HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix ESummary of Written Public and Town Staff Comments
iment ID Nature of Comment
C -1 Will change community character
C -2 Traffic understated
C -3 Code compliance with open space requirement
C -4 Code compliance for flag lot design
C -5 Impact to downgradient surface water
C -6 Impact on groundwater
C -7 Availability of groundwater for irrigation use
C -8 Saltwater intrusion due to wells
C -9 Could impact freshwater water for the entire Village
C -10 SCDHS not evaluating impact on Orient.; focused on County wide
C -11 Impact due to discharge of pharmaceuticals, VOCS, etc
C -12 Impact due to fertilizer and pesticides
C -13 I/A sanitary systems
C -14 Turf grass
C -15 Impact due to the demand for additional water
C -16 Overall impact of wastewater
C -17 Conserved area does not meet 60% minimum
C -18 Conserved area not conducive to agricultural use
C -19 DEIS suggest spec houses
C -20 Visual impact of potentially large homes
C -21 The houses can be unlimited in size based on Town code
C -22 Landscape buffers, hedges and shrubs not shown
C -23 Barn on axis with Old Farm Rd
Rural nature of Orchard and Halyoake spolied by four potentially massive
C -24 homes
C -25 Safe guards to limit house sizes
C -26 Full visual impact study
C -27 House design should be limited
C -28 Sell land to trust to preserve 100%
C -29 Orient does not need this type of housing
C -30 Tax revenue increase is positive
C -31 Could be negative impacts from filtering out Aldicarb
C -32 SLOSH zone
C -33 No endangered species but deer nuisance
C -34 Location of street trees
C -35 Subdivision should be denied
C -36 Horowitz property should serve as guideline for The Orchards
C -37 Introduction of farming use questionable due to water usage
Over- development impacting groundwater, and nitrogen /chemical run -
C-38 off to the bay
Proposed plat is clear disregard to Town's vision statement, County and
C -39 State conservation planning
C -40 Plan inconsistencies abound
C -41 Seeking SCDHS approval is presumptuous and confusing
Applicants reluctance and impatience should not lessen Planning Board's
C -42 authority
C -43 Project informed by the Historic Village in close proximity to the site
C -44 Neighborhood character and lot sizes 1.5 acres to 6 acres
C -45 Questioning if cluster development is best way to go
C -46 Homeowners will build to the maximum
C -47 The building lots may be predisposed to ZBA waivers
C -48 Full build out would negate historical reference to Hallock Farm approach
House, barn, driveway and deer fence all interrupt scenic view across
C -49 proposed lot 1
Allowing larger residential lot, barn and access road is excessive and
C -50 unacceptable
Proposed preliminary plat clearly demonstrates benefits to Applicant far
C -51 exceeds nominal tax revenue increase
C -52 Cherry picking results while ignoring Orient's fragile water supply
Commenter ID
P- 1;P- 9;P- 17;P -20
P- 1;P -17
P- 2 ;P-4;P -5
P- 2 ;P -4;P -5
P- 2;P -21
P- 2;P- 7;P- 8;P- 9;P- 17;P -21
P- 2;P -5;P -6
P- 2;P- 8;P- 20;P -24
P -2
P -2
P -2;P -8
P- 2;P- 5;P -7;P -8
P- 2;P- 8;P -21
P -2 ;P -8
P- 2;P- 7;P- 8;P- 9;P- 17;P -21
P -2 ;P -8
P -2
P -2
P -2
P- 2;P -21
P -2 ;P -5
P -2
P -2
P -2;P -8
P -2
P- 2;P- 5;P- 8;P -20
P -2
P -2
P -2
P -2
P -2
P -2
P -2
P -2
P -2
P -3
P -3
P -4
P -7
P- 7;P -19
P -7
P -7
P -7;P -8
P -7
P- 7;P- 8;P -20
P -7
P -7
P -7
P -7
P -7
P -7
P -7
A -173
DEIS Section
FEIS
Applicable
Section
4.4
4.4.1
4.2
4.2.1
2.1
2.1.1
2.1
2.1.2
3.2
3.2.21
3.2
3.2.24
3.2
3.2.7
3.2
3.2.9
3.2
3.2.24
3.2
3.2.21
3.2
3.2.25
3.2
3.2.26
3.2
3.2.4
3.4
3.4.3
3.2 3.2.7
3.2 3.2.23
2.1 2.1.4
2.2 2.2.1
2.1 2.1.5
4.4 4.4.2
4.4 4.4.3
4.4 4.4.4
4.4 4.4.5
4.4 4.4.6
4.4 4.4.7
4.4 4.4.8
4.4 4.4.9
6.2 6.2.2
2.2 2.2.2
2.2 2.2.3
3.2 3.2.27
3.1 3.1.1
3.5 3.5.3
2.1 2.1.6
2.1 2.1.7
2.1 2.1.8
4.1 4.1.4
3.2 3.2.21
4.1 4.1.5
2.1 2.1.9
3.2 3.2.28
2.1 2.1.10
4.4 4.4.10
4.4 4.4.11
2.1 2.1.11
2.4 2.4.3
2.4 2.4.4
4.4 4.4.12
4.4 4.4.13
2.1
2.1.12
2.2
2.2.4
3.2
3.2.29
A -174
SCDHS density allows 13 homes to be constructed and benefit of
C -53
filtration to remove contaminants
P -7
3.2
3.2.30
C -54
Planning Board should require a second DEIS
P -7
2.4
2.4.5
C -55
Sample Open Space Conservation Easement not applicable to the project
P -7
4.4
4.4.14
C -56
Development is too dense
P -10
2.1
2.1.13
P-11;P-12;P-13;P-14;P-15;P-
Commenter signed form supporting comments of commenters P -2
17;P-18;P-19;P-22;P-23;P-
C-57
and /or P -7
25;P- 26;P- 27;P -28
Hydrologic study needs to be done before a project of this size can be
C -58
lawfully done
P -15
3.2
3.2.31
Would prefer the land remain undeveloped and unused to maintain
C -59
openness and preserve water supply
P -16
6.2
6.2.3
C -60
Plan could be modified to be beneficial to developer and community
P -16
2.1
2.1.14
If Town would forbear on clustering it would reduce the stress on the
C -61
water supply
P -16
2.1
2.1.15
C -62
Should have covenant limiting home sizes
P- 21;P -28
2.1
2.1.16
Determing availability of groundwater in area through hydraulic
C -63
testing
P -29
3.2
3.2.32
C -64
Use Open Space Conservation Easement to set limits on crops
P -29
4.1
4.1.6
T -1
SCDHS approval for the siting and preliminary design of sanitary systems
Town Staff
3.2
3.2.1
T -2
Reduction of groundwater contamination
Town Staff
3.2
3.2.2
T -3
Groundwater contamination reduction not voluntary
Town Staff
3.2
3.2.3
T -4
Why I/A OWTS not proposed
Town Staff
3.2
3.2.4
T -5
Planning Board requires I/A OWTS for all new subdivisions
Town Staff
4.1
4.1.1
T -6
Analysis of conventional vs. I/A OWTS
Town Staff
3.2
3.2.5
T -7
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Discuss recent SCDHS I A OWTS regu ation
Town Sta
2.4
2.4.1
T -8
Provide discussion of sole source aquifer
Town Staff
3.2
3.2.6
T- 9
2
3.2.7
T -10
What is the water budget for proposed action
Town Staff
3.2
3.2.8
T -11
What mitigation to prevent salt water intrusion
Town Staff
3.2
3.2.9
T -12
Clarify density of homes permitted
Town Staff
3.2
3.2.10
T -13
BBBBC'arify water supply or surroun ing area
Town Sta
3.2
3.2.11
T -14
Planning Board disagrees with SCDHS variance approval implication
Town Staff
3.2
3.2.12
Planning Board believes SCDHS would have granted variance even if
T -15
adverse impact to water supply was expected
Town Staff
3.2
3.2.13
T -16
What is projected gallons of water used per day
Town Staff
3.2
3.2.14
T -17
What is projected zone of influence from well head
Town Staff
3.2
3.2.15
T -18
What are potential impacts to private wells surrounding the area
Town Staff
3.2
3.2.16
T -19
What are mitigation measures for potential impacts
Town Staff
3.2
3.2.17
T -20
Identify alternate permitted open space use in lieu of farming crops
Town Staff
4.1
4.1.2
T -21
How will up- coning of salt water be prevented
Town Staff
3.2
3.2.18
T -22
What are drought patterns for this location
Town Staff
3.2
3.2.19
T -23
Specific best management practices to conseve water for crops
Town Staff
3.2
3.2.20
T -24
What is action plan if chloride found in well
Town Staff
2.4
2.4.2
Planning Board believes Article 6 of SCSC is outdated and does not
T -25
account for curent conditions
Town Staff
3.2
3.2.21
Planning Board disagrees that building less homes is not nitrogen
T -26
mitigation
Town Staff
3.2
3.2.22
T -27
Provide detailed nitrogen budget for parcel and uses
Town Staff
3.2
3.2.23
T -28
Assess impact to nearby Significant Natural Community
Town Staff
3.4
3.4.1
Determine if NYS Natural Heritage Program protected vegetation species
T -29
occur on site
Town Staff
3.4
3.4.2
T -30
Discuss eastern box turtle
Town Staff
3.5
3.5.1
T -31
Discuss Northern long -eared bat
Town Staff
3.5
3.5.2
T -32
Calculate agricultural land lost
Town Staff
5.1
5.1.2
T -33
Address Preservation of land statement in DEIS
Town Staff
6.2
6.2.1
T -34
Address Town Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2020
Town Staff
4.1
4.1.3
T -35
Address future flooding due to SLOSH
Town Staff
3.1
3.1.1
T -36
Four separate driveway not permissible
Town Staff
2.1
2.1.3
T -37
Flag lot design
Town Staff
2.1
2.1.2
Insufficient mitigation for groundwater depletion, saltwater intrusion and
T -38
groundwater pollution
Town Staff
3.2
3.2.24