natural beauty to manmade clutter. 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 than two trips a day per household seems absurd. I do not envy the Planning Boards' challenge in balancing the right of property owners to monetize their holdings with the interest of preserving what makes the Village special for current residents. But this project — a brand new development of five houses mostly on smallish plots relative to the surrounding houses, which will turn an attractive wall of brushland into a suburban landscape that is at odds with the look and feel of the Village, all without conferring any identifiable social good - - does not seem a close call at all. We urge the Board to reject this proj ect. Sin /% ............ Margery and Ted Mayer 99100424_1 C -3 C -4 A -66 Commenter P -2 Barbara Friedman 835 Halyoke Avenue PO Box 11 Orient NY, 11957 November 2, 2020 Donald Wilcenski, Chairman And members of the Southold Planning Board 54375 State Road 25 Southold, NY 11971 Re: The Orchards Subdivision SCTM # 1000- 21 -7 -3 RECEIVED NOV 3 0 2020 Southold Town Planning Board I am deeply concerned about the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Orchards Subdivision accepted for public review on September 28, 2020. Two aspects of this project appear to not be code compliant: Based on Town Code - Article XI Cluster Development 240 -42 - H.(4): Roads, streets and rights -of -way may not be included in the calculation of the minimum required open space. The area of the conservation easement is based on 16' right of way for Lot #1 driveway. The State requires a 25 foot clearing and in a letter dated March 6, 2015 the Town Highway Engineer said the Right of Way should be 25 feet. The additional 9 feet of right of way increases the size of Lot #1 to 1.4744 acres and reduces the conserved area by .1218 acres. This would bring the Conservation Area below the 60% required threshold. Based on Town Code Article XII Design Standards 240 -45 for flag lots: D. Flag lots: The Planning Board may permit a limited number of flag lots in a residential subdivision plat provided they're well shaped, they are generally larger than usual lots... (1) to assure that the flag lot is of adequate size and shape, a flag lot located within the residential zones shall contain at least the minimum lot area of the applicable zoning district in which it is situated within the bulk of the lot, exclusive of the area contained in the flagpole access strip. Both Lots 2 and 3 are flag lots and they are NOT larger than usual lots. I am not sure what "usual lots" means, but the average size of 17 abutting lots is 2.5 acres, based on current tax maps. I would suggest that Lots 2 and 3 should therefore be at least the minimum required in R- 80 zoning which is 80,000 square feet. Lot #2 is inadequately sized for even R -40 zoning, which requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 sf. When the 31169 sf access strip is deducted from the area of Lot 42, the result is below the 40,000 sf threshold. A -67 This subdivision should not be allowed to proceed without corrections to non - compliant conditions and recalculations of conservation and open space areas for all aspects of the proposal. Addressing the DEIS in terms of its response to the areas of concern outlined in the Positive Declaration: 1. Impacts on Surface Water: The Positive Declaration states "The impacts of the new sanitary systems proposed on down gradient surface water must be assessed" The DEIS suggests that Suffolk County Sanitary Code would yield 13 homes, and therefore 5 is a mitigation of impact. Town Bulk Regulations would only allow 6 homes so the proposal should not be held up against the County standards. The DEIS proposes standard sanitary systems and merely states that since the SCDHS gave them approval, it must be okay. C -5 To my knowledge, the DEIS does not assess the impacts of sanitary systems on down gradient surface water at all. 2. Impacts on Groundwater Positive Declaration 2a "Potential adverse impacts to groundwater quality and quantity could be severe and boundless and must be assessed. The probability of the impact occurring is moderate and could affect the area population" According to the Southold Town Comprehensive Plan "Water supply projections indicate that Southold will need additional water sources by 2030 ". 1 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 he protected too! According to the Comprehensive Plan, the pace of "build -out" has already picked up, and the predictions of a few years ago should be adjusted for the new normal of COVID -19, which has not only created more water demand from existing houses being used full -time, but has also created an even greater urgency to build additional homes on existing individual lots. Again the DEIS states that since the SCDHS gave them approval it must be okay. C -6 To my knowledge, the DEIS does not address the quantity of water available based on projected water use for this project and the homes that share this resource. In addition to the five new homes proposed, the DEIS states that the NYSDEC permit allows maximum of 4 million gallons a year to be used for crop irrigation. This is a staggering number, equivalent to 62 -120 homes. The DEC approval requires testing the irrigation well for salt -water intrusion twice a year, acknowledging the threat of salt water intrusion. C -7 The DEIS does NOT adequately address the site specific availability of groundwater for the proposed use and there seems to be no consideration for water conservation. The DEIS does not address the effects on the quality of the water for the area population. If salt water intrusion occurs in the irrigation C -8 well, it likely means that there will be salt water intrusion in neighboring residential wells too. The applicant should be required to identify the salt water interface and evaluate the impacts of pumping. C-9 The proposed subdivision has the potential to impact the fresh water supply for the whole village. I P = question the DEIS statement on page 3 -6 that "SCDHS" approval would not have been issued had the C -10 SCDHS review identified significant impact ". The SCDHS is looking at narrow legislated parameters covering all of Suffolk County. It is imperative that the Town of Southold protect the available potable water supply for the residents of Orient. Positive Declaration 2d:" Assessment of potential impacts to groundwater from new sanitary systems (pharmaceuticals and personal care products) pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers must be included. Impacts to adjacent properties must also be discussed ". 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. 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. I am not a farmer, but I am told that sweet corn is especially susceptible to pests and can require frequent pesticide applications (more than once a week). Is this really appropriate in a residential area, and in particular within 100' of two private wells? The wells for 2650 Orchard and Lot #2, along with the irrigation well for the proposed farmland are within 100' of the proposed farmed acreage (these areas should be mapped, cannot be used as farmland and should be deducted in all area calculations). Even with Integrated Pest Management, most of the pesticides used to control corn pests are toxic sprays. C -13 The DEIS does not propose the use of I/A sanitary systems, proposes a crop that requires an C -14 abundance of fertilizer and pesticides and offers "turf grass" in the unfarmed open space. There is no mention of how the new sanitary systems might mitigate the impact of the pharmaceutical, personal care products etc. Positive Declaration 2f. A discussion of the current groundwater quality, contamination and impacts on the proposed action and adjacent properties must be included: The water on the site was in fact found to contain excessive nitrates and Aldicarbs. The DEIS states that the homes will require filters for excessive Aldicarbs. According to SCDHS private Water Systems Standards 406.4 -15 if water exceeds MCL and treatment is required a "covenant regarding water treatment must appear on all realty subdivision and development maps" I don't see this covenant on any site maps. The test well for Lot 2 also exceeded the allowable for Nitrates, and yet an I/A Sanitary system was not proposed. What will the effects be on neighboring properties quality and quantity of drinking water? The overall C -15 impact of the additional demand for water has not been assessed and the overall impact of C -16 wastewater has not been assessed. Why is there no consideration given for conservation or alternative sources of irrigation water, such as using drip irrigation, gray water recycling and rain water collection? Why isn't there any mention of drought- resistant plantings or limitations on irrigation and fertilization for the areas anticipated to be "turf grass." Why was a potentially water and pesticide intensive crop selected for farming? Why weren't I/A sanitary systems proposed at the outset, and if the SCDHS has approved the site plan, will I/A sanitary systems be required (after July 2021)? 3 A -69 3. Impact on Agricultural Resources Positive Declaration 3a "The conversion of farmland to residential use is INCONSISTENT with the Town of Southold Local Waterfront revitalization Program Policies" C -17 As mentioned above, the conserved area will not meet the 60% criteria for opens space when file Lot #1 and Lot #2 are corrected for code compliance unless some building lots are eliminated. 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. Why is Lot #1 separate from the other lots? 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 income to support the agricultural uses. Lot #1, which has been presented as the owner's personal residence is not clustered with the other lots, instead it is in the northwest corner of the site to take advantage of conservation easements of neighboring properties rather than be clustered with the other homes. The split cluster layout of the site does not suggest a family compound, it looks more like a plantation except that the low lying land to the southeast will not be populated by farm workers, but by wealthy second home owners who can afford 1 -2 million dollar homes. C -19 At the planning board meeting on April 6, 2015 the owner stated that "we are not going to do spec houses" and yet the DEIS suggests that is the intent. The owner should clarify how many houses he intends to build himself, and will they be built on spec or for his family? The proposed layout appears to maximize the profit from new homes, not maximize the continuity of the open space or its viability as farmland. 4. Impact on Archeological Resources Based on historical maps, this appears to be "virgin" land, never having been built on. However, there are adjacent parcels which are included in the Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Southold as having historic value. See attached documentation of the Hallock Farm, and description below. 5. Impacts on Aesthetic Resources Positive Declaration 5a. "The potential impact for the siting and scale of homes could be moderate to large based on lot size." While the DEIS indicates that the five homes will be "modest sized" with footprints of approximately 1750 sf and overall square footage of 3,500 sf. Once the lots are subdivided, it seems that the Town has almost no control over what will be built on the individual lots. There is presently almost no limitation on the sizes of the homes, and while there are very stringent oversight of what is built in the nearby Historic District, there are no rules at all about the design C -20 quality of these homes. These "structural design components ", potentially very LARGE homes, will have clear negative impact on the "visual quality and scenic resources" at the very center of Orient. Based on 20% lot coverage, the FOOTPRINTS of these houses can be up to: Lot 1 approximately 11,783 sf (not including additional ROW acreage) Lot 2 approximately 8,600 sf (based on current non - compliant plat) 4 A -70 Lot 3 approximately Lot 4 approximately Lot 5 approximately Total Buildable (House) Area Barn footprint Total Area of Buildings 9,960 sf 8,000 sf 8,000 sf. = 46,343 sf 4,000s = 50,343 sf equals 1.16 acres Table 1 of the DEIS has the Total Area of buildings at .2927 acres, which seems to be based on 5 houses with footprints of 1,750 sf + 4,000 sf barn. Page 4 -10 of the DEIS states "A primary purpose of the Bulk Schedule for Residential Districts is to ensure properties are developed in a manner that provides the appropriate amount of open space between building lots with appropriately sized buildings. Thus the size and location for each of the proposed homes are C -21 limited" Unfortunately this is not the case, the houses can be almost unlimited in size based on the Bulk Schedule. Positive Declaration 5a continued: "Minimize introduction of design components (including utility lines, lighting, signage and fencing) which would be discordant with the existing scenic components and character) On page 4 -10 of the DEIS "the project shall provide aesthetically pleasing views of the open space and active farmland" 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 lots, C -22 landscaped buffers per 240 -43 are not indicated and potential hedges and fences are not C -23 addressed. Additionally, the 4,000 sf barn is directly on axis with the view from Old Farm Road. Positive Declaration 5a continued: "Protect visual quality associated with agricultural land, open space and natural resources." Two of the properties associated with the Hallock Farm are within 500 feet of the proposed subdivision. These properties, along with several others just outside of the 500' buffer, are indicated on figure 5.1 of the Southold Comprehensive Plan as listed by the Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities. The Hallock Farm was an innovative and prosperous farm that helped shape the community of Orient. As I have mentioned in past correspondence, Halyoake Avenue was formerly the driveway approach to Hallock Farm from Orchard Street. Attached is figure 5.1 and additional information about the Hallock Farm Complex. The rural C -24 nature of the Orchard and Halyoake corner is still mostly intact, and will be permanently spoiled by the addition of four potentially massive houses. C -25 This proposal does not "enhance the visual quality and protect scenic resources" and there are no safeguards in place to insure that the structures that will be built will not seriously detract from the C -26 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 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. A -71 C -4 Based on design standards established by 240 -45 both of the non - compliant flag lots should be eliminated. 7. Assessment of the No Action Alternative These six points outlined in the DEIS are of questionable mitigation value: 1. "Return fallow agricultural land to productive use" Is there anything stopping this owner from farming this land as is? C -28 2. "Permanently protect 60% of the agricultural land comprising the subject property from future development though an environmental conservation easement ". Even more of the property could be open space or the land could be sold to a trust or individual who would preserve all of the land as open space. 3. "Create new modest size residential homes to provide additional housing in the community" 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 ". 4. "Control of vegetation to enhance scenic vistas from the abutting roadways. " This DEIS claims that the view sheds will be improved because the land will be cleared of overgrowth and if no action is taken "existing vegetation would go unchecked and eventually consume the property ". I don't believe anyone would object to the owner maintaining his vacant property. 5. "Increase the annual tax revenue" C -30 This cannot be denied. However the increase in density and use of limited resources doesn't offset this gain. The conversion of farmland to residential use in order to produce tax revenue on the one hand is contradictory to the use of preservation funds to conserve farmland on the other. 6. "Removal of contaminants from the aquifer via filtration of domestic water for proposed homes" 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. The following concerns mentioned in the Full Environmental Assessment Form, were not mentioned in the Positive Declaration: C -32 Impact on Flooding When it was farmed, the eastern end of this site was prone to ponding and flooding. While the site is not in a currently designated FEMA flood zone, it is susceptible to storm surge. Part of lot #5 is located within an area expected to be impacted by a storm surge 6 -8 feet above normal, with the majority of the lots 2,3 and 4 in storm surge zone 3 (9 -12 feet above normal) . https:// gis3. suffolkcouintynny .gov /sheiterlocator/ C -33 Impacts on Plants and Animals While there may, or may not be any threatened or endangered species inhabiting this site, there are certainly plenty of deer there. The DEIS suggests that the wildlife (squirrels, rabbits and birds) will move to the adjacent conserved properties and then repopulate the site, avoiding 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. 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. C -35 This subdivision should not be allowed to proceed as proposed. We have owned our 200 year old farmhouse for 26 years and in that time development has very slowly changed the character of the Village of Orient. We are now at a tipping point where the pace of development has increased while we approach a precipitous limit in resources. 7 acres of corn is a Trojan Horse that does not justify the density of development outlined in this subdivision proposal. What is described in the DEIS as "mitigation" is only the bare minimum required by code (and sometimes not even that! I believe it is antithetical to the goals of the Southold Town Comprehensive Plan- Community Character and severely detrimental to the beauty, character and sustainability of the Orient community. Sincerely, Barbara Friedman 7 A -72 Commenter P -3 3180 Orchard Street Orient, New York 11957 631 - 323 -3501 November 3, 2020 Donald Wilcenski, Chairman Members, Southold Town Planning Board Re: "The Orchards" subdivision, SCTM 41000- 21 -7 -3 Dear Members: A -73 C" P-7 H c kA T- RECEIVE-D NOV 1 2 2020 Sout o Town Planning Board I live across Orchard Street from the property under consideration. I would like to call the Board's attention to the history of the development of the original Hallock Farms property, which is immediately across Halyoke Road from "the Orchards" and also to its north ( Halyoke was originally a Hallock Farms road, and the original Hallock farmhouse is farther along the road). Some forty years ago a developer (Mr. Horowitz) proposed to build a pseudo - "colonial" village of approximately 50 homes on the 60 or so acres of the farm. Ruth Oliva of Orient was president of the North Fork Environmental Council, and the Council was extremely concerned about the effect if this kind of intensive development on the fragile Orient aquifer ( "too many straws "). The Council led a town -wide effort to halt this development, inducing a variety of State and County officials to conduct extensive tests on the property, leading to the recommendation of an extreme reduction of the planned development. The result was a subdivision of the property into five and ten -acre plots, with carefully separated building envelopes to prevent intensive draw on the aquifer in any one area. 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. By this standard, the property should support no more than two building sites, with carefully separated C -37 building envelopes. 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. $inc el Fredrica Wachsberger Commenter P -4 Robin Long Mayer 2265 King Street Orient, NY 11957 November 8, 2020 Donald Wilcenski, Chairman And member of the Southold Planning Board 54375 State Road 25 Southold, NY 11971 RE: the Orchards Subdivision SCTM #1000- 21 -7 -3 RECEIVED A -74 J NOV 3 0 2020 Southold Town Planning Board As per the research conducted by fellow Orient resident, Barbara Friedman, the proposal for the "the Orchards" development has many faults, not least of which the following points which appear not to be code compliant. C -3 Based on Town Code - Article XI Cluster Development 240 -42 - H.(4): Roads, streets and rights -of -way may not be included in the calculation of the minimum required open space. The area of the conservation easement is based on 16' right of way for Lot #1 driveway. The State requires a 25 foot clearing and in a letter dated March 6, 2015 the Town Highway Engineer said the Right of Way should be 25 feet. The additional 9 feet of right of way increases the size of Lot #1 to 1.4744 acres and reduces the conserved area by .1218 acres. This would bring the Conservation Area below the 60% required threshold. C -4 Based on Town Code Article XII Design Standards 240 -45 for flag lots: D. Flag lots: The Planning Board may permit a limited number of flag lots in a residential subdivision plat provided they're well shaped, they are generally larger than usual lots... (1) to assure that the flag lot is of adequate size and shape, a flag lot located within the residential zones shall contain at least the minimum lot area of the applicable zoning district in which it is situated. within the bulk of the lot, exclusive of the area contained in the flagpole access strip. Both Lots 2 and 3 are flag lots and they are NOT larger than usual lots. I am not sure what "usual lots" means, but the average size of 17 abutting lots is 2.5 acres, based on current tax maps. I would suggest that Lots 2 and 3 should therefore be at least the minimum required in R -80 zoning which is 80,000 square feet. Lot #2 is inadequately sized for even R -40 zoning, which requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 sf. When the 3,169sf access strip is deducted from the area of Lot #2, the result is below the 40,000sf threshold. C -38 Additionally, of great concern is how over - development is going to impact our A -75 Ground -water as well as nitrogen and chemical runoff into our surrounding bays. Remember Scallops? What goes next? Orient has become a popular spot to visit and move to. And so the developers have followed in an effort to profit from that popularity. We fear there is little thought or care for the impact their "developments" will have on our beautiful town. Should we allow this to happen? We want to prevent becoming simply the source of profit for developers from out of the area. Sincerely, Robin Mayer A -76 From: Barbara Cohen <bjcohen @att.net> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 8:42 AM NOV 220 To: Lanza, Heather Soutnoid Town Cc: Terry, Mark; Michaelis, Jessica; Nancy Ferraris Planning Board Subject: "Orchards" Subdivision - SCTM# 1000- 27 -1 -3 - Ferraris u mission or ec t N Attachments: Ferraris - Submission 2595 Orchard St DEIS - Prelim. Plat - Nov 23 2020.pdf Dear Ms. Lanza, In advance of the upcoming Dec. 7th public hearing and on behalf of Nancy and Mark Ferraris, resident owners at 3585 Orchard St, Orient, I am submitting their response to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat. Attached is the full document. Please confirm receipt. Thanks very much! Barbara J. Cohen PO Box 391 Peconic, NY 11958 917.562.4290 ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. 1 C -3 C -4 C -7 Commenter P -5 November 12, 2020 Brian Fuhrmann Maria Marill 2620 Orchard Street Orient, New York 11957 Donald Wilcenski, Chairman And Members of the Southold Planning Board 54375 State Road 25 Southold, New York 11971 Re: The Orchards Subdivision SCTM # 1000- 21 -7 -3 A -77 RECEIVED r✓ NOV 2 3 2020 ':ward %OpCI Our property is directly across from this proposed subdivision. We are concerned as to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Orchards Subdivision which was accepted for public review this past September 28, 2020. There are specific aspects to this project that seem to be out of the local code requirements. Some of which we present as follows; 1— That being that "roads, streets and rights -of -way may not be included in the calculation of the minimum required open space" — It appears from the plan that due to including the aforementioned in the proposal, the Conservation area set aside falls below the requirements of sixty (60) percent. 2 — The flag lots proposed are inadequately sized based on Town Code Article X11 Design standards for such lots. Based on current tax maps abutting lots should be 2.5 acres. Further, it is clearfrom the DEIS that there must be assessed the; 1. impact on Surface Water 2. Impact on Ground Water It is our understanding 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 saltwater intrusion into our freshwater 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. C -12 In addition, the DEIS does not fully address the 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? Our property stands on land that was many years ago farmed. 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 -21 We are further concerned as to the aesthetic impact of the DEIS. 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" 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. Once precedents are established there is no going back!!! C -26 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 should be part of an overaI l visual impact study. We strongly believe with others who have provided a tangible and comprehensive response of this proposal that it is not aligned with Southold's Town Comprehensive Plan, Orients Communities history and character, and thus must be modified going forward. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration in reviewing and changing the DEIS as currently proposed. Best Regards Brun Fuhrmann 2620 Orchard St. Orient, NY 11957 Maria Marill 2620 Orchard St. Orient, NY 11957 From: Lanza, Heather Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 3:16 PM To: Michaelis, Jessica Subject: FW: Sub division Orchards Commenter P -6 From: DILORENZO [mailto:lorenzolake @optimum.net] Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 8:47 PM To: Lanza, Heather < heather .lanza @town.southold.ny.us> Subject: Sub division Re: Sub Division /Orchard Street, Orient To Whom It May Concern, A -79 RECEIVED E2 South 0 3 2020 'a ­own Planning Board My husband and I are full time residents living on Platt Road for 20 years. The sub division in question is behind us and it is a BIG question indeed. This subject came up years ago and was denied for the same reasons it should be denied again along with more reasons than ever. The landscape in Orient is changing quickly with large homes being constructed in the village area including a 12,000 plus square foot home on Narrow River Road a half mile away from this C -7 "subdivision ". 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. The idea of five homes being constructed on this property is preposterous and I am 100% not in favor of it. Sincerely, Laura Westlake - DiLorenzo & Dominick DiLorenzo 1340 Platt Road Orient, NY 11957 ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. Commenter P -7 Nancy and Mark Ferraris 3585 Orchard Street ♦ Orient NY 11971 nancyferraris @me.com ♦ 516.375.8149 November 23, 2020 Ms. Heather Lanza, Director Town Planning Department Town of Southold Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 ME Via Email: heather .lanza @town.southold.ny.us mark. terry @town. southold. ny. us Re: Draft EIS for Subdivision Approval of "The Orchards" - Dated August 2020 Proposed "Cluster" Subdivision" 2595 Orchard Street, Orient NY SCTM # 1000 -27- 1 -3 Dear Director Lanza and Board Members: We are resident owners of 3585 Orchard Street, a corner property at Halyoke Avenue, opposite the subject site's Halyoke Avenue frontage (SCTM # 1000 -27 -2- 2.10). We have been an active member of the Orient community for over 25 years and spoke to this proposed subdivision in 2015, along with others in the community.' The key findings and recommendations are based on a review of the application materials (including both conditional approved and proposed plans) and the first Draft EIS document, the subject of the upcoming public hearing on December 7, 2020. Moreover, the following recognizes and is in full support of the recent submission by Barbara Friedman (resident of 835 Halyoke Avenue, Orient; SCTM# 1000- 27 -1 -7). 2 Duplication and repetition is avoided, as Ms. Friedman's detailed response addresses many specific issues in the DEIS, and are supported by the findings in agency reports 1 Public Comments (25 + pages) at May 4 2015 Sketch Plan Public Hearing provide cogent responses still relevant today. 2 See Exhibit 1— Friedman Letter — Oct 31, 2020 Nancy and Mark Ferraris A=81 that confirm the proposed development generates multiple adverse impacts and nominal mitigating measures are offered.3 Therefore, this submission aims to build on Ms. Friedman's analysis, revisit key issues that haven't been addressed, and make comment specific to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat -- all clear evidence that the DEIS and its reliance on a Proposed Preliminary Plat is very problematic and comes up short in evaluating the full impact of the proposed development at the subject site. Key Findings & Recommendations A. Multiple Plans: Conditionally Approved, Proposed, and Premature Referenced in the DEIS (pages 2 -3, 2 -4, 2 -12, 3 -5, 3 -6, 4 -2, Appendix) are different plans used as a basis for different reports. The initial review reflected the "5 Lot" Yield Map (6 -5 -2005) based on Existing R -80 Zoning, the Conditionally Approved Sketch Plan (6 -15 -2013) (Appendix P) and the Existing Resource & Site Analysis Plan (10 -17 -2013) based on Sketch Plan Lot Configuration. The Applicant's significant departure from the Conditionally Approved Sketch Plan is represented by the Proposed Preliminary Plat for Standard Clustered Subdivision (1 -21- 2015) (Appendix B). This Proposed Preliminary Plat does little to address the many concerns expressed early on and are still relevant today. In fact, this Proposed C -39 Preliminary Plat is a clear disregard for the goals for future land use and zoning reflected in the Town's Vision Statement and Comprehensive Plan as well as County and State Conservation planning. Regardless, the Applicant's DEIS seeks to defend the Proposed Preliminary Plat and fails to demonstrate its benefits. More proposed and premature plans are put forth in an effort to provide mitigation and support for the proposed development scheme. Existing Resources & Site Analysis Plan (11 -18 -2017) based on Proposed Preliminary Plat Lot Configuration (Appendix C) Proposed Subdivision Map with Corrected Building Envelopes (July 8, 2020) (Appendix Y) • Proposed Subdivision Map with Sanitary Systems and Water Wells for Suffolk County Department of Health Services June 18, 2019 (Appendix G) 3 Planning Board Positive Declaration; Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) "INCONSISTENT" conclusion; Comments and requests in numerous Planning Board Staff Memos and other Town Departments and jurisdictions, including but not limited to, Alternate Plans and Visual Impact Study. Nancy and Mark Ferraris 2 82 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. Furthermore, seeking review and approval by the C -41 Suffolk County Health Department, prior to Town's SEQRA Determination, and Preliminary Plat Approval, is presumptuous and leads to more confusion. Planning Board clarification in assisting public input is required to define purpose of December 7, 2020 hearing - -- are we to focus on the quality and incompleteness of the DEIS document, or the Proposed Preliminary Plat, or both? Even though much work has been done and this Proposed Preliminary Plat has served as the basis for the Town s SEQRA Positive Declaration dated July 6, 2015, the LRWP Assessment dated April 15, 2015, and review by various agencies, it is critical that the Planning Board stay firm in its recognition of the shortcomings of the Proposed Preliminary Plat and current DEIS and work further to demand better from the Applicant. C -42 The Applicant s impatience and reluctance to respond to key issues should not replace nor lessen the Planning Department s authority to make plan modifications according to Article IX Cluster Development, Section 240 -42 A. The Preliminary Plat Review phase of the subdivision approval process is critical to shaping the final subdivision map of the subject site and reflects the Town s commitment to the fundamental guiding principles for rational and appropriate land development. B. Balancing Developer Profits and Town Vision C -43 The subject site at 13.3 acres is currently guided by the area's R -80 zoning district and is informed by its historical context and the goals represented by the Village of Orient Historic District with its eastern boundary at Tabor Road, just 880 feet from the subject C -44 site. Moreover, the surrounding properties defining the existing neighborhood character reflect lot sizes between 1.5 acres to 6 acres providing a rural, not suburban, landscape profile. The initial Yield Map for 5 Lots combined with the goals of the Cluster subdivision approach applied to the larger than 7 acre subject site has put the Applicant /Developer interests and the Town's Vision at odds with each other. Source of Conflict: Number of Lots, Lot Sizes and Split Cluster Configuration The determination by the Applicant to achieve 5 residential lots utilizing the R -40 lot size and setback criteria is at the expense of the natural and scenic values of the open space goals of the Cluster development provision and the Town's Vision. As discussed C -45 below, it is even questionable as to whether the Cluster development approach, yielding only 8 acres of open space (including a 4,000 sf Barn building), is the best thinking for the development of the site and its impact on the community. Even though the Cluster provision allows for modification of the underlying zoning district, the key elements of Nancy and Mark Ferraris the existing R -80 district (minimum 2 acre lot size and deeper setbacks) should not be abandoned in its entirety. In considering any proposed plan, it is essential to envision the full build -out and the C -46 desire of developer and prospective homeowners to build to the maximum and then to ensure privacy. Once setbacks are defined, the allowable buildable area, following the shape of the lot, sets the parameters for design and construction. With small lot sizes C -47 as presented in the Proposed Preliminary Plat, the building lots may be predisposed to seek ZBA waivers to reduce setbacks and other requirements to accommodate a large house, pool, cabana /other accessory structures, and possible tennis court on a site An undersized lot as defined by a subdivision can become the "hardship" justification for granting the variance, increase levels of activity on each site, prompting evergreen screening along property lines for privacy and noise buffers. For example, in the Proposed Preliminary Plan, the full build -out scenario for the very C -48 crowded east and southeast portion of the subject site would result in negating any historical reference to "famous" Hallock Farm and its Halyoke Avenue approach and natural or scenic values along the 701 feet of combined Halyoke Avenue frontage and the Orchard Street portion east of the existing house on Lot 4.4 Any scenic value associated with the remaining Orchard Street frontage (approximately C -49 400 feet west of Lot 4) is similarly diminished as 8 foot high deer fencing would surround all of Lot 1 (residential house, agricultural barn, and open space), the driveway entrance and gate, the residential building on a 1.35 acre lot and the separate 4,000 square foot barn all stand in the way and interrupt any scenic value perceived to be gained by the relatively small (under 8 acres) open space under the "cluster" configuration of the subject site lots. The split - cluster lot configuration created by allowing a larger residential building lot, C -50 agricultural building and access road, all as part of the privately -held Lot 1, is excessive and unacceptable, as all the benefits go to the Applicant /Developer with none to the Town. Moreover, the owner of Lot 1 not only gets value from the residential building on the largest lot with the most surrounding open space, but also can gain additional income by leasing the farmland portion the site. Finally, the owner of Lot 1 can benefit financially from either income tax credits or generate cash by selling the open space conservation easement to a land trust.5 Without further discussion of the serious negative impact on water supply and quality as well as the important role the Open Space Conservation Easement document to define C -51 restrictions, the Proposed Preliminary Plat (1 -21 -2015) itself clearly demonstrates that the benefits to the Applicant /Developer far exceeds the Town's nominal increase in the property tax base. 4 See Exhibit 2 — Hallock Farm; Cultural Resources; Historic Bldg Inventory s See Exhibit 3 — "14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020) You Should Know" Nancy and Mark Ferraris 4 We strongly suggest that the Planning Board use its authority to modify the Proposed Preliminary Plat and provide a more equitable and fair balance between the Applicant s interests and the Town s Vision. For example, fewer number of lots, more reflective of the R -80 regulations and neighborhood character, achieved by removing the Lot 1 residential building lot, reallocating excess lot area to remaining four lots or less. An alternative design can then be assessed for its impact on critical water issues. C. DEIS — Critical Shortcomings Water Water Everywhere: Not Enough ... Not Safe to Drink Perhaps the most critical shortcoming in the DEIS is the impact of the development C- 6;C -15 (particularly its density) on both water supply and quality, covered in Section 3.2 for a total of 4 '/2 pages. On page 3 -4, there is recognition that "The subject site is not served by a community water supply. A potential impact from the project would be depletion of the groundwater supply lying beneath the subject property." However, the DEIS avoids any hydrogeologic analysis regarding the severe limitations of Orient's groundwater supply. In fact, a document search for the word "aquifer" is virtually absent from the DEIS, except for in the Town's Positive Declaration in Appendix A. As the adjacent property to the southeast, we will be the first impacted by the quality of the groundwater as it flows towards Long Beach Bay. Perhaps the most disturbing and confusing series of events occurs between 2016 and 2019, where the Applicant's test well results in 2016 not only show the contamination but also SCDHS remarks regarding the depth to water of less than 40 feet (Appendix L) and the need to restrict lot size conforming to the current R -80 zoning. Then by 2019, different well test results C -52 appear to allow for the SCDHS Board Review & Variance (Appendix H) where lot size restrictions are removed.6 Is cherry - picking results an acceptable approach to ignoring a well -known and documented concern regarding the fragile Orient water supply? C -53 The Applicant's DEIS continues to push the Suffolk County Health Department lot size determination that 13 houses can be supported, but that the proposed plan only provides for 5 houses and an irrigation well for farming. Further, the DEIS spins the facts of contaminated water transformed by water filtration technology to conclude that the filtered water discharged into the groundwater has no impact to water supply nor water quality, it is a benefit created by the development! Really? The Applicant's DEIS addresses water related issues and the use of fertilizer associated with the farming of the open space by simply assigning it to NYSDEC reporting (for C -12 subject site only) and best farming management practices. The broad -brush statements about this and other issues require more specification. s See Exhibit 4 — Select Pages DEIS; Appendix L and H Nancy and Marl-, Ferraris P On prior occasions, the Planning Board and others have expressed concerns relating to water issues and development densities. For example, as recent as June 27, 2017, the Planning Board disapproved ZBA #7063, a proposed variance request to split a 4.2 acre parcel in a R -80 zone at 2050 Platt Road (SCTM 1000- 27 -1 -9), recognizing the sensitive area of Orient and its sole source aquifer and the impact on ground and surface waters as a result of increased residential density. 7 The "Settlers at Oysterponds" subdivision created in 1984, located directly opposite the subject site at Halyoke Avenue and Orchard Street, was also challenged by constraints and concerns surrounding water issues, influencing the density and configuration of the lots. A proposed plan for 47 house lots on 67 +- acres was reduced to 10 building lots (minimum 5 acres) due to water and other concerns.$ 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. D. Devil in the Details: Open Space Conservation Easement I Covenants, Restrictions & Maintenance Agreements C -55 The Open Space Conservation Easement "sample" (2011) provided in Appendix D is irrelevant to subject site's scale and complexity of the proposed development as presented in the Proposed Preliminary Plat. The adjacent property at 2295 Orchard Street (SCTM # 1000- 27- 1 -2.3) is a 6 acre parcel with an allowable 1,000 square foot agricultural building compared to the proposed 4,000 square foot barn building, access drive to a proposed 1.35 acre residential building lot. Although it may be premature during this SEQRA Determination step of the Proposed Preliminary Plat Review to craft the Open Space Conservation Easement as well as the Covenants, Restrictions, and Maintenance Agreements, it is important to evaluate any subdivision plan and how it informs these agreements and provides a level of confidence that implementation and enforcement will be strict and rigorous in defending the goals and objectives of the final approved subdivision. Simply put, a more complex subdivision plan requires a more complex set of agreements that are more likely to be challenged at a later date and uncertain enforcement. More specifically, a subdivision with multiple land uses and activities will prompt special attention and detailed agreements to issues that include, but not limited to the following: 7 See Exhibit 5 — ZBA #7063 Determination with Planning Board Disapproval Letter 8 See Laserfiche — Town Of Southold > Planning Department > Applications > Major Subdivision (MJ) > Approved > 1000- 27. -2 -2.1 Nancy and Mark Ferraris 6 — 'YLOV,t,ee.�,� Y l �11A.QGN ..., -V`a's IWMI : t6l ITIM; Barbara Friedman 835 Halyoke Avenue PO Box 11 Orient NY, 11957 October 31, 2020 Donald Wilcenski, Chairman And members of the Southold Planning Board 54375 State Road 25 Southold, NY 11971 Re: The Orchards Subdivision SUM # 1000- 21 -7 -3 I am deeply concerned about the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Orchards Subdivision accepted for public review on September 28, 2020. Two aspects of this project appear to not be code compliant: • Based on Town Code - Article XI Cluster Development 240 -42 - H.(4): Roads, streets and rights -of -way may not be included in the calculation of the minimum required open space. The area of the conservation easement is based on 16' right of way for Lot #1 driveway. The State requires a 25 foot clearing and in a letter dated March 6, 2015 the Town Highway Engineer said the Right of Way should be 25 feet. The additional 9 feet of right of way increases the size of Lot #1 to 1.4744 acres and reduces the conserved area by .1218 acres. This would bring the Conservation Area below the 60% required threshold. Based on Town Code Article XII Design Standards 240 -45 for flag lots: D. Flag lots: The Planning Board may permit a limited number of flag lots in a residential subdivision plat provided they're well shaped, they are generally larger than usual lots... (1) to assure that the flag lot is of adequate size and shape, a flag lot located within the residential zones shall contain at least the minimum lot area of the applicable zoning district in which it is situated, within the bulk of the lot, exclusive of the area contained in the flagpole access strip. Both Lots 2 and 3 are flag lots and they are NOT larger than usual lots. I am not sure what "usual lots" means, but the average size of 17 abutting lots is 2.5 acres, based on current tax maps. I would suggest that Lots 2 and 3 should therefore be at least the minimum required in R- 80 zoning which is 80,000 square feet. Lot #2 is inadequately sized for even R -40 zoning, which requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 sf. When the 3,169 sf access strip is deducted from the area of Lot #2, the result is below the 40,000 sf threshold. This subdivision should not be allowed to proceed without corrections to non - compliant conditions and recalculations of conservation and open space areas for all aspects of the proposal. Addressing the DEIS in terms of its response to the areas of concern outlined in the Positive Declaration: 1. Impacts on Surface Water: The Positive Declaration states "The impacts of the new sanitary systems proposed on down gradient surface water must be assessed" The DEIS suggests that Suffolk County Sanitary Code would yield 13 homes, and therefore 5 is a mitigation of impact. Town Bulk Regulations would only allow 6 homes so the proposal should not be held up against the County standards. The DEIS proposes standard sanitary systems and merely states that since the SCDHS gave them approval, it must be okay. To my knowledge, the DEIS does not assess the impacts of sanitary systems on down gradient surface water at all. 2. Impacts on Groundwater Positive Declaration 2a "Potential adverse impacts to groundwater quality and quantity could be severe and boundless and must be assessed. The probability of the impact occurring is moderate and could affect the area population" According to the Southold Town Comprehensive Plan "Water supply projections indicate that Southold will need additional water sources by 2030 ". 1 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 uifer in Orient needs to be protected too! According to the Comprehensive Plan, the pace of "build -out" has already picked up, and the predictions of a few years ago should be adjusted for the new normal of COVID -19, which has not only created more water demand from existing houses being used full -time, but has also created an even greater urgency to build additional homes on existing individual lots. Again the DEIS states that since the SCDHS gave them approval it must be okay. To my knowledge, the DEIS does not address the quantity of water available based on projected water use for this project and the homes that share this resource. In addition to the five new homes proposed, the DEIS states that the NYSDEC permit allows maximum of 4 million gallons a year to be used for crop irrigation. This is a staggering number, equivalent to 62 -120 homes. The DEC approval requires testing the irrigation well for salt -water intrusion twice a year, acknowledging the threat of salt water intrusion. The DEIS does NOT adequately address the site specific availability of groundwater for the proposed use and there seems to be no consideration for water conservation. The DEIS does not address the effects on the quality of the water for the area population. If salt water intrusion occurs in the irrigation well, it likely means that there will be salt water intrusion in neighboring residential wells too. The applicant should be required to identify the salt water interface and evaluate the impacts of pumping. The proposed subdivision has the potential to impact the fresh water supply for the whole village. I M question the DEIS statement on page 3 -6 that "SCDHS" approval would not have been issued had the SCDHS review identified significant impact ". The SCDHS is looking at narrow legislated parameters covering all of Suffolk County. It is imperative that the Town of Southold protect the available potable water supply for the residents of Orient. Positive Declaration 2d:" Assessment of potential impacts to groundwater from new sanitary systems (pharmaceuticals and personal care products) pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers must be included. Impacts to adjacent properties must also be discussed ". The DEIS does NOT address the concerns for potential impacts to groundwater and adjacent properties of discharge of pharmaceuticals, personal care products,VOCs, pesticides or herbicides from the residential properties. The DEIS does not address the use of fertilizers and pesticides except to say that "Best Management Practices" will be implemented. There is no mention of Integrated Pest Management. I am not a farmer, but I am told that sweet corn is especially susceptible to pests and can require frequent pesticide applications (more than once a week). Is this really appropriate in a residential area, and in particular within 100' of two private wells? The wells for 2650 Orchard and Lot #2, along with the irrigation well for the proposed farmland are within 100' of the proposed farmed acreage (these areas should be mapped, cannot be used as farmland and should be deducted in all area calculations). Even with Integrated Pest Management, most of the pesticides used to control corn pests are toxic sprays. The DEIS does not propose the use of I/A sanitary systems, proposes a crop that requires an abundance of fertilizer and pesticides and offers "turf grass" in the unfarmed open space. There is no mention of how the new sanitary systems might mitigate the impact of the pharmaceutical, personal care products etc. Positive Declaration 2f: A discussion of the current groundwater quality, contamination and impacts on the proposed action and adjacent properties must be included: The water on the site was in fact found to contain excessive nitrates and Aldicarbs. The DEIS states that the homes will require filters for excessive Aldicarbs. According to SCDHS private Water Systems Standards 406.4 -15 if water exceeds MCL and treatment is required a "covenant regarding water treatment must appear on all realty subdivision and development maps" I don't see this covenant on any site maps. The test well for Lot 2 also exceeded the allowable for Nitrates, and yet an I/A Sanitary system was not proposed. What will the effects be on neighboring properties quality and quantity of drinking water? The overall impact of the additional demand for water has not been assessed and the overall impact of wastewater has not been assessed. Why is there no consideration given for conservation or alternative sources of irrigation water, such as using drip irrigation, gray water recycling and rain water collection? Why isn't there any mention of drought- resistant plantings or limitations on irrigation and fertilization for the areas anticipated to be "turf grass." Why was a potentially water and pesticide intensive crop selected for farming? Why weren't I/A sanitary systems proposed at the outset, and if the SCDHS has approved the site plan, will I/A sanitary systems be required (after July 2021)? A -91 3. Impact on Agricultural Resources Positive Declaration 3a "The conversion of farmland to residential use is INCONSISTENT with the Town of Southold Local Waterfront revitalization Program Policies" As mentioned above, the conserved area will not meet the 60% criteria for open space when the Lot #1 and Lot #2 are corrected for code compliance unless some building lots are eliminated. The configuration of the conserved area is not conducive to agricultural use with several notches that will be difficult to plant and maintain. Why is the designated area for the barn separate from the farmhouse? This does not seem to conform with the intent of the code. The DEIS argues that the sale of four homes/ home lots is necessary to support the agricultural uses. When this proposal was first submitted, the owner said that this was going to be a family compound, which presumably would not generate income to support the agricultural uses. Lot #1, which has been presented as the owner's personal residence is not clustered with the other lots, instead it is in the northwest corner of the site to take advantage of conservation easements of neighboring properties rather than be clustered with the other homes. The split cluster layout of the site does not suggest a family compound, it looks more like a plantation except that the low lying land to the southeast will not be populated by farm workers, but by wealthy second home owners who can afford 1 -2 million dollar homes. At the planning board meeting on April 6, 2015 the owner stated that "we are not going to do spec houses" and yet the DEIS suggests that is the intent. The owner should clarify how many houses he intends to build himself, and will they be built on spec or for his family? The proposed layout appears to maximize the profit from new homes, not maximize the continuity of the open space or its viability as farmland. 4. Impact on Archeological Resources Based on historical maps, this appears to be "virgin" land, never having been built on. However, there are adjacent parcels which are included in the Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Southold as having historic value. See attached documentation of the Hallock Farm, and description below. 5. Impacts on Aesthetic Resources Positive Declaration 5a. "The potential impact for the siting and scale of homes could be moderate to large based on lot size." While the DEIS indicates that the five homes will be "modest sized" with footprints of approximately 1750 sf and overall square footage of 3,500 sf. Once the lots are subdivided, it seems that the Town has almost no control over what will be built on the individual lots. There is presently almost no limitation on the sizes of the homes, and while there are very stringent oversight of what is built in the nearby Historic District, there are no rules at all about the design quality of these homes. These "structural design components ", potentially very LARGE homes, will have clear negative impact on the "visual quality and scenic resources" at the very center of Orient. Based on 20% lot coverage, the FOOTPRINTS of these houses can be up to: Lot 1 approximately 11,783 sf (not including additional ROW acreage) Lot 2 approximately 8,600 sf (based on current non - compliant plat) Lot 3 approximately 9,960 sf 4 A -92 Lot 4 approximately 8,000 sf Lot 5 approximately 8,000 sf. Total Buildable (House) Area = 46,343 sf Barn footprint 4,000 sf Total Area of Buildings = 50,343 sf equals 1.16 acres Table 1 of the DEIS has the Total Area of buildings at .2927 acres, which seems to be based on 5 houses with footprints of 1,750 sf + 4,000 sf barn. Page 4 -10 of the DEIS states "A primary purpose of the Bulk Schedule for Residential Districts is to ensure properties are developed in a manner that provides the appropriate amount of open space between building lots with appropriately sized buildings. Thus the size and location for each of the proposed homes are limited" Unfortunately this is not the case, the houses can be almost unlimited in size based on the Bulk Schedule. Positive Declaration 5a continued: "Minimize introduction of design components (including utility lines, lighting, signage and fencing) which would be discordant with the existing scenic components and character) On page 4 -10 of the DEIS "the project shall provide aesthetically pleasing views of the open space and active farmland" There is no mention of fencing in the DEIS. Clearly, there will need to be an 8 foot fence surrounding the agricultural land. The statement that this will be an "aesthetically pleasing view" of an 8 foot fence and the owner's home in the distance, is highly subjective. Potential hedges and fences on the other lots are also not addressed. Positive Declaration 5a continued: "Protect visual quality associated with agricultural land, open space and natural resources." Two of the properties associated with the Hallock Farm are within 500 feet of the proposed subdivision. These properties, along with several others just outside of the 500' buffer, are indicated on figure 5.1 of the Southold Comprehensive Plan as listed by the Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities. The Hallock Farm was an innovative and prosperous farm that helped shape the community of Orient. As I have mentioned in past correspondence, Halyoake Avenue was formerly the driveway approach to Hallock Farm from Orchard Street. Attached is figure 5.1 and additional information about the Hallock Farm Complex. The rural nature of the Orchard and Halyoake corner is still mostly intact, and will be permanently spoiled by the addition of four houses. Additionally, the 4,000 sf barn is directly on axis with the view from Old Farm Road. This proposal does not "enhance the visual quality and protect scenic resources" and there are no safeguards in place to insure that the structures that will be built will not seriously detract from the visual qualities of the area. We would like to see a full visual impact study showing the impact of the maximum sized homes and barn. Considering the proximity to the Orient Historic District and to the Hallock Farm Complex, the houses and the barn should all be contextual in design, restricted in height above natural grade, and limited in footprint in order to maintain the aesthetics and character of the area. 5 A -93 Based on design standards established by 240 -45 both of the non - compliant flag lots should be eliminated. 7. Assessment of the No Action Alternative These six points outlined in the DEIS are of questionable mitigation value: V'Return fallow agricultural land to productive use" Is there anything stopping this owner from farming this land as is? 2. "Permanently protect 60% of the agricultural land comprising the subject property from future development though an environmental conservation easement ". Even more of the property could be open space or the land could be sold to a trust or individual who would preserve all of the land as open space. 3. "Create new modest size residential homes to provide additional housing in the community" If these lots are sold at current prices for real estate in Orient, they will not be modestly priced. The estimate of cost to build these homes in the DEIS is very conservatively posited at $150 /sf. Homes recently built in Orient are about twice that. So with the cost of land being around $600 per acre, and the cost of a 3,500 sf home at $1,050,000, this is not the type of housing that Orient "needs ". 4. "Control of vegetation to enhance scenic vistas from the abutting roadways. " This DEIS claims that the view sheds will be improved because the land will be cleared of overgrowth and if no action is taken "existing vegetation would go unchecked and eventually consume the property ". I don't believe anyone would object to the owner maintaining his vacant property. 5. "Increase the annual tax revenue" This cannot be denied. However the increase in density and use of limited resources doesn't offset this gain. The conversion of farmland to residential use in order to produce tax revenue on the one hand is contradictory to the use of preservation funds to conserve farmland on the other. 6. "Removal of contaminants from the aquifer via filtration of domestic water for proposed homes" This is lipstick on a pig. The following concerns mentioned in the Full Environmental Assessment Form, were not mentioned in the Positive Declaration: Imoact on Floodin When it was farmed, the eastern end of this site was prone to ponding and flooding. While the site is not in a currently designated FEMA flood zone, it is susceptible to storm surge. Part of lot #5 is located within an area expected to be impacted by a storm surge 6 -8 feet above normal, with the majority of the lots 2,3 and 4 in storm surge zone 3 (9 -12 feet above normal) . https:// gis3. suffolkcountVny .gov /shelterlocator/ Impacts on Plants and Animals While there may, or may not be any threatened or endangered species inhabiting this site, there are certainly plenty of deer there. The DEIS suggests that the wildlife (squirrels, rabbits and birds) will move to the adjacent conserved properties and then repopulate the site, avoiding A-94 the subject of deer altogether. The 8' deer fence that will inevitably surround the farmed area will not allow the deer to repopulate this site. As more and more fences are erected the deer become more of a problem for homeowners who do not wish to, or cannot fence in their properties, and to drivers as the deer dart across the roads instead of open fields. In addition the street trees should not be in ROW- they are supposed to be on private property- see Town Code - Article III Roadway Construction 161 -44 B. This subdivision should not be allowed to proceed as proposed. We have owned our 200 year old farmhouse for 26 years and in that time development has very slowly changed the character of the Village of Orient. We are now at a tipping point where the pace of development has increased while we approach a precipitous limit in resources. 7 acres of corn is a Trojan Horse that does not justify the density of development outlined in this subdivision proposal. I believe it is antithetical to the goals of the Southold Town Comprehensive Plan, Community Character and severely detrimental to the character and sustainability of the Orient community. Sincerely, Barbara Friedman 7 W:(:i M V E E V R V d Y V O O n a a N .3, N i a W � N Oia rcaAJ _ � o 'r atlnM+o�YI 9 oy �.f O � D= c • y N _ ilk o LU Y o . J 1 1 j g � - g 0 Q z � - � o � a - c a B � o � \ f m 2�i it r_ Down the road, the old I lallock Farm hasn't fared as well. = tc land here was const ire some —ol the poorest on Long Island at the end of the last century, so the Hallocks brought in tonsof stable manure.until it had some of the richest earth in Orient_ Then they introduced overhead irrigation, built a dock for their steamship, and exported their produce to New England. In their prosperity, they started their own small acetylene plant and even bought a printing press, which eventually became the cornerstone of an advanced, pro - grc %live hamlet. Robert Bcrks, who has made monuments of Einstein, Lin - aeus, and John and Robert Kennedy, came here with his wife. Tod. in 1966. They built a life around music and art— all very much in the I lallock tra It on. That changed, though, when Charles Horowitz bought the 67 acres between their house and Hallock Bay. A South Fork developer of unusual sensitivity, Horowitz wanted to build what he considered attractive and authentic cluster houses with unexcelled water views. lie did not quite = understand how Tod Bcrks and others in this community feel about their water. --uncrit tas ine snaiiowest water table In Southold," she explains. "Our fresh water is a thin lens on top of a kettle of salt water. At the end of the dry season, farmers often draw salt water from their wells. We pump our own water here — and if we run out, replacement would be the most expensive on Long Island. Mr. I lorowitz has parcels of land that float in any rainstorm. It's our fear that his cesspools will drain into I lallock Bav, a shellfish nursery that, according to one study, produces S2 million of shellfish a year." In the face of such opposition, Horowitz abandoned cluster housing and divided the property into five -acre parcels. Tod Bcrks and her concerned neighbors in Orient knew what that meant: With five -acre zoning, a developer doesn't have to provide potable water. They petitioned the town— unsuc- cessfully —to force Iiorowitz to alert buyers to their potential "These 'problems' can be 'solved' with a 5775 Culligan water purifier," I lorowitz says. "What's interesting is that at no point have any of these people picked up the phone and called me. The problem isn't what I'm doing —when I get done, I'll be proud of what I did there —but that these people %Sant this land forever without paying for it. And the result is that instead of building housing that sells for as little as S95,000, I'm going to be building luxury homes." The Activist IIF. DEPOT LANE SCHOOL, IN CUTCHOGUE, ISN'T ANY - one's idea of a hot spot, but one weekday evening in May. it was the only place to be. Frank Bear, chairman of the Southold Water Advisory Committee, was there. John 1Vickham, who has headed the planning board in Southold for 24 years, was there. By 7:30, the kinder- garten chairs had been plundered, and there were 120 people jammed into the lunch- room —all to hear a self -de- scribed hcrmi who had never led a mcetin bcforc. Nancy Sa astynowicz is an unlikely activ st. She grew up in a 200 - year -o d house, spends two nights a week taking care of a 92 -yca -old woman, re- finishes woo boats in summer, and, at 34, fles home to a ga- Ne A -97 :.. OR 78— 0 kAA R LA K The Farmlands Preservation Bill has helped save North Fork fields. rage apartment and two cats. But just over a year ago, she became alarmed at the prospect that a 160 -unit condominium called Seacroft would be built in Cutchogue. In five days, she gathered 900 signatures on a petition against it and took her petition to town hall —only to be told that she'd missed the public hearing held a month before and was therefore out of order. Now, more than a year too late, her committee was trying to make itself heard. Sawastynowicz spoke briefly. Robert Pike, a lawyer with Twomey, Latham & Shea, a Riverhead law firm that special- izes in public - interest law, added a few details. Then the meeting was turned into a community debate on topics as familiar here as work boats: water and open space. "The county and town have decided it takes one full acre to provide water for one family," John Wickham pointed out. "Vow we find the town board blithely allowing six units an acre. I'm very upset that this is happening to one of the most beautiful villages on the North Shore." Robert Pike pointed to an architect's map that showed 36 open acres— suitable. it had been said, for leasing to a vineyard or farmer — snaking between the condos. "The only open space I can see in that site plan," Pike said, "is between the statement that there is some and the truth." Paul Stoutenburgh noted sadly that a man who buys a piece of land has also bought the right to use it. Danny Lyon called condos as deadly an invader as any enemy. And in the vituperative venting that followed, the specific steps that might be taken to stop the development were for a time forgotten. In all that emotion, one thing seemed to be heard clearly. "We have a unique opportunity here," Robert Pike said, "to learn from every mistake that's been made all along the is- land. "'fhe persistent refusal of the people of the North Fork to be like their southern neigh- bors may not, in the end, stop the future from happening — but it certainly alerts anyone else with the bright idea to re- make this place that he's going to have a helluva fight on his 1984 hands. Alone on a marshy shore. w York July 2, A -98 OR 78A ARTS & LETTERS c'», II -9 The Way It Was ... . Continued From II -1 &�w 75 YearsAgo 11913 these because it affects values throughout the nation because it has left a broad trail of dishonesty and ruin among men of business and every %balk of life. Everyone'In East Hampton Is Eligible Old people, stooped with suffering/ Middle age, courageously fighting/ Children, unable to explain/ All in'misery from their kidneys. % Doan's Kidnev Pills arP P,,.4--1 l ...L_ - -___ John W. Hand has installed upon his farm at Northwest a Skinner overhead irrigation system. The plant will cover one and one -half acres. It is the same system used on the famous Halloek farm in_ Orient, and if Mr. Hand finds it works successfuliv, lie will extend it to cover a considerable portion of his farm given -to small fruits. BUILDING- STRUCTURE INVENTORY FORM DIVISION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEW YORK STATE PARKS AND RECREATION ALBANY, NEW YORK (518)474-0479 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY UNIQUE SITE NO. QUAD SERIES NEG. NO. YOUR NAME: Town of Southold /SPLIA DATE: _January 1988 YOUR ADDRESS.Town Hall, Main Rd. TELEPHONE:516 765 1892 Southold, LI, NY 11971 ORGANIZATION (if any)- Southold Town Community Development Office IDENTIFICATION I. BUILDING NAME(S): Old School 2. COUNTY:Sttffolk TOWN /CITY:Saut:hold VILLAGE: L)rient: 3. STREET LOCATION: HalvnakP dvn nnrth side, bet. Orchard 2t: and Platt Rd. 4. OWNERSHIP: a. public ❑ b. private lid 5. PRESENT OWNER:Rnhert RPrks ADDRESSHalyoake Ave., Orient 6. USE: Original: Gchoal Present: arti,t l s gtn i n 7. ACCESSIBILITY TO PUBLIC: Exterior visible from public road: Yes Q No ❑ DESCRIPTION Interior accessible: Explain 8. BUILDING a. clapboard Q b. stone ❑ c. brick ❑ d. board and batten ❑ MATERIAL e., cobblestone ❑ f. shingles ❑ g. stucco ❑ other: '). STRUCTURAL a. wood frame with interlocking joints ❑ SYSTEM: b. wood frame with light members kJ (if kno.vn) c. masonry load bearing walls ❑ d. metal (explain) e. other 10. CONDITION: a. excellent ❑ ' b. good iD c.' fair ❑ d. deteriorated ❑ 1 I. INTEGRITY a. original site ❑ b. moved 0 ' if so,when? 1965 from Main Road. c. list major alterations and dates (if known). 12. PHOTO: neg: KK IX -8, fm S 13. MAP: NYS DOT Orient quad NP 1 W9 OR -77 •' 1 v K.> c' �a •d •Dlnnn � � • Lake ` •. ; ,• ° J 9 Pia 0 ,� �••f -'�`�� t•!� ' Village • �' �� thCem 1Centrsl pa" ;Orient�'t %cam w. 4 9 S s M`•w• J � l .t' '� '�' ►j `'�� ratpoa °,,.off '�•, s f �6,�: 160.. �'/ �• �q r r 3 y 2 2 6 2 \ A -100 OR -77 14. THREATS TO BUILDING: a. none known 0 b, zoning ❑ c. roads ❑ d. developers ❑ e. deterioration ❑ f. other: 15. RELATED OUTBUILDINGS AND PROPERTY: a. barn ❑ b. carriage house ❑ c. garage ❑ d. privy ❑ e, shed ❑ f. greenhouse ❑ g. shop ❑ h. gardens ❑ i. landscape features: j. other: 16. SURROUNDINGS OF THE BUILDING (check more than one if necessary): a. open land Il b. woodland ❑ c. scattered buildings ❑ d. densely built -up ❑ e. commercial ❑ f. industrial ❑ g. residential 0 h. other: 2 Storyprefabricated x nsi on at rear 17. INTERRELATIONSHIP OF BUILDING AND SURROUNDINGS: (Indicate if building or structure is in an historic district) Located in a low density agricultural area east of the Orient Historic District, surrounded predominantly by open land. Stone posts front the property along Halyoake Ave. The artist's sculp- tures dot the property around this building. 18. OTHER NOTABLE FEATURES OF BUILDING AND SITE (including interior features if known): Large 2--- story, hipped roof schoolhouse. Belfry with pyramidal roof.9verhanging roof with exposed rafter ends. Double leaf door with sidelights and transom. Entrance porch with paired columns on high pedestals. 2/2 windows. Modern extension on rear for artist's studio. SIGNIFICANCE 19. DATE OF INITIAL CONSTRUCTION: 3 872 i 4 remodelled ) ARCHITECT: BUILDER: 20. HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL IMPORTANCE: This adaptive re —use of an old schoolhouse as an artists studio contributes•to the ambience of the area. 21. SOURCES: Historical Record. Oysterponds Historical Society. 1959. Maurfien Failey. Old School Houses Nassau and Suffolk Counties. 19 22. THL%IE FOB Prepared by Kurt Knhofer, research assistant BUILDING- STRUCTURE INVENTORY FORM DIVISION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEW YORK STATE PARKS AND RECREATION ALBANY, NEW YORK (518) 474 -0479 YOUR NAME Town of Southold /SPLIA FOR OFFICE USE ONLY UNIQUE SITE N0, QUAD SERIES NEG. NO. DATE: January 1988 YOUR ADDRESS Town Hall, Main Rd. TELEPHONE: 516 765 1892 Southold ORGANIZATION (if any): Southold Town Community Development Office # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # IDENTIFICATION I BUILDING N MF(S : L.H. Hallock /Berks House 2 COUNTY: of ol� TOwN CITY: Southold VILLAGE: Orient 3 STREET LOCATION: 11aly-o-a-k—e-Ave. , bet. orchard Rd. 4. OWNERSHIP: a. public ❑ h private It 5. PRESENT OWNER- Robert Berks ADDRESS: Halyoake ave. , Orient f,. USE: Original: residence Present: residence 7. ACCESSIBII.ITY TO PUBLIC: Exterior visible from public road: Yes R1 No ❑ Interior accessible: Explain private residence DESCRIPTION H. BOILDING MATERIAL '1. STRUCTURAL SYSTEM: (if known) 10. CONDITION 1 I. INTEGRITY a. clapboard ® b. stone ❑ c. brick ❑ d. board and batten ❑ e. cobblestone ❑ f. shingles ❑ g. stucco ❑ other: a. wood frame with interlocking joints ❑ b. wood frame with light members iEj C. masonry load bearing walls ❑ d. metal (explain) e. other a. excellent] b. good ❑ c. fair ❑ d. deteriorated ❑ a. original site b. moved ❑ if so,when? c. list major alterations and dates (if known): 12. PIiOTO: neg: KK IX -7, fm S 13. MAP: lip t NYS DOT Orient quad A -101 OR -78 Al�rnn u. rA 4.�$d Lake Q• :`Z BM.y�21 ��. � �� Tr li •?Tt . �.— Village ••.J• cem wo. Orient,"'-' ;cem e RD Bh �.'!`•. _� ..'�I " .�;:' y 'per • ±° i ° 2 6 l Y" A -102 OR -78 14. THREATS TO BUILDING: a. none known 0 b. zoning ❑ c. roads ❑ d. developers ❑ e. deterioration ❑ f. other: 15. RELATED OUTBUILDINGS AND PROPERTY: a. barn ❑ b. carria e house c. garage ❑ d. privy F-1 e. stied f. greenhouse ❑ g. shop ❑ h. gardens ❑ i. landscape features: j. other: former school artists studio OR -77 16. SURROUNDINGS OF THE BUILDING (check more than one if necessary): a. open land N b. woodland ❑ c. scattered buildings ❑ d. densely built -up ❑ e. commercial ❑ f. industrial ❑ g. residential K h. other: agricultural 17. INTI.RRELATIONSHIP OF BUILDING AND SURROUNDINGS: (Indicate if building or structure is in an historic district) .Located in a low density, agricultural area east of the Orient Historic district. Open land surrounds the house, dotted with large trees. 18. OTHER NOTABLE FEATURES OF BUILDING AND SITE (including interior features if known): Large, 2z story, 5 bay, gable roof house with wide facade gable. Flanking, single bay, 13z story wings with similiar facade gables. Projecting, twin, semi - octagonal bay windows at corners of main house. 1/1 windows with hood molds and double leaf front door under segmental arch. Porch across front of main house with SIGNIFICANCE —see attachment - 11 >. DATE OF INITIAL CONSTRUCTION: Last quarter of 19th century_ ARCHITECT BUILDER: 20. HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL IMPORTANCE: Toward the end of the last century, the prosperous Hallock family built:1a dock on their waterfront on Long Beach Bay to export produce. The large old farmhouse has been the home of the prominent scul- ptor, Robert Berks, and his family since 1967. For the artist's studio, see form OR -77. Also see form OR -78 for-Hallock Farm. 21. SOURCES: Southampton Press. 9/3/87. - E. Belcher Hyde, Atlas od Suffolk County, L.I., Vol. 2, North Side, Sound Shore, 1909. _ 22 iE �lr. %yde & Co., Map of Long Island, 1897. Form prepared by Kurt Kahofer, research assistant. A -103 EXHIBIT 3 14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020) You Should Know https: / /gokcecapital.com /conservation- easements -pros- and -cons) UGC — A -104 Q SEARCH GET MY CASH OFFER 14 CONSERVATION EASEMENTS PROS AND CONS (2020) YOU SHOULD KNOW BLOG JULY 24, 2020 BY ERIKA �D 3432 VIEWS <�? 0 LIKES 0 COMMENTS Even the most experienced land buyers may not know all of the pros and cons of conservation easements. In fact, we didn't know a lot of what is covered below until we began researching this blog post! But, to start with, a conservation easement is a voluntary agreement that permanently limits the use of the land to protect its conservation values. Placing a conservation easement on a piece of land allows the owner to continue to control it (but usually not develop it) and also take advantage of a tax deduction. This deduction is calculated according to the value that the land would have had if it had been developed. THE I TOP 1 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM 14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020) You Should Know https: / /gokcecapital.com /conservation- easements -pros- and -cons) A -105 IGC OibKCF ft = Q GET MY CASH OFFER Now, conservation easements have gotten quite a bit of notice in the past four years. This is, in part, because of President Donald Trump. He created a conservation easement for his Mar -A -Lago estate in 1993 and has popularized this structure. When the property was appraised at $25 million in 1993, he donated an easement prevented him from selling antiques inside the historic buildings or adding more buildings to the compound. This easement ultimately reduced the valuation of Mar -a -Lago to $19.25 million. President Trump received a tax deduction for the difference of $5.75 million once the easement was in place. See the benefit? This is reportedly a tried and true tactic of the real estate tycoon turned politician. Conservation easements alone have generated $loo million in write -offs for President Trump. If you're looking for the same benefits for your property, what are you waiting for? Start by watching this video: THE T TOP 2 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM 14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020) You Should Know https: / /gokcecapital.com /conservation- easements -pros- and -cons) GC — �3ibKCF — A -106 Q GET MY CASH OFFER Then, you can read about the top conservation easements pros and cons and decide if it's for you! PROS OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS i You receive a tax deduction The main benefit of a conservation easement (aside from protecting the land!) is the tax deduction you'll receive. Typically, you can deduct 5o % of your income for 16 years up to the appraised value of the Pn cam ant So, if you make $6o,000 a year, you can deduct $30,000 for 16 years. This results in total deductions of $48o,000. However, if the appraised value of the easement THE T TOP is less than $48o,000, the total deductions 3 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM 14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020) You Should Know https: / /gokcecapital.com /conservation- easements -pros- and -cons) GC — �3ibKCF — A -107 Q GET MY CASH OFFER • You can customize conservation easements to meet your needs Initially, conservation easements sound like you're giving up a lot of rights. However, they're not as inflexible as they may sound. You can entirely customize the easement depending on your plans and goals for your property. The goal of the conservation easement is for everyone to benefit — both you (as the owner) and the land trust or government agency. One big pro is that you'll still have flexibility and control over your property. • Public access isn't created with a conservation easement Some landowners opt for public access as a condition of their conservation easement. However, this is a rare part of the process, and it is not in any way a "rule of thumb." If you're concerned about public access being an obstacle in the conservation easement process, it isn't a requirement of a conservation easement. Ultimately, the easement will follow your needs as the property owners. THE T TOP 4 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM 14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020) You Should Know https: / /gokcecapital.com /conservation- easements -pros- and -cons) GC — �3ibKCF — A -108 Q GET MY CASH OFFER Simply put, your land is still private land. You're just preventing future development by foregoing future development rights on the land you already own. You're not in any way creating a public park or other recreational space. 4P An easement doesn't give the government access to your land This is another common concern! Just because you're creating a conservation easement, it doesn't mean you're giving the government direct access to your land (in most cases). The majority of conservation easements are held by a non - profit land trust. Non - profit land trusts are 501(c)(3) organizations designated by the IRS, so they have a similar role that other NGOs and tax - exempt companies do in that they provide charitable work. The instances where a government entity holds an easement would be rare. The most that would happen is that the government would scrutinize or audit your conservation easement transaction, yet that could also occur if you worked with a non - profit or made unusual changes to your financial profile. THE T TOP 5 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM 14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020) You Should Know https: / /gokcecapital.com /conservation- easements -pros- and -cons) A -109 GC = Q GET MY CASH OFFER �3ibKCF A conservation easement isn't "signing your land over to the government" by any stretch of the imagination. • You don't have to sacrifice agricultural production Some people shy away from conservation easements because they profit off of the land in the form of agricultural production or ranching. However, this doesn't mean you can't have an easement at all. If your property is productive in its current form, then you should absolutely keep it that way; just be sure to work it into your easement. Remember, conservation easements can be flexible and work around your goals. All the conservation easement does is prevent future development in other ways. You can still work on the land in the way you've already been doing so as long as it's outlined in your easement. To qualify as a rancher or farmer, you must receive more than 50 percent of your gross income from the "trade or business of farming." The following activities qualify as farming: • Cultivating the soil • Raising or harvesting any agricultural or horticultural commodity THE I TOP • Handling, drying, packing, grading, or storing 6 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM 14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020) You Should Know https: / /gokcecapital.com /conservation- easements -pros- and -cons) A -110 GC = Q GET MY CASH OFFER �3ibKCF farm regularly produces more than one -half of the commodity so treated) • Planting, cultivating, caring, and cutting down trees for the market If you meet this criterion and you want your conservation easement to reflect it, then it must contain a restriction requiring that the land remain "available for agriculture." It's also worth noting that, if you qualify as a rancher or farmer, you may be eligible to receive tax deductions of up to ioo % of your income in exchange for the conservation easement. 0 You can financially benefit from a conservation easement (even with a low income!) Even if your income isn't high enough to justify the tax benefits, you have options. A conservation easement may still be a good option for you. If your parcel of land has high conservation value, then a land trust may pay you for a conservation easement. There's a great benefit to the public in preventing land development in certain areas, which is why land trusts may buy the development rights from the landowner using private donations or grants. While you may not get a tax credit or deduction, you're getting cash in your pocket. THE T TOP 7 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM 14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020) You Should Know https: / /gokcecapital.com /conservation- easements -pros- and -cons) A -111 IGC OibKCF ft = Q GET MY CASH OFFER This allows a landowner to monetize his donation while also providing tax relief to high - income third parties who are willing to purchase the credits at a discount. Both these routes are pros that you may want to keep in mind if you're interested in conservation easements, but don't necessarily have a high enough income to receive tax benefits. CONS OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS i The land trust will need to physically inspect your property Some people don't like having people on their land constantly. The bad news is that your land trust will need to physically inspect your land at least once a year. So, there will be a few inconveniences with a conservation easement. The hidden pro? You can make it a condition of your easement that your land trust doesn't visit you repetitively to review the condition of the property. Furthermore, most non - profits don't have the resources to visit multiple times. THE T TOP 8 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM 14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020) You Should Know https: / /gokcecapital.com /conservation- easements -pros- and -cons) A -112 IGC OibKCF ft = Q GET MY CASH OFFER If you're sincerely worried about this, then be sure to negotiate your expectations upfront. Otherwise, you'll likely find that the once a year inspection is more than enough for the land trust and not all that inconvenient for you! 0 You can overstate the value of the conservation easement To claim the tax benefits for a conservation easement (on both the state and federal level), you must file forms to document the transaction. If the deduction is larger than $500,000, you must provide an appraisal along with IRS Form 8283. Now, agencies are paying closer attention than ever before to ensure that values are not intentionally or accidentally overstated. When going through the conservation easement process, you must have a defensible appraisal of the land in question. So, not only will you have to pay for an appraisal of the property, but you'll still have to actively avoid overstating the value of your conservation easement. Both can cost you! • You may not qualify for a conservation easement THE T TOP Did you know not everyone can take advantage 9 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM 14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020) You Should Know https: / /gokcecapital.com /conservation- easements -pros- and -cons) A -113 GC = Q GET MY CASH OFFER �3ibKCF This is one of the largest cons of the entire process. You can only take advantage of this easement if you meet one of these four categories from a financial standpoint. The following is found in the IRS Code, Section 1.17oA- 14(d). • You are preserving a relatively natural habitat of wildlife, fish, or plants • You wish to preserve forests or agricultural lands that have open spaces • You want to allow public access to a portion of your land • You are protecting the property in response to a clearly delineated government policy that is identified in local open -space plans In general, conservation easements must provide public benefits. "Public benefits" include water quality, farm and ranchland preservation, scenic views, wildlife habitat, protecting endangered species, outdoor recreation, education, and historic preservation. 9 You can choose the incorrect land trust Not all land trusts are created equal! For every awesome land trust out there that will work with you every step of the way, there are equally awful land trusts. Some land trusts want to create benefits that THE T TOP 10 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM 14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020) You Should Know https: / /gokcecapital.com /conservation- easements -pros- and -cons) A -114 GC = Q GET MY CASH OFFER �3ibKCF Others are intlexible and confrontational about your property. This can put property owners in a tough situation, especially when you're not familiar with the process. Of all the conservation easements pros and cons on this list, this is one you can (hopefully) avoid based purely on research. Land trusts are non - profit organizations that actively work to conserve land. It is their job to ensure that all the restrictions described in a conservation easement are actually carried out. The land trust will take legal action (if necessary) to enforce the easement. Thus, it's important to select the right land trust as you'll work closely with them to ensure you've come to the right agreement and can move forward comfortably. This is a big decision — don't take it lightly! First, choose a land trust that offers a proven understanding of forestry practices and agricultural issues. After all, if this is their specialty, they should show it through their practices. Next, work with a non - profit that is certified by the Land Trust Accreditation THE T TOP Commission. of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM 14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020) You Should Know https: / /gokcecapital.com /conservation- easements -pros- and -cons) GC — �3ibKCF — A -115 Q GET MY CASH OFFER Doing your due diligence can pay off on this one. And for other due diligence tips, you can watch our video below. 7 Tips for BUYING Land • Your ability to use your property can change without a structured conservation easement Sometimes you don't know what you've got until it's gone, and this is exactly what property owners realize when it comes to conservation easements. Over the years, landowners have discovered that they're unable to use their property the way they want after their conservation easement. Even if you're fully in control of the negotiation process and able to see what you're getting THE TOP 12 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM 14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020) You Should Know https: / /gokcecapital.com /conservation- easements -pros- and -cons) GC — �3ibKCF — A -116 Q GET MY CASH OFFER Here are some examples of issues that have occurred with conservation easements. • Restriction on wind turbines or other economically viable technologies • Inability to use ATVs, snowmobiles, or other recreational vehicles • No access to inspection records of your property • Confidentiality breaches such as a public petition for structures or other land uses without your consent Keep in mind that these issues are rare. However, they do occur, which means they're worth acknowledging during the negotiation process. 0 There may be a limited selection of buyers available There are so many pros of conservation easements. However, the relationship that a landowner has with a land trust often complicates the process of selling the property. As a result, you may find that your pool of interested buyers is limited if you decide that you're ready to move on from the property. In some cases, future owners may want to develop the land, which won't be possible. THE T TOP 13 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM 14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020) You Should Know https: / /gokcecapital.com /conservation- easements -pros- and -cons) GC — �3ibKCF — A -117 Q GET MY CASH OFFER • You may encounter lender problems Unfortunately, the banking community does not always understand the nuances of conservation easements nor conservation easement pros and cons. Just like buyers, lenders often view conservation easements as a hurdle rather than something that benefits the property as a whole. As a result, landowners have found that it's difficult to refinance their property if it has an easement. Or you may find that you have difficulty with your appraisal or bank terms with your lending agreement (if one is authorized at all). Together, these obstacles make it challenging to buy or sell the property. They may also increase the cost of these actions or make it hard to obtain future financing. • You may lose access to some rights When you purchase land, you purchase different types of rights. You may have surface rights, oil and gas rights, mineral rights, and even water rights. THE T TOP 14 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM 14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020) You Should Know https: / /gokcecapital.com /conservation- easements -pros- and -cons) GC — �3ibKCF — A -118 Q GET MY CASH OFFER When you create a conservation easement, you may lose access to certain rights. While you'll likely retain certain surface rights like farming and ranching, development is almost always limited. Furthermore, surface mining is almost always off the table and the goal is to protect the land overall. This can be frustrating for some buyers and even result in the value of your land decreasing to nothing. FINAL THOUGHTS There you have it! All of the conservation easements pros and cons. Overall, conservation easements allow people to protect the land that they love THE TOP 15 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM 14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020) You Should Know https: / /gokcecapital.com /conservation- easements -pros- and -cons) c xa A -119 Q GET MY CASH OFFER This process provides numerous advantages but must be balanced with the specific disadvantages of each property and landowner. Doing -your due diligence and finding the right land trust are important parts of the process. In the end, each property and conservation easement is unique, and you'll want to thoroughly review the pros and cons to make sure it is right for you. Did we miss anything? Let us know in the comments. For more information on buying, selling, or investing in vacant land, check out our other resources below. We're here to help throughout the entire land buying and selling process! If you are looking to buy affordable land, you can check out our Listings page. If you are interested in land investing, you can check out our article on How to Get Started in Land Investing. WE'LL MAKE YOU A THE T TOP LAND 16 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM W:1:I : t& A -121 Draft Environmental Impact Statement The Orchards Subdivision Application August 2020 property. It is accessed via several narrow dirt pathways that run through the property and connect to the larger dirt roadway. A cleared dirt area approximately 3,000 square feet in size exists in the western section of the property. The cleared area is accessed via a narrow dirt pathway that runs south toward Orchard Street and connects to an access path on the adjacent property to the west. 2.4 Permits and Approvals The approval process can best be represented as a two -phase process. The first phase is approval of the subdivision map. The second phase is approval for constructing the improvements depicted on the subdivision map. Multiple approvals and permits are required at the State, County and Local levels. Phase I- Subdivision Map Approval The project is subject to review by the Suffolk County Planning Commission. The Suffolk County Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed project and determined it to be a matter for local determination (see Appendix E). The Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) must review and issue approval for the sub - division map (Suffolk County Department of Health Services 2018). The project was originally submitted to the SCDHS circa 2013. Since the original submission, the project has been resubmitted to the SCDHS, with modifications, on multiple occasions. The latest SCDHS review notice issued December 13, 2018 is presented in Appendix F. In order to address many of the SCDHS comments and proceed to the Suffolk County Department of Health Services Board of review, the Applicant (last revised June 18, 2019 - see Appendix G) and refiled it with SCDHS. The updated subdivision map indicates the locations of the proposed sanitary systems and potable water supply wells. In addition the Applicant drilled two deeper potable water supply test wells that were subsequently sampled by the SCDHS. The results from the water sampling necessitated the Applicant to obtain a variance from the SCDHS Board of Review as the water quality did not conform to minimum drinking water standards (discussed elsewhere in this document). A variance allowing development of a five residential lot subdivision as shown on the proposed subdivision map with sanitary system and water supply well locations (Appendix G) was approved by the SCDHS Board of Review on December 17, 2019. The SCDHS variance approval is provided in Appendix H. The Town of Southold must review and issue approval for the sub - division map (Town of Southold 2004). The project was originally submitted to the Town circa 2013. Since the original submission, the proposed subdivision map has been modified multiple times to address concerns raised during the review process. As part of the Town review, a Positive Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 2 -11 A -122 Draft Environmental Impact Statement The Orchards Subdivision Application August 2020 Potable Water Supply- A public water supply is unavailable for the subject property. As such, private wells must be installed for each of the proposed parcels. In accordance with the requirements of the SCDHS, on September 30, 2015 two potable water supply test wells were installed on the subject property. The well driller's certification is included in Appendix J. Each well extended to a depth of 46 feet. The location of the test wells is depicted on the subdivision map (see Appendix G). Test well #1 is located on proposed lot #1, at the extreme northwest corner of the subject property. Test well #2 is located on proposed lot #2 along the northerly property line of the subject property, approximately mid -width of the subject property. On November 17, 2015 the test wells were sampled by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services for the purpose of determining the suitability of the groundwater underlying the site for use as potable water. The SCDHS issued a report dated February 29, 2016 (see Appendix K) stating the groundwater underlying the subject property satisfied the criteria of the New York State Department of Health Standards for use as drinking water and was determined to be suitable for potable use. However, the test well depths were inadequate to provide the minimum 40 feet of water within each well as required by the SCDHS (Suffolk County Department of Health Services 1992), resulting in the SCDHS issuing a Notice of Incomplete application dated April 13, 2016 (see Appendix L). Failure to provide 40 feet of water within the test well results in a SCDHS imposed restriction limiting development to one residential dwelling per two acres, or the need to obtain a variance from the SCDHS Board of Review. Since development of one dwelling per two acres was not intended, and the Applicant did not wish to seek a variance from the SCDHS Board of Review to modify this requirement, the Applicant had the two original water supply test wells re- drilled to provide the required 40 feet of water within each well casing. On June 3, 2017 both test wells were re- drilled to a depth of 65 feet (see Appendix M for test well driller's logs). The depth to groundwater at the time of drilling was determined to be fourteen feet (14'). On August 17, 2017 the test wells were sampled by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services for the purpose of determining the suitability of the groundwater underlying the site for use as potable water. The SCDHS issued a report dated January 19, 2018 (see Appendix N). The sampling revealed the water in test well #1 exceeded the Suffolk County test well standard of 6 mg/l of nitrates, but did not exceed the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) permitted by Part 5 of the New York State Sanitary Code (The State of New York 2018). The water in test well #2 exceeded the MCL for nitrates, Aldicarb Sulfoxide and Aldicarb Sulfone. Each of these contaminants are commonly found in the groundwater surrounding the subject property and are most likely attributable to the former use of the subject property, and surrounding properties, as farmland. Due to the test well sampling results, the Applicant filed for a variance from the SCDHS Board of Review to seek permission to develop the proposed five residential lot subdivision with private water supply wells. The application included an engineering design plan depicting the location of the proposed sanitary systems and potable water supply wells for Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting, P.C. 3 -5 A -123 Draft Environmental Impact Statement The Orchards Subdivision Application August 2020 APPENDIX L Suffolk County Department of Health Services Notice April 13, 2016 WWM - 025 (Rev. 8/05) SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES OFFICE OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT 360 YAPHANK AVENUE, SUITE 2C YAPHANK, NEW YORK 11980 NOTICE 5 (631) 852 -5700 GMZ 4 NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION — SUBDIVISION TO: Mr. John Ehlers, L.S. SUB NAME: THE ORCHARDS 6 East Main Street REF. NO.: S10 -13 -0005 Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 SCTM NO: 1000- 27 -01 -03 Your submission for the referenced subdivision has been reviewed. This office will require the following for further review and /or approval: ® Application form signed by licensed design professional ❑ Yield map, minimum square foot lots. ❑ Filing fee $ due. ❑ Test hole(s) located and witnessed by: — ❑Health Dept =Fall 852= 5754to schedule inspection. - See location recap enclosed. — -- -" ❑ Test well(s) sampled by Health Department. Follow procedures enclosed. (Test well does not indicate a waiver of requirement for connection to public water) - see location map enclosed. ❑ Public water availability letter from water district (Include distance & cost if water main extension is required). ❑ Short Environmental Assessment Form (enclosed). ❑ Wetlands permit or determination letter. ❑ Design report by licensed design professional for the onsite sewage disposal system and water supply. ® Covenants: TBD. F1 Board of Review variance. ❑Non- conformance notice enclosed. N SEQRA determination from Town. ® Certificate of Authorization, or disclaimer. In addition, the following is required to be shown on a preliminary /final map or on a separate sewage disposal/water supply plan signed and sealed by a licensed design professional: Metes and Bounds Description* ❑ Suffolk County Tax Map Number* ❑ Sewage disposal & water supply locations for all existing buildings on property (specify if none) ® Neighboring wells and sewage disposal systems within 150 feet of property (specify if none) ❑ Design for the onsite sewage disposal and water supply per Department standards ❑ Design for sewer main extension approved by local sewer district (for existing sewers in Sewer District #3, sewer stubs must be marked by district on plan) ❑ Topographic contours. (5 ft. interval) ❑ Water /Sewer main - locations) (label as existing/proposed) *_ ❑ Test well locations* ❑ Comer elevations and test hole elevation ❑ Department approval stamp* Z Test hole location(s) /details* ❑ Typical lot layout: water & sewage disposal* ❑ L.S. certification and ® eertification of sewage disposal & water supply design by P.E., R.A., or L.S. with exemption (original signatures & seals required) *. [ *] FINAL maps to be filed with County Clerk require items marked above with asterisk O. ® Other: (1) Submit copy of Coservation Easement. (2) Label Future Barn area as " Lot # 1 location of Future Agricultral Barn (3) After reviewing Test Well - -Test results and Well Drillers Cert. showing less than 40 feet of water in each well this Subdivision will require each proposed lot to be at least 2 acres, if this requirement cannot be met a Board of Review variance will be required. CC: Mr. Steven A. Martocello REVIEWED BY J T McGuire 24 Miller Woods Drive Miller Placc, N.Y. 11764 DATE: 13 Apri12016 PLEASE RETURN A COPY OF THIS FORM WITH ANY RESUBMISSION(S) A -125 Draft Environmental Impact Statement The Orchards Subdivision Application August 2020 APPENDIX H Suffolk County Department of Health Services Board of Review Variance Approval December 17, 2019 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK SUFFOLK (� STEVEN BELLONE SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES December 17, 2019 Mr. Steven A. Martocello East End Holdings 24 Miller Woods Drive Miller Place, New York 11901 JAMES L. TOMARKEN, MD, MPH, MBA, MSW COMMISSIONER Subject: Board of Review Hearing —August 15, 2019 S10 -13 -0005 — The Orchards — 2595 Orchard Street, Orient — t/o Southold — SCTM: 1000- 027.00- 01.00- 003.000 Dear Sir: Enclosed is a copy of the findings, recommendations and determination of the Board of Review concerning the subject application. Based on the information submitted, the Board granted the request for variance /waiver with the provisions indicated in the determination. The granting of this waiver does not imply that your application will be automatically approved. It is your responsibility to ensure that your application is complete; otherwise, your approval will be subject to unnecessary delay. Very John Soling , P.E Chief Publi H th Engineer Chair, Boar of Review Enclosure Cc: Board of Review File — Yaphank Ms. Lynne Burns — OWM Mr. Steven Churchill— Reviewer Mr. Andrew Freleng — Planning Department Ms. Heather Lanza — Town of Southold Mr. John Ehlers Qg �T •Division Of Environmental Quality ♦ Board Of Review ♦ 360 Yaphank Avenue, Suite 2B ♦ Yaphank NY 11980• Phone (631) 852 -5801 Fax (631) 852 -5825 PublicHealth SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DIVISION OF ENVHtONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD OF REVIEW ARTICLE 2, SECTION 220, SUFFOLK COUNTY SANITARY CODE To: James L..Tomarken, MD, MS W, MPH, MBA, Commissioner From: John Sohngen, P.E., Chair, Board of Review Subject: Findings and Recommendations of the Review Board Regarding: 510 -13 -0005 —The Orchards — 2595 Orchard Street, Orient— t/o Southold— SCTM: 1000 - 027.00- 01.00- 003.000 Hearing Date: August 15, 2019 Board Members: Anthony Condos, Kenneth Zegel, P.E. Reviewer: Steven Churchill Statement of Problem Private Water System Standards require test well results for realty subdivisions to comply with the guidelines and Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) contained in Part 5 of the New York State Sanitary Code. In addition, the arithmetic mean nitrate concentration of all wells tested (on the same day) cannot exceed 6.0 milligrams per liter (mg/1) and no well shall exceed the Nitrate MCL. Nitrate and Aldicarb levels in the subject subdivision's test wells exceed the limits specified in the Private Water System Standards. Findings and Facts 1. The parcel to be divided is located in Groundwater Management Zone 4. 2. The parcel is 579,348 square feet (sf) in area, and is shown as one lot on the 1981 tax map. 3. The subject parcel is currently vacant. 4. The proposal is to divide the parcel into five (5) residential lots meeting the minimum lot size requirements of Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, for lots to be developed with onsite sewage disposal systems and private wells. The residential lots sizes range from 40,000 sfto 406,548 sf 5. The parcel would yield 13 residential lots based on the Suffolk County Sanitary Code Article 6 lot size requirements. 6. All residential parcels will be served by on -site sewage disposal systems, to be designed in accordance with Department design standards with sanitary leaching structures placed a minimum of 3 feet (ft.) above the highest expected groundwater elevation. 7. Soils are acceptable, with 0 to 1 ft. loam, 1 to 7 ft. silty sand, 7 to 1 l ft. sand and gravel, and 11 to 16 ft. water in sand and gravel. 8. Depth to groundwater is 11 ft. below grade as per the submitted test hole results. 9. As per the groundwater contributing areas and source water assessment maps prepared by Camp Dresser McKee (CDM) in 2009, as part of the Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan James L. Tomarken, MD, MSW, MPH, MBA, Commissioner Hearing Date: August 15, 2019 Subject: S10 -13 -0005 — The Orchards — 2595 Orchard Street, Orient — t/o Southold — SCTM: 1000-027.00 - 01.00- 003.000 (CWRMP) for Suffolk County, groundwater flow is southeast towards Long Beach Bay, and the subject parcel is located within the 10 to 25 year contributing area to this surface water body. 10. Test wells were installed on Lot 1 and Lot 2 of the subject subdivision. 11. The well driller's certificate for the Lot 1 test well (Well # S- 133850T) shows a total well depth of 65 feet with a static water level of 14 feet, and 47 feet of water above the 4-foot well screen. A water sample taken by the Department on August 17, 2017showed water quality in the well to be in conformance with drinking water standards with the exception of Nitrates, which were 7.2 mg/1. 12. The well driller's certificate for the Lot 2 test well (Well # S- 133851T) shows a total well depth of 65 feet with a static water level of 14 feet, and 47 feet of water above the 4 -foot well screen. A water sample taken by the Department on August 17, 2017 showed water quality in the well to be in conformance with drinking water standards with the exception of Nitrates, Aldicarb - Sulfoxide, and Aldicarb-Sulfone, which were 11.2 mg/1, 6.0 mg/l and 4.2 mg/1 respectively: 13. The MCL for the Nitrates, Aldicarb - Sulfoxide, and Aldicarb - Sulfone are 10.0 mg/1, 4.0 mg/1 and 2.0 mg /1 respectively. 14. The high Nitrates and Aldicarbs can be treated to levels below the MCL with the proper water conditioning equipment. The Nitrates can be treated with reverse osmosis and the Aldicarbs can be treated with granular activated carbon. 15. The Board notes that Aldicarb treatment removal devices are -free to homeowners in Orient and funded by the Department through Bayer Scientific. 16. Department records indicate that groundwater in the area has been known to have high Nitrates. As an example, Department staff provided the Board with test well results for a residential application adjoining the subject parcel (SCTM: 1000 - 027.00- 01.00 - 004.000 and Reference Number R10 -05- 0047) that had Nitrates at 10 mg/1. The application received final approval from the Department on April 1, 2009. 17. The applicant submitted. a Suffolk County Water Availability letter dated September 13; 2019 stating a water main extension of 10,000 feet would be required. Private Water System Standards require water mains to be extended to a subdivision when the existing mains are located within a distance equivalent to 150 ft. multiplied by the number of proposed lots, from the applicant's property line. Therefore, the applicant is not required to extend the public water main since the existing main is located a distance greater than 750 ft. from the subdivision property line. Determination It was a 3 to 0 determination of the Board to grant the request for the variance for the use of onsite private wells, provided that the following conditions are met: • Covenants and /or deeds shall be prepared and filed, in language acceptable to the County Attorney for the following: James L. Tomarken, MD, NISW, MPH, MBA, Commissioner Hearing Date: August 15, 2019 Subject: S10 -13 -0005 — The Orchards — 2595 Orchard Street, Orient — t/o Southold — SCTM: 1000- 027.00- 01.00- 003.000 • Require the installation of water conditioning equipment to treat Nitrates and Aldicarbs to ensure the levels meet the minimum drinking water standards and /or guidelines of the State of New York at the time of development of each lot. • Recommending periodic comprehensive water analysis of the onsite private well in order to monitor drinking water quality. • Require the installation of necessary water conditioning. equipment to meet the minimum drinking water standards and/or guidelines of the State of New York if the periodic comprehensive water analyses of the onsite private well indicate water contamination in excess of the minimum drinking water standards and/or guidelines of the State ofNew York. • To hold harmless, indemnify and defend the County of Suffolk, its employees, offices, or agents harmless from any claim for damages or injuries that may arise out of the installation or use of the private well and sewage disposal system. The Department's Private Water System Standards are intended to protect public health by ensuring residential lots can install a potable private water supply meeting installation and drinking water quality standards. Although, the test wells results indicate high Nitrates and Aldicarb, the applicant will install necessary water conditioning equipment to treat Nitrates and Aldicarb to ensure the levels meet the minimum drinking water standards and/or guidelines of the State ofNew York. 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. Rather, it is a determination on the specific variance requested, based. upon factors noted in §760 7609 of the Sanitary Code. In compliance with §760- 609A(1)(a), the variance is in general conformity with the Sanitary Code. The variance should not impair groundwater,. surface water and drinking water supplies, and, as such, is consistent with criteria specified in §760- 609A(1)(b). The granting of the requested variance will not adversely affect the design of an adequate on -site water supply and/or sewage disposal system, taking into account soil conditions, depth to groundwater, and site specific physical conditions, and as such, is consistent with criteria specified in §760- 609A(1)(e). ' As per §760 -609 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, the approval of the variance with the specified conditions is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Sanitary Code to protect groundwater and drinking water supplies, surface water and other natural resources, and public health, safety and welfare. December 17, 2019 "Note: All references to Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code refer 7—(,)a f R view to ty 0 ca ary 1, 2018. EXHIBIT 5 BOARD MEMBERS Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson Patricia Acampora Eric Dantes Gerard P. Goehringer Nicholas Planamento http: / /southoldtownny.gov Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road • P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 -0959 Office Location: Town Annex /First Floor, Capital One Bank 54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue) Southold, NY 11971 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel. (631) 765 -1809 • Fax (631) 765 -9064 FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF JULY 20, 2017 RECEIVED L 2 5 20} So 17 lq.G old Town Clerk ZBA FILE: 7063 NAME OF APPLICANT: Eve MacSweeney and Veronica Gonzalez PROPERTY LOCATION: 2050 Platt Road, Orient, NY SCTM No. 1000- 27 -1 -9 SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without further steps under SEQRA. SUFFOLK COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE: This application was referred as required under the Suffolk County Administrative Code Sections A 14 -14 to 23, and the Suffolk County Department of Planning issued its reply dated March 30, 2017 stating that this application is considered a matter for local determination as there appears to be no significant county -wide or inter - community impact. LWRP DETERMINATION: The relief, permit, or interpretation requested in this application is listed under the Minor Actions exempt list and is not subject to review under Chapter 268. SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD: The application was referred to the Southold Town Planning Board for comments relating to the proposed subdivision. The Planning Board, in their June 27, 2017 memorandum indicated that they do not support the area variance for reasons which included concerns with insufficient lot widths, impact on groundwater and the sole source aquifer located under the Orient peninsula, and potable water quality supply resulting from increase in residential density to this area. The memorandum included recommendations relating to Suffolk County Department of Health development and consideration of innovative and alternative onsite wastewater treatment systems capable of reducing threats to potable water. Furthermore, the Planning Board referred to a conforming yield plan for consideration that was submitted by the applicant, last revised September 4, 2015, and depicted one of the two parcels resulting in a flag lot. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The subject property is a 4.2916 acre parcel located in R -80 Zoning District. The easterly property line fronting Platt Road measures 300.00 feet, the northerly property line measures 637.79 feet, the westerly property line measures 278.89 (recorded deed measures 279.30) and the southerly property line measures 548.28 (recorded deed measures 548.20). The parcel is vacant and described as fallow field as depicted on subdivision map prepared by John T. Metzger, L.S. last revised August 26, 2015. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Request for Variances under Article III, Section 280 -14, and the Building Inspector's January 17, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a two lot residential subdivision, at: 1) proposed two residential lots having less than the code required minimum lot width of 175 feet, at: 2050 Platt Road, Orient, NY. SCTM #1000- 27 -1 -9. Page 2, July 20, 2017 #7063, MacSweeney SCTM No. 1000- 27 -1 -9 RELIEF REQUESTED: The applicant requests a variance to subdivide a 4.2916 acre parcel into two residential lots in an R -80 Zoning District measuring 92,619 sq. ft. (Lot 1) and 94,324 sq. ft. (Lot 2) zone, both confirming in size, but with proposed non - conforming road frontage of 150 feet lot width instead of the required 175 feet according to Section 280 -14 of the Southold Town Code, (Bulk Schedule). ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: As indicated in the memorandum from the Planning Board Chairman, the Planning Board had previously reviewed a yield plan prepared by John T. Metzger, L.S. last revised September 4, 2015 depicting proposed lots; each of which conform to the Southold Town Code (Bulk Schedule) and would not require Zoning Board of Appeals relief for area variances. The applicant's attorney testified that the two owners wished to create the two non - conforming lots so that each would be of the same monetary value, since flag lots are not considered as desirably as lots with road frontage. At the hearing several nearby property owners objected to the variance, stating that flag lots were not uncommon in the area and there was no need for a variance when conforming lots could be created as of right through Planning Board approval. They also voiced concerns about setting a precedent that would appear to permit more "suburban" non - conforming narrow lots in the future. FINDINGS OF FACT / REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on July 6, 2017at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property and surrounding neighborhood, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant and makes the following findings: 1. Town Law &267- b(3)(b)(1). Grant of the variance will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Although, some of the surrounding parcels do not meet the required lot width, creating additional non - conformity in the area, when most parcels are conforming to code required lot widths would set an undesirable precedent whereby other large lots in the area could be subdivide into long, narrow lots, which would diminish the rural quality of the existing area. 2. Town Law 4267- b(3)(b)(2). The benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Since the proposed lots meet required lot size and depth, the applicant can pursue Planning Board approval for a subdivision consisting of one flag lot and one lot with street frontage which would meet all zoning requirements. 3. Town Law §267- b(3)(b)(3). The variances requested are mathematically substantial, representing 16% relief from the code for the lot width of each of the two proposed lots. 4. Town Law 4267- b(3)(b)(4) Evidence has been submitted to suggest that a variance in this residential community will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. An alternative subdivision yield plan utilizing the creation of a flag lot would not require a variance and would create two conforming lots that are more characteristic of the area. 5. Town Law &267- b(3)(b)(5). The difficulty has been self - created.: The applicant purchased the parcel after the Zoning Code was in effect and it is presumed that the applicant had actual or constructive knowledge of the limitations on the use of the parcel under the Zoning Code in effect prior to or at the time of purchase. 6. Town Law 4267 -b. Grant of the requested relief for two lots with non - conforming lot widths resulting from a subdivision is NOT the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of two single and separate lots, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 3, July 20, 2017 #7063, MacSweeney SCTM No. 1000- 27 -1 -9 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267 -B, motion was offered by Member Goehringer, seconded by Member Acampora, and duly carried, to DENY as applied for, Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Weisman (Chairperson), Dantes, Goehringer, Planamento and Acampora. This Resolution was duly adopted (5 -0). c 1 rZ6/�x Leslie Kane Weisman Chairperson Approved for filing 71),l /2017 a\ F W N CL w PI f/1 N 5: f/1 z 5 3 orcp,a�U z ° � Nrc x LLJ J 0 >- m o ¢Q�aaz��w a Q JZ W U �Fw \�z�6 U Z�OI.._08 2 0 O/� LU Z) Z v LL tJ EE 0 0 ` 9 Nln Z U 0 cn0^ x LL UN =GM N ��� ''^^ U� 0Y 1 n Q W ,6 J — CL v/ ZOXo O U�; naa 182SS3' �LL O ~U O 130. • —.. O O IW.0b' .1 N Zlyi Q N i iq P O I ZO 15� �O10�; F e / -il y �o a w � I K u _<� t-Q id d f/1 m 0 wFwµ m mimeo O ¢ 5: f/1 z 5 3 orcp,a�U z ° � Nrc x 2N a UZOY m o ¢Q�aaz��w a 5 IN�wNO LL�jU W U �Fw \�z�6 U Z� a O pJ�m6p�LLOw O a � a m��o�i _ K� v F- rz z �m Z U oVrjQ rc� v~iO U��wW�i o u� 0 m>3 ° �� Nowt < O r - w m °per v�o 300.00 182SS3' W 1 2 2 W o i A Zy W MO 2 �3 N W / ti~ / W q U Y W� U FO 2 .h, W y F=-22 �W4 WWO O ' 2N a UZOY Q 7Owz 4 a 0 2W q > o x m03Y - t9 0> v IVACANTI J�2y C- mrF�.L�181 IVAG TI - LATT S0- d� .r.rwurrAwort� umrulE °" - di ••• ax 300.00 182SS3' 0 O 130. • —.. O O IW.0b' .1 LL Zlyi Q N iq oo. m41� os o aWy O I ZO 15� �O10�; F / -il y 2 O _<� t-Q a u a- J = 3p� n m s z 9 � n g / O LL w m M W 1 2 2 W o i A Zy W MO 2 �3 N W / ti~ / W q U Y W� U FO 2 .h, W y F=-22 �W4 I � O A V I -�.. W °o�z h 0 Un0�0 p�mOti U n Z a"aNO e V! LLI 0 Q Q co co 04 CV 03 Q O Q0 co ca N ca N R W ,11 N J O O ~ LLI W Occ cc Q Q O 0 � t O y C ¢3U2� 0� iO�pWW 0 O ¢�UWO as iW�WN h D VUi¢VU`iUN 3 p oYm¢4 a,a tip�QW'Wa 00 'N' p �W2 Wt¢y 4O OpWOW¢ Od �CnW�UJ y 0 °W02 N 01" QWRO�� uj mi 00 X- Z LL T O J 2 U) 3 w a J = z 9 LL z - ° N F a — aWY F W O O u86 I W ��u N O Ply Q -• O a 00 . 01q W000 w on so Q k o� y4WU ZZ N� O aKpW yy Z £ W 139.93' 139.43' W 3 c yo j ¢ w N N 34'5740' W 278. (ACTUAL) 279.30 ° Z^ m¢ .r N /O /F EAST END HOLDING CO. 0 (DEED) LLC � J o u `n Z J2 p 2 WACA T ti�N °' oviC o U ¢ WZ V WOZ i w W �a o' o %j qo "gUU y �a mZZ 9 a ��v-- Z 2 K W W �r 2 W Iti ��Q N Z 00 J 1, 'l'1 ?/ ¢WV W utl si Wr O t- aOT UI- (I:VI O F- y2w� �F O 4`-� m2i 3 $ B z WU my �(nU U W ¢ j`,.¢ _U }a} J 0- OAF-. U' to y y U¢ UUV12 y WNW y3 �Op Z O oa WuuR3R83 O 3�U o ° it •o y¢ WWO S l� pa 0OO_ 'j I � O A V I -�.. W °o�z h 0 Un0�0 p�mOti U n Z a"aNO e V! LLI 0 Q Q co co 04 CV 03 Q O Q0 co ca N ca N R W ,11 N J O O ~ LLI W Occ cc Q Q O 0 � t O y C ¢3U2� 0� iO�pWW 0 O ¢�UWO as iW�WN h D VUi¢VU`iUN 3 p oYm¢4 a,a tip�QW'Wa 00 'N' p �W2 Wt¢y 4O OpWOW¢ Od �CnW�UJ y 0 °W02 N 01" QWRO�� PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM To: Leslie Weisman, ZBA Chairperson Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals From: Donald J. Wilcenski, Chairman Members of the Planning Board" Date: June 27, 2017 Re: Request for Comments for MacSweeney and Gonzalez SCTM# 1000- 27 -1 -9 ZBA# 7063 v, MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631765-1938 www. southoldtownny. gov X13 RECETVED JUN 2 7 20V ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS The Planning Board has reviewed the project and does not support the Variance as requested based upon the following: 1. The Planning Board has an inactive Standard Application for the subject parcel (figure 1). On October 7, 2015 the Planning Board accepted a Yield Plan (last revised September 4, 2015) recognizing 2 lots where lot 1 was proposed at 90,341 square feet and lot 2 at 88,227 square feet (excluding flag). The Yield Plan met the dimensional lot requirements of the Residential 80 Zoning District (figure 2) 2. The Yield Plan was submitted in response to a Planning Board denial on August 7, 2015 on a Yield Plan showing insufficient-lot widths that did not meet the Town Code §240 -10 B. 3. The impact -on groundwater and the sole source aquifer under the Orient peninsula from residential density is a large concern due to sanitary systems, irrigation and property maintenance. Although the residential density in the area is equal to or greater than 1 acre, the cumulative build out in this sensitive area could lead to greater impacts on ground and surface waters. Public water is not available in this area and the preservation of potable water quality from nitrogen impacts, saltwater intrusion, pathogens, pharmaceuticals, personal care products and volatile organic compounds is a priority. It is these threats that have prompted the Suffolk County Department of Health to develop the regulatory opportunities for the PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ®F SO(/ - DONALD J. WILCENSKI Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS PIERCE RAFFERTY G �p JAMES H. RICH III MARTIN H. SIDOR PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM To: Leslie Weisman, ZBA Chairperson Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals From: Donald J. Wilcenski, Chairman Members of the Planning Board" Date: June 27, 2017 Re: Request for Comments for MacSweeney and Gonzalez SCTM# 1000- 27 -1 -9 ZBA# 7063 v, MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631765-1938 www. southoldtownny. gov X13 RECETVED JUN 2 7 20V ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS The Planning Board has reviewed the project and does not support the Variance as requested based upon the following: 1. The Planning Board has an inactive Standard Application for the subject parcel (figure 1). On October 7, 2015 the Planning Board accepted a Yield Plan (last revised September 4, 2015) recognizing 2 lots where lot 1 was proposed at 90,341 square feet and lot 2 at 88,227 square feet (excluding flag). The Yield Plan met the dimensional lot requirements of the Residential 80 Zoning District (figure 2) 2. The Yield Plan was submitted in response to a Planning Board denial on August 7, 2015 on a Yield Plan showing insufficient-lot widths that did not meet the Town Code §240 -10 B. 3. The impact -on groundwater and the sole source aquifer under the Orient peninsula from residential density is a large concern due to sanitary systems, irrigation and property maintenance. Although the residential density in the area is equal to or greater than 1 acre, the cumulative build out in this sensitive area could lead to greater impacts on ground and surface waters. Public water is not available in this area and the preservation of potable water quality from nitrogen impacts, saltwater intrusion, pathogens, pharmaceuticals, personal care products and volatile organic compounds is a priority. It is these threats that have prompted the Suffolk County Department of Health to develop the regulatory opportunities for the (�) I l-A (" T- at n: Heather Lanza, Town Planning Director TO: Southold Town Planning Board DATE: 11/30/2020 RE: The Orchards Subdivision Application, Orient (2 pages) To the Planning Board, Thank you for your time and careful examination regarding the Orchards subdivision proposal. Considering its proximity to the Orient Historic District and to the Hallock Farm Complex, along with many other residents, I believe that the development of this property should be much more limited In scope and scale. Two ofthe properties associated with the Ha||ook Farm are within 5QO feet of the proposed subdivision. These properties, along with several others just outside of the SOO' buffer, are indicated nn figure 5.1 uf 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 potentia||ymmaosive houses. The 13.3 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 O80 feet from the site. The current plan shows five residential lots, as well as an agricultural building and access road, utilizing F-4Uzoning. Using H-4O and the split cluster configuration does not achieve a rural, open space goal, nor does itpreserve the natural and scenic values of the Town and village. VVe would like ho see a full visual impact study showing rnsxinnuim sized hnrnooamd burn. Another key issue io the lack nfa thorough environmental impact study om groundwater The application requirement is for six new wells including an irrigation well with DEC permit to pump 4 million galloins/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 arild iqualily. A pul.eii[ial �rrpact from the project would be depletion of the groundwater supply lying beneath the property. There is no analysis regarding the severe limitations of Orient's aquifer and groundwater supply. The proposed subdivision has the potential to impact the fresh water supply for the whole village. What will the effects be on neighboring properties quality and quantity of drinking water? The overall impact of the additional demand for water has not been assessed nor has the overall impact of wastewater. The DEIS does NOT address the concerns for potential impacts to groundwater and adjacent properties of discharge of pharmaceuticals, personal care products, VOCs, pesticides, fertilizers or herbicides from the residential properties. The DEIS does not propose the use of I/A sanitary systems, proposes a crop that requires an abundance of fertilizer and pesticides and offers "turf grass" in the unfarmed open space. The applicant should be required to identify the salt water interface and evaluate the impacts of pumping; and there is no mention of how the new sanitary systems might mitigate the impact of any of the discharge. As a resident of 35 years, thank you again for your consideration of both the scope and negative impact of a proposal that falls short of Orient's conservation goals. Sincerely, Christine Churchill c1h is@scottmxLQn.corr 1220 Old Farm Road Orient, NY 11957 Donald Wilcenski, Chairman 11/30/2020 PIb) ++LI And members of Southold Planning Board W, pt, 54375 Route 25 �I VIII, Southold, N.Y., 11971 r�E, ' 2020 RE: The Orchards Subdivision, 2595 Orchard St., Orient, N.Y. SUM # 1000- 21 -7 -3 stiuLhw, kl fo4rvn...__. [1Ia .nn i,)g li :3oai From: Richard Johnson & Laura Santisi 1610 Platt Road Orient, N.Y. 11957 We have been Orient residents since 2011 on Platt Road, on property which backs up to the proposed Orchard Street development. We want to register our opposition to the plan as presented, based on aesthetic and environmental concerns. Aesthetically, there is a quality to Orient village and surrounds that is singularly unspoiled. It is miraculous that it has not been degraded already. It is sad beyond imagining that irreversible damage may occur soon, from this current project or from future ones related to creeping 'luxury living' initiatives emanating from New York City. This appeal may sound like just another local protest against change, and it is that, but there is beyond that something particular about Orient that is worth protecting. The character of Orient seems to lie in some confluence and alchemy of low density, of the rural & farming ambiances, of the colonial inflections in some of the architecture, of the continuing presence of multi - generational families, of the 'edge of the continent geography' with no town to the east of Orient, of the relative absence of commercial activity. At the heart of this confluence of gifts, however, it is probably the qualities of casual low density and modest building structures that contribute most to making the village what it is. You cannot dilute this fragile alchemy very much without destroying it. The proposed Orchard St. project unfortunately suggests some version of a rural /suburban housing project, maybe well- intentioned but a terrible mismatch for what the Orient village and surrounds always have been and remain. It would set a direction of sad, disfiguring dilution of several centuries of organic community aesthetic. Villages, towns and cities world -wide are routinely degraded in the name of property rights and the demands of commerce. Orient may inevitably surrender to that as well, but we hope as many people as possible will speak against it. We certainly do. Other local residents speak more knowledgeably than we can about the multiple damaging features in the existing proposal, especially risks to water supply and water quality. We have read and we support these carefully articulated cautions and alarms. The DEIS unfortunately does not appear to reckon with the multiple aesthetic and practical risks embedded in this ill- advised project. Thank you for your attention. Laura Santisi & Richard Johnson „w C ” N(") ,V 3 0� I �i (AN From: joshuanefskvqnefskv@ve/izonoet> Sent: Monday, November 3O'20203:4UPK4 To: Michaelis, Jessica Subject The Orchards Subdivision Josh Nefsky 835 Halyoke Avenue P(J Box 11 Orient NY, 11957 November 30, 2020 Donald Wilcenski, Chairman And members of the Southold Planning Board 54375 State Road 25 Southold, NY Il97l Re:lOhe Orchards Subdivision R C �kanr|n �0ar� The Subdivision proposed for this site is simply IOODENSE.Itisbmdmnse contextually aLthe comer of Hal oake and Orchard, and it is too dense for th�eresources available. �. Wilcienski, Chairnian of the Planning Board put d best inu Memorandum dated June 27, 2017 in response tna proposal to divide one lot into two nnaneighboring property: "The impact mn groundwater and the sole sourceaqoiferuodezUheOrientpo/boao]a{/orocmsidmntioldenelh/isolargccuooernduetoaanitarys9sterns, irrigation and property maintenance. Although the residential density in the area is equal to or greater than 1 acre, the cumulative build out in this sensitive area could lead to greater impacts on ground and surface waters.'' The is o 133 acre property and the proposal calls for 5 homes and bsoulaod with an irrigation permit to pump 4 million gallons/year. This is equivalent to the water use of over 60homes. The pace of build-out in Orient has accelerated of late and we ore gTate{o| to L�cI1annbog Board for recognizing that the protection of our potable water supply is m priority. If dividing one lot into two is of concern, certainly the number u/ lots io Orchards subdivision should be substantially reduced! Josh Nefsky PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT 2595 ORCHARD STREET 4 (SCTM # 2000 — 27 — 3) PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW I APPLICANTS DRAFT EIS SOUTHOLD PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC HEARING December 7, 2020 — 6 PM Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to the Planning Department Laserfiche Subdivision Pending Application File: ht'l'ji,.//24,38.28,228:20,40/Webi,ink/0``/doc/(, 1725,2iqlln2l.,,is x [ ,,ECEIVEQ t:jlj(,[ oohj 'I uvv� ) �r!Iaiirfli,g Boari!J I have reviewed the Barbara Friedman letter dated November 2, 2020 and the Nancy and Mark Ferraris submission dated November 23, 2020. I am in full support of their comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat last dated 7-8-2020. An Alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to the community. Full Name: Barbara Bloom ull Name c-aA&aAd- 94&ht, Owner Yes No Address: 695 Edwards Lane ant, NY 11957 ional,l Comments: L, ftA PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT 2.595 ORCHARD STREET RECE' IVE) (SCTM # 1000 — 27 — 3) D E i�.. .. . ....... 2�"UZJJ " PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW I APPLICANT'S DRAFT EIS !!'Iainiihig 13M M� SOUTHOLD PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC HEARING December 7, 2020 — 6 PM Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to the Planning Department Laserfiche Subdivision Pending Application File: I have reviewed the Barbara Friedman letter dated November 2, 2020 and the Nancy and Mark Ferraris submission dated November 23, 2020. I am in full support of their comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat last dated 7-8-2020. An Alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to the community. Print Full Name: Richard Gluckman Sign Full Name Property Owne Local Address: 41630 Orchard Street, Orient, NY 11957 . . ........ — Additional Comments: it should be the responsibility of the board to rigorously adher to the word of the law and the intent of the objectives of the preservation of the land, water, views and subsurface conditionh PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT 2595 ORCHARD STREET (SCTM # 1000 — 27 — 3) PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW I APPLICANT'S DRAFT EIS PUBLIC HEARING December 7, 2020 — 6 PM Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to the Planning Department Laserfiche Subdivision Pending Application File. [ittj),//2)4,. -.28.228:2040/Webi,.,ijik/(')/(Ioc/617252/P,. ,�,g'�l-.,,Asll,� RECEIVED Rai.VirIVI!�ig Boan!!l I have reviewed the Barbara Friedman letter dated November 2, 2020 and the Nancy and Mark Ferraris submission dated November 23, 2020. I am in full support of their comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat last dated 7-8-2020. An Alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to the community. Print Full Name: Jeanne Markel Sign Full Name Property Owner (9 No Local Address: 100 Harbor Road, Orient, NY 11957 Additional Comments: I am concerned about the strain on our aquifer that this (level op r-nent will pose. All of the water used on the North Fork is pumped frorn underground aquifers that are fed solely by our local rain and snoWnielL Aquifer levels drop significantly in the swurner Mouths, during the tourism and farming season, which are also the driest months of the year. Peaking a term that refers to periods of heavy demand on our water supply — occurs when a lot of water is drawn from many locations during the sarne period of the day or season, SuCj) as tArhen lawn irrigation systems start simultaneously early on SUrnmer mornings, These peaks in dernand are costly: water delivery costs rise as more holding tanks and additional wells are needed to meet temporary highs. The North Fork is also surrounded by saltwater. When our aquifers shrink or water is purnped heav- ily, salt water moves into the vacumn and contarninates freshwater wells. This is happening with more frequency in our area. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT 2595 ORCHARD STREET I t H-L MT ... .... . . ........ . . .... (SCTM # 1000 — 27 — 3) 2 PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW I APPLICANT'S DRAFT EIS 0 SOUTHOLD PLANNING DEPARTMENT PIan i Board" ­-- PUBLIC HEARING December '7, 2020 — 6 PM Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to the Planning Department Laserfiche Subdivision Pending Application File: ,','.'.,!,�,228:�2��)40/'WebL,ii,il�,,'O/do�e/617252 IZL�,La x -A-lb _ - -- —1-11, —5m I have reviewed the Barbara Friedman letter dated November 2, 2020 and the Nancy and Mark Ferraris submission dated November 23, 2020. I aim in full support of their comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective responses to the Applicant's IDEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat last dated 7-8-2020. An Alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to the community. Print Full Name: Clara Serra Sign Full Name Property Owner yes No Local Address: 4263 Orchard Street We are landowners Additional Comments: We have privately purchased land in Orient to save it from development. I hope tlhe town of Southold Mill not allow Landowners to create miniature suburbs with building clusters . PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT 2595 ORCHARD STREET (SCTM # 1000 — 27 — 3) PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW I APPLICANT'S DRAFT EIS SOUTHOLD PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC HEARING December 7, 2020 — 6 PM Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to the Planning Department Laserfiche Subdivision Pending Application File: in , /O/`doc/617215..2/P,eg l.e lI ........... I have reviewed the Barbara Friedman letter dated November 2, 2020 and the Nancy and Mark Ferraris submission dated November 23, 2020. I am in full support of their comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat last dated 7-8-2020. An Alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to the community. Print Full Name: Keri Christ Sign Full Name Property Owner Yes No Local Address: 22715 Main Road, Orient, NY 11957 Additional Comments: Hydrogeological studies need to be done before a project of this size may be lawfully done. Orient relies upon an aquifer already subject to farming operations, as well as the 2d largest prig 1-lydrogeological studies need to be done before a project of this size may be lawfully done. OnerO relies upon an aquifer already Subject to farming operations, as well as the 2d largest privately-owned ferry olici,ation in the Country, whose environmental impacts have never been the subject of study, although It has massively increased Its operations in recent decades. STEFAN Fj�,q)ERAIIRENwr 1404 Cedar 11W Avenue Dallas, Ilexas 75208 (212) 920,7824 stefi3[r�f(,,uti rabben(lt@yahoo,,com December 2, 2020 Ms. Heiither Lanza, Director Towrii Planning Depaitnbent Town of Southold Towii. Hall Amn,ex Building 54375 Rmite 25 PO l3ox 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Via I'm ail: . ....... ... k err . .. ......... Re-, The Orchards Proposed Subdivision in Orient Dear Director Unza and Board Members: Y.......... CC C" E ' El�; ." EI Cl 2 20ZO pkamiinq, B(,:,1W(J lWy wife and I own the residence at Q5 Ilalyoleze Ave,abutting the� proposed subdivision, I have )re,,vievived the proposed submission plan as vvefl as the carefully written and researched letteirs fi orn Barba1st Friedrinart and the Fermi is. I would prefm r that the land sm completell,' undeveloped and unused v) inaintain the y y mope rmess of the area and to preserve the quality an(] sustainabilily of the water supply, Howeveir, I rea,lize that the land will likely be deivelqped in some way. T[�e facts seem to be (1) the town has as desire to chistef lots in order to ol)laiin n-tore open space for developmeims fil+ti e th s and (2) 1he specific, huid at issue has sensitive waler, constraints. These two cornpefing facts force a �ess than idea� plan on(- that concentrates four potentially large residences on land that has sensifive water COIISUN.dras. Not as 'good idea. I h t.fl an could he niodified in �t�nvs that mmdid he lwiwfici,�,d to the communH�' AND . ... . ........ . to the owner. Ciriven. flie size of the, lot to be subdivided. minder a modified jAan the deve�q)er could ea Hy m put the four or h',ss "clusteired" homes" on eight acres instea(I of four acres (one house per twoacires instead ofone house per one acre) andstill have some undeveloped open space undera, modified plaamm . However this rriodification the town accommodate 11fis solution hN, tm')d ratel'N adjusfin the cluste T! !19m UPIM - — - _-- - - - 1404 Cedar Ifill Avenue Daflas, Tex as 75208 (21 2) 920-7824 stefmii,ifeucrail:)e.ndt@yatioo.cowii JA I F C ONI N111 UN A� FR(tNtA 14aving resWed in the neighborhood for sorne time, I have no doubt that the open space feel of the new hornes behiry ' rnore q-)read out in, this way would feel more "of..)en"' than c under the current proposed plan, even with to technically smalleT undeveloped open space. While c1lustering certainly us a useful tool. in certain circumstances, specifically very Marge developments, it just defies logic to apply the clustering concept to this particular neighborhood for th'ns size lot as it would in effect i•educe the open fee] of the neighborhood, the exact opposite fntent of the clustering concept. g_Lqwn to dLe (Lingit, 1'() Lsr r,')n tLie..�jL1.5terin — — Lh c j NVOU kk—h��I'—L- —ht jLaWPbA(—m"' kir. Vw�hio —ryle-SLP —.1crCS. the 1, (lue con,cenh-alion.of V FITT F'RONI A N "ILIJ) BEN Dfahl k KM It is undoubtedly true that fOUY hOUses on, two acres each are more valuable than four bouses on oine acre each. In conclusion, I WOUld SUggeSt YOU C0115ider that the water reSOUrces in this particular loca6on coWd easily be exhausted or permanently 11hartned with the wrong pkin. Is the town prepared to cornpensale, current residents fn the event of irreparable hal•M to the IM'd Mltff 1-eSOUII:CeS ShOldd the curreint. proposed pWi go forward? I rain sture, v wart will ve a cle'ZIT Ism. of, N, iti I'l their Concerns ql1oll V1 hich tum hipild the tcm n n�.jvc tible should a watQrAIyA,jfty issue arisein the futu re . . ......... Thes,L are rny tlnouughl ts,, and I hope they are accepted in the sljphIt oftryincy find to C011SU'LWflM SOW6011 For the COMIYU111ity and for the develloper and for the town, 'Fhere inust be one, Thank you. S�'�'an m' rilhendt PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT 2595 ORCHARD STREET (SCTM # 1000 — 27 — 3) PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW I APPLICANT'S DRAFT EIS SOUTHOLD PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC HEARING December 7, 2020 — 6 PM Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to the Planning Department Laserfiche Subdivision Pending Application File: littp //? 8 ' ,228:2'1"l40/Wel� ) >1,ink/O /doc /61w7 52 /Pa(=,,eI asp 6) § i UT DEC 2 2D20 I have reviewed the Barbara Friedman letter dated November 2, 2020 and the Nancy and Mark Ferraris submission dated November 23, 2020. I am in full support of their comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat last dated 7 -8 -2020. An Alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to the community. Print Full Name: Jessica Pepi Ginsberg Martin Crane Sign Full Name Property Owner Local Address: 6,_ y Y es No 1750 Platt Road, Orient, NY 11957 Additional Comments: Page 3 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT - ----------- - - . . ..... --- ---------- - . . . . . ................. . . . ... .... ILAC3VLAC"I I O�� I 5--'U'AU CPA N . . ..... . . ...... . . .................... w. . .... . .. . ..... . . ..... . ...... . . =" I .......... - - Martin Crane and Jessica Ginsberg 1750 Platt Road Orient, NY 11957 December 2, 2020 Donald Wilcenski, Chairman And members of the Southold Planning Board 54375 State Road 25 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Orchards Subdivision SCTM # 1000- 21 -7 -3 We are rather recent arrivals to Orient and live on 1750 Platt Road which abuts the proposed development. Our attraction to the area was in large part due to the aesthetic of the land and the low- density, historic houses already here. We are concerned that the Orchards would be jarringly out of character with the surrounding fabric of the neighborhood. We think of the area east of the historic district between Narrow River and Village Lane as a kind of informal walking and biking district. What is left of the views of the water, the marshlands, and low density, historic housing feel to us like a communal resource that significantly increases the quality of life for all of those who call Orient home, and have for decades before we arrived. The corner of Orchard and Halyoke sits in the heart of that zone, and the proposed development would dramatically alter the character of the surrounding streets in a negative way. Additionally, we are concerned that an increase in traffic will adversely affect the neighborhood and residents of the homes adjacent to the proposed development. As the land in question is also one of the larger and last contiguous green spaces in Orient, we are deeply concerned about the environmental effects on the water supply, its potential contamination and the disruption of a highly cultivated and rich wildlife. We have had the opportunity to read all of the letters in opposition and wholeheartedly support our fellow neighbors in their concerns about the negative impacts of this development on the land, the town and all of its inhabitants. Thank you so much for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Martin Crane and Pepi Ginsberg Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to the Planning Department Laserfiche Subdivision Pending Application File. bl H kZ0 I have reviewed the Barbara Friedman letter dated November 2, 2020 and the Nancy anY Mark Ferraris submission dated November 23, 2020. I am in full support of their comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat last dated 7-8-2020. An Alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to the community. Print Full Name: Property Owner Local Address: ............... IMMMIMSTATIVII, PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT 2595 ORCHARD STREET (SCTM # 1000 — 27 — 3) PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW I APPLICANT'S DRAFT EIS SOUTHOLD PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC HEARING December 7, 2020 — 6 PM Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to the Planning Department Laserfiche Subdivision Pending Application File: 1j, Sp 1 have reviewed the Barbara Friedman letter dated October 31, 2020 and the Nancy and Mark Ferraris submission dated November 23, 2020. I am in full support of their comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat last dated 7 -8 -2020. An Alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to the community. Print Full Name: Sign Full Name Property Owner Yes Local Address: Additional Comments: d (eel" Yf vy)rt,,, ctoat Kmr.f �eCkC-Y s-� a� Q r /1 7 1 have reviewed the Barbara Friedman letter dated October 31, 2020 and the Nancy and Mark Ferraris submission dated November 23, 2020. I am in full support of their comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat last dated 7 -8 -2020. An Alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to the community. Print Full Name: Sign Full Name Property Owner Yes Local Address: Additional Comments: d (eel" Yf vy)rt,,, ctoat Kmr.f �eCkC-Y s-� a� Q From: James Haag <jamesfhaag @yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 9:42 AM To: Michaelis, Jessica Cc: Lanza, Heather; Yahoo Subject: The Orchards — concerned comment on this proposal Dear Jessica, Heather and the Southold Planning Board: Would you please confirm receipt of this? Thanks. My name is James Haag and I have been in Orient since the late 1980s and have owned in Orient since 1994. 1 love the community —the essential rural character of Southold Town is one of the main reasons for being here. The other is the warmth of the people and their passionate desire to maintain the beauty of what they have created. I do everything in my power to be kind to the people, the land and the environment in which we live. Over the past decade there has been pressure on the Town to keep its character in check — especially with the emerging popularity of the north fork. I have spoken and corresponded with Supervisor Russell from time to time and encouraged him to do the right thing when it comes to maintaining its character since that is why people want to come here in the first place. am asking you now to seriously consider what is proposed for The Orchards subdivision in Orient. You all know what a jewel Orient is and this proposal has the potential to greatly compromise this town. The expanse of open land in question along Orchard Street is a godsend for the community. It is a reminder of the past with its Hallock Farm roots and a gift to the present in terms of groundwater protection, fresh air, wildlife habitat, and rural character. It is right at the border of our historic district and will bring suburbia clustering into the midst of this timeless community. This is your one chance to preserve our character. This opportunity will never be in front of us again You are our voice— please do the right thing and save Orient from becoming a typical suburban community. On a personal note, many of us have suffered salt water intrusion into our wells at one time or another. That phenomenon renders homes uninhabitable and there is nothing to be done about it once it happens. With rising sea levels we need to do everything possible to protect our groundwater. We cannot have millions of gallons of fresh water a year taken from us by a suburban cluster subdivision. It will destroy a beloved community that has fought continuously to preserve Southold Town for the future. I beg you to please consider this very seriously. It will mean a lot to people who desperately care about the Southold which you have helped preserve. Please see additional specific comments below. Thank you and best regards, James Haag Specifically- -The current plan shows five residential lots, as well as an agricultural building and access road, utilizing R -40 zoning. Using R -40 and the split cluster configuration does not achieve a rural, open space goal, nor does it preserve the natural and scenic values of the Town and village. —We would like the DER include a full visual impact study showing maximum sized homes and barn. —The proposed subdivision has the potential to impact the fresh water supply for the whole village. What will the effects be on neighboring properties quality and quantity of drinking water? The overall impact of the additional demand for water has not been assessed and the overall impact of wastewater has not been assessed. The applicant should be required to identify the salt water interface and evaluate the impacts of pumping. —The DEIS does NOT address the concerns for potential impacts to groundwater and adjacent properties of discharge of pharmaceuticals, personal care products, VOCs, pesticides, fertilizers or herbicides from the residential properties. The DEIS does not propose the use of I/A sanitary systems, proposes a crop that requires an abundance of fertilizer and pesticides and offers "turf grass" in the unfarmed open space. —There is no mention of how the new sanitary systems might mitigate the impact of any of the discharge. ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. z PROPOSED SUBDIVISIO (SCT PRELIMINARY PLAT REV SOUTHOLD PLA PUBLIC HEARING L Full Documents Availal Planning Department Laserfich . + • • ;. �. • :. • •. ♦ it community. responses to nF;4-WNMff7-"T �13MMN' Alternative design scheme is a must in order to.a,, Print Full Name: F— �-� Sign Full Name .-Ir,roperty owner Additional Comments: I .... ... FORTHE EAS i'i December 6, 2020 Donald Wilcenski, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: DEIS Comments - The Orchards Subdivision - 13.3 Acres at 2595 Orchard Street, Orient Dear Chairman Wilcenski: On behalf of Group for the East End, I offer the following comments and recommendations regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for "The Orchards" proposed subdivision. Summary Statement: The Town's recently adopted Southold Town Comprehensive Plan could not be clearer in its vision and goals to protect town character, its environment and aesthetic so that, "Southold retains much of its small -town charm" (Goal Five: Protect the Town Character). In order to truly fulfill this vision and achieve these goals for Southold's future, every development proposal should be met with the highest level of scrutiny and the willingness to collaboratively arrive at appropriate mitigation measures to create the best possible development outcome. Given this, we find the DEIS tol e i�adecljate in a number of key sections Dertainino to chr.(�ter anm m timer resoLc�s and call on the Planning Board to ensure that both the shared visions and goals of the Town are met and that the full extent and provisions provided within SEQRA be utilized to arrive at the best possible development proposal that minimizes potential permanent impact. Impacts to Water Resources: With regard to wastewater, the DEIS summarizes that the impacts to ground and surface water quality are negligible based on the the fact that the subdivision map could provide a density of thirteen homes when only five are proposed. This reasoning completely disregards the actual impact of wastewater on water quality by relying on a circumstance of what could have been. This logic is detrimental and should be addressed within the DEIS by requiring an analysis of the actual impacts the proposed five homes will impart on water resources. It is notable that the Town of Southold, in its Positive Declaration (July 2015), specifically called out impacts of proposed sanitary systems on nearby surface waters of the greater Peconic Estuary systems, which continues to experience the deleterious effects of excess nitrogen loading emanating from standard, single- family sanitary systems. The DEIS is inadequate in addressing these impacts. Recommendations: In light of these continuing circumstances and the shared, critical importance of protecting and preserving the region's water resources, the DEIS should be amended to incorporate a comparative analysis of the impacts of the use of the proposed standard sanitary systems for the five homes versus the use of of I/A OWTS. As a point of mitigation, the DEIS explore the required use of these systems. It's important to note that on October 6, 2020, Suffolk County passed legislation modifying its Sanitary Code to require the incorporation of the alternative systems for all new construction throughout the County. The County's regulations take effect in July of 2021, but should be required for any new construction that could potentially impact water resources now. This recommendation is bolstered by the Town of Southold's recently adopted, Southold Town Comprehensive Plan recommendations: Bullet 5 - "Require the use of (/A OWTS or future technologies to achieve the highest level of effluent treatment in new construction projects" (page 15). It would be irresponsible to omit this consideration from the DEIS given the the above - mentioned circumstances. House Size and Scale The DEIS uses the term "modest" when discussing the proposed home's size and scale. However, "modest" is a relative term. The DEIS does not provide analysis of the size and scale of homes in the adjacent areas to determine what "modest" might consist of and how the size of the proposed homes could have a negative impact on community character, aesthetic and the preservation of viewsheds. Additionally, the DEIS makes zero mention of the Orient community's desire to maintain such character„ These desires are explicitly called out in adopted Town studies and community- driven endeavors. The DEIS should address how the proposed home size and scale conform to the following statements. The Southold Town Comprehensive Plan (one of the Orient community's main goals) F. Ensure future residential development in the hamlet is in keeping with and at a scale consistent with the hamlet's character. This goal can be met, in part, through the implementation of this chapter's Goal 2, which contains a subsection on updating regulations for Residential Uses including home sizes (Page 41). It is important to note that the Orient community strongly favors the protection of community character through the use of limitations on building sizes. The Orient Plan Propositions (May 2020), noted, "No construction shall be permitted that would result in overall housing size (usable square footage) that is out of scale with the existing housing in the immediate neighborhood; this provision shall be in addition to zoning requirements, including lot coverage, setback, height and other limitations. Recommendations: The DEIS should provide an analysis of area home sizes and scales. As a form of mitigation, to ensure that the proposed homes do not create negative impact on community character, the DEIS should discuss a required covenant that specifies maximum allowable home sizes of a certain scale. Conclusion: We believe strongly that the DEIS did not fully achieve a level of analysis that provided an honest assessment regarding the impacts of the proposal and therefore, is deficient in providing mitigation measures that would help to create the best possible development outcome for this property. We urge the Planning Board to heavily weigh the Town's Comprehensive Plan and the Orient community's strong desire to protect its character and environment and to require the recommended mitigation measures. Thank you for taking the time to review our comments. Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to reach me at your convenience. I can be reached at "hartltna �el(,�Deastendenvironrnent.oro. Sincerely, /41111 Jenn Hartnagel Senior Environmental Advocate Group for the East End I PO Box 1792 1 Southold, NY 11971 1 GroupfortheEastEnd.org 1 631.765.6450 PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT 2595 ORCHARD STREET (SCTM # 1000 — 27 — 3) PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW I APPLICANT'S DRAFT EIS SOUTHOLD PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC HEARING December 7, 2020 — 6 PM Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to the Planning Department Laserfiche Subdivision Pending Application File: Iti ld -gym - "18.228 :2 "IO /W bI ir'k/O /`')c /(il7 52/1'mcI- -asm I have reviewed the Barbara Friedman letter dated November 2, 2020 and the Nancy and Mark Ferraris submission dated November 23, 2020. 1 am in full support of their comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat last dated 7 -8 -2020. An Alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to the community. Print Full Name: Sign Full Name _ Property Owner Local Address: Additional Comments: 16 i—f o .14 5(, z have reviewed'l and Mark Ferrari am in full suppc responses to the Alternative desig community. Print Full Name: Sign Full Name, Property Local Address' Additional Cc 2 �y PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT 2595 ORCHARD STREET (SCTM # 1000 - 27 - 3) PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW APPLICANT'S DRAFT EIS" SOUTHOLD PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC HEARING December 7, 2020 — 6 PM 0 r Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to the e su and Proposed Preliminary Plat last dated 7- ist in order to address the adverse im'nacts t From: Anne Hopkins xannehmpkins2@idnudzom> Sent: Monday, December 7,202U6:07PK4 To: Michaelis, Jessica r— — Subject: TheOohards�ubdividoninOhent ' To: Donald YVilcenski and members ofthe Planning Board Iam writing in opposition to the proposed Orchards Subdivision in Orient, SCTM#I000-21-7-3. My views have been very well presented iu the letter from ozy neighbor Barbara Friedman. Aoa member c6 the Orient Association since its founding in 1985 and resident at 380 Platt Road I am well aware of the threats to our water supply and the danger of salt water intrusion especially at the location of this proposed project. 7he subdivision should not be allowed tn proceed usplanned. Anne Hopkins 380 Platt Road Orient, N`yl1957 Sent from ooyWad ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emaila. From: Christine Lauber <lauber.christine @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 12:32 PM To: Michaelis, Jessica Subject: Liserfiche Subdivision Pending Application I have reviewed the Barbara Friedman letter dated October 31, 2020 and the Nancy and Mark Ferraris submission dated November 23, 2020. As a forty -year resident and owner at 4090 Orchard Street, I am concerned about the impact on my residence of the proposed subdivision. I am in full support of the comments of those named above, as well as the critical concerns expressed in their respective responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plan last dated 7 -8 -20. An alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to the community. Joel Lauber ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. H PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT 2595 ORCHARD STREET (SCTM # 1000 — 27 — 3) PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW I APPLICANT'S DRAFT EIS SOUTHOLD PLANNING DEPARTMENT r PUBLIC HEARING December 7, 2020 — 6 PM Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to the Planning Department Laserfiche Subdivision Pending Application File: htt) -/ ,, .38,2 .22 2040/We Liill< /O/doc/617252/ a i e asp I have reviewed the Barbara Friedman letter dated November 2, 2020 and the Nancy and Mark Ferraris submission dated November 23, 2020. I am in full support of their comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat last dated 7 -8 -2020. An Alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to the community. Print Full Name: Sign Full Name Property Owner Local Address: 1\3 CW Additional Comments: Yes U11-41i C No COMMENTER P -27 From: Sent: To: Lanza, Heather Tuesday, January 12, 2021 10:19 AM Michaelis, Jessica Cc: Terry, Mark Subject: FW: The Orchards Subdivision in Orient Orchards DEIS Comment for the record From: Drianne Benner [mailto:driannebenner @att.net] Sent: Monday, January 11, 20217:41 PM To: Lanza, Heather < heather .lanza @town.southold.ny.us> Subject: The Orchards Subdivision in Orient Hello Heather, Happy 2021. I hope you and your family had a safe and happy one. A -164 JAN 2021 d S66%ii0id Town ` Planning Board C -57 Barbara Friedman's letter of January 6th 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? Thank you and best regards, Drianne Benner Orient Association ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. A -165 COMMENTER P -28 From: Jim Braddock <Braddock @mitchellgiurgola.com> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 2:24 PM1►_,tY To: Michaelis, Jessica ��f C R / Cc: Barbara Friedman ' `� °-= D Subject: The Orchard's Subdivision JAN 1 4 2021 Attachments: COMMUNITY SIGNATURE FORM - 011121.pdf 5t7uLhuiu i own Planning Board Hi Jessica, C -57 Here is my community signature form related to The Orchard's Subdivision in support of the thoughtful and eloquent comments made by Barbara Friedman. Thank you very much. Best regards, James R. Braddock, FAIA Partner Mitchell Giurgola Mitchell Giurgola Architects LLP 630 Ninth Avenue, Suite 711 New York, NY 10036 212.663.4000 mitchellaiu rgoia.com ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT 2595 ORCHARD STREET (SCTM # 1000 — 27 — 3) PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW I APPLICANT'S DRAFT EIS SOUTHOLD PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC HEARING December 7, 2020 — 6 PM Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to the Planning Department Laserfiche Subdivision Pending Application File: http://24,38.28. 228 :2040 /WebLink/O /doc /617252/Page l .aspx A -166 RECERIED JAN 14 2021 L_. SoUL1ula i own Planning Board —kV,&prchc r4S S-1D. I have reviewed the Barbara Friedman letter dated November 2, 2020 and the Nancy and Mark Ferraris submission dated November 23, 2020. Also, Barbara's 1/6 letter. I am in full support of their comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat last dated 7 -8 -2020. An Alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to the community. Print Full Name: James R. Braddock Sign Full Name Property Owner `Yes Local Address: 45 Platt Road fire Orient, NY 11957 Additional Comments: C -62 I agree with the Group for the East End 12/6 letter that house size should be studied and restricted by covenant to assure consistency with surroundings. A -167 COMMENTER P -29 From: Barbara Cohen <bjcohen @att.net> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 2:28 PM To: Lanza, Heather Cc: Michaelis, Jessica; Terry, Mark; Nancy Ferraris Subject: The Orchards- Draft EIS - Supplemental Submission -Jan 11 2021 Attachments: Ferraris - Orchard St EIS - Supplemental Letter Jan 11 2021.pdf Dear Ms. Lanza, I am writing on behalf of Nancy and Mark Ferraris to submit their supplemental letter focusing directly on water quality and quantity, informed by professionals in the field.b� Attached is the document for the record. Please confirm receipt. Thanks very much. RECEIVED JAN 14 2021 southo(d Town Y Planning Board Barbara J. Cohen BJC Associates, Inc. PO Box 391 Peconic NY 11958 ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. A -168 COMMENTER P -29 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 Ferraris A -169 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). d. 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 NON - COMMENT 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 NON - COMMENT 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 '` 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 Fen-aris A -170 hydraulic properties and boundary conditions of the freshwater flow systems, and by the distribution of hydraulic head within and adjacent to them." b. "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 (McNew 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 -171 due to global warming can be expected to affect coastal drinking water wells by raising the level of salty water. C -63 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 testinq 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. NYS DEC Permit ID 1- 4738 - 04435/00001- Modification # 1 Expiration Date 6/28/2027 Nancy and Mark Ferraris 4 A -172 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 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, d Nancy and Mark Ferraris Nancy and Mark Ferraris