Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFGEIS Vol. ITOWll CIZRI( COPT Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Volume I of II Comments and Responses & Appendices A-E AUGUST 2003 FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY Town of Southold Suffolk Count)', New York Town Board of the Town of Southold (SEQRA Lead Agency) Supervisor, Hon. Joshua Horton Justice Louisa P. Evans Councilman Craig Richter Councilman William D. Moore Councilman Thomas Wickham Councilman John M. Romanelli Town Board of the Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Contact: Hon. Joshua Horton, Supervisor (631) 765-1889 Town Clerk: Elizabeth Neville (631) 765-1800 Town o~f SouthoM Comprehensive Implementation Strategy_ Support Staff John Sepenoski, Data Processing/GIS Mark Terry., Sr. Environmental Planner Carol Kalin~ Planning Board Secretary Barbara Rudder, Administrative Assistant Melissa Spiro, Land Preservation Coordinator Town of SouthoM Supporting Departments Scott Russell, Tax Assessor Michael Verity, Building Department James Richter, Town Engineer James McMahon, Community Dev. & Parks James Bunchuck, Solid Waste/Landfill Prepared by: Moratorium Planning Team Greg Yakaboski, Esq., Town Attorney Valerie Scopaz, AICP, Town Planner Melissa Spiro, Land Preservation Coordinator Charles J. Voorhis, CEP, A1CP, Consultant Patrick Clemy, AICP, PP Consultant Lisa Kombrink, Esq. Consulting Attorney James Gesualdi, Esq., AICP, Consulting Attorney Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC Nelson & Pope. Engineers & Surveyors 572 Walt Whitman Road Melville, New York 11747 Contact: Charles J. Voorhis. CEP, AICP (631) 427-5665 Cleao. Consulting 529 Asharoken Avenue Northport, NY 11768 Contact: Patrick Cleary, AICP, PP (631) 754-3085 August 2003 Page i Southold Comprehensive Imp emental on Strateg.~ Final Generic ElS TABLE OFCONTENTS Volume 1 of 2 COVER SHEET Page TABLE OF CONTENTS ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED ACTION 1.1 Introduction 1.l.1 Purpose of this Document 1.1.2 Organization o£this Document I-1 2.0 DOCUMENT & PLAN-RELATED COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 2.1 Availability/Access to DGEIS, Additional Time Needed to Review/Comment on DGEIS, Necessity for Additional Hearings and Need to Extend Moratorium 2.2 DGEIS Contents 2.3 Additional/Improved Maps and Documentation Needed for Informational Purposes 2.4 Contents of Proposed Action 2.5 Need Action Plan 2.6 List of Acronyms 2.7 Comments from Southold Parks District Commissioner 2.8 Future Actions and SEQRA Reviews 2.9 Purpose of DGEIS is Not Well Defmed 2.10 Additional Suggestions for Inclusion in Proposed Action 2-3 2-5 2-6 2-6 2-8 2-'0 2-9 3.0 ALTERNATIVES-RELATED COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3.1 Altern~ive Means of Land Acquisition 3.2 FAIR Plan 3.3 Alternative Development Rights Proposal 3.4 Need for Additional Alternatives 3.5 Alternatives 3.6 No Action Alternative 3.7 Alternative Up-Zoning Proposal i-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-10 3-14 4.0 PDR]TDR-RELATED COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 4.1 Adequacy of Funding for Land Acquisition and TDR Program 4.2 TDR Origin/Destination Analysis 4.3 PDR Program Status and Funding 4.4 Implications on Land Value from Transferred Development 4.5 PDR "Paradox" 4.6 TDR and Compensation for Loss of "Rights" 4.7 SCDHS Density and TDR 4.8 Effectiveness of PDR Program 4-1 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-6 4-7 4-7 4-7 4-8 Page ii Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy · Final Generic EIS 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 4.9 Reimbursements to Property Owners 4.10 PDR Calculation Process and Implications 4-9 4-9 AFFORDABLE HOUSING-RELATED COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5.1 Establish Housing Authority 5.2 Impacts on Cottage House Owners & Provision of Affordable Housing 5.3 Upzoning and Its Relationship to Affordable Housing 5.4 Town Provision of Affordable Housing 5-1 5-1 5-I 5-2 5-3 UPZONING-RELATED COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 6.1 Implications of 5-Acre Clustering and "Sterilization" of Land 6.2 25-Acre Zoning on Sensitive Lands 6.3 Recommendations of Prior Reports for 5-Acre Upzoning, and Associated Impacts 6.4 Comparison of Southold Town to Other Localities 6.5 Public Understanding of Upzoning to 5-Acre 6.6 Impact on Farms from Other Upzoning Programs 6.7 Land Use Pattern 6.8 Concept of 80%/60% is Left Undef'med 6.9 Life After Build-Out is Not Anticipated 6.10 Need an Analysis of ail of the Zoning Required to Implement a Zoning Plan 6.11 Upzoning and Proposed Action and Undermining Farming 6.12 Impact on Farming from Prior Upzonings 6.13 Clustering and Land Values 6-1 6-1 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-3 6-4 6-6 6-7 6-9 6-9 6-11 6-12 6-13 ECONOMICS-RELATED COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 7-I 7.1 Complete and Unbiased Socio-Economic Analysis Needed, to include 7-1 Agricultural Business, Equity and Property. Values 7.2 Funding for and Costs of Farmland Preservation Program 7-2 7.3 Taxpayer Contributions to Fund Preservation Efforts 7-3 7.4 Town Tax Abatement Authority 7-4 7.5 Cost of Compensating the Farmers for Development Rights 7-5 is Not Revealed 7.6 Need a Comparison of the Cost of Installing Private 7-5 Utilities versus Public Utilities 7.7 Requests for Tax Information 7-6 7.8 Economic and Social Assessment of Town Carrying Capacity 7-7 FARMLAND PRESERVATION-RELATED COMMENTS .Sd~D RESPONSES 8-l 8.1 Establishment of View Easements 8-1 8.2 Town Code Amendment to Prohibit Residential Use in 8-1 Agricultural Districts 8.3 Analysis of Success of Existing Farmland Preservation Measures 8-2 Page iii Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strateg~ Final Generic ElS 8.4 "Preservation" Defined 8.5 Success of Other RID Programs 8.6 Scenic B,~'ays and Farmland Operations Restrictions 8.7 Need a Plan to Maintain Farmland in Agricultural Production 8.8 Long lsland Farm Bureau Comments 8,9 Farming on Clustered-Lot Sites 8.10 Tree Preservation >,-4 9.0 BUILD-OUT ANALYSIS-RELATED COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 9.1 Comments on Build-Out Calculations 9.2 ."Margin for Error" in Calculations for Build-Out Analysis 9,3 MajoriW of Land at Risk is in Lots 2 Acres or Less in Size 9.4 Correlate Water Use and Build-Out Analysis 9.5 Build-Out Scenario under 5-Acre Zoning 9.6 Build-Out and Costs to Taxpayers 9.7 Additional Modeling of Alternatives 9.8 15% Slope Area Calculations 9,9 Depth to Groundwater and Construction 9.10 Build-Out Calculations 9.11 Build-Out Analysis and Tracking Study 9.12 Build-Out Analysis and Continued Preservation Efforts ti- I ~-3 9-4 U-5 9-5 ~)-7 10.0 MISCELL,ANEOUS COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 10.1 Comments in Support of DGEIS Contents and Proposed Action I 0-1 10.2 Site Plan Review 10- 10.3 Traffic 10-2 10.4 Formation of New Villages in Town 10-2 10.5 Analysis of Interaction Among All 43 Tools 10.6 Availability of Public Water and Development Pattern 10-3 10.7 Use of Reverse Osmosis Systems on Impacted Public Wells 10.8 Objection to Use of Photograph of Krupski Farm in DGEIS 1~-5 10.9 Objection to Farmers Bearing Brunt of Preservation Effort 10-6 10.10 Agricultural Preserve as Memorial 1{I-7 10.11 Cottage House Conversions 10.12 Variances 10.13 "Suburbanization' of Southold 1~)-9 10.14 Exhausting Single and Separate Lots 10.15 Wineries and Country, Inns I~M0 10.16 Parks and Hamlets I {~- 1 I 10.17 Farm Laborer Housing I {~-13 10.18 Jurisdiction of Board of Trustees Regarding Wetlands 10-14 10.19 Goals and Objectives of the Proposed Action and Implications 10-15 on the Quality of Life and Governmental Services 10.20 Hamlet Delineations 1 {}- 15 10.21 Non-Conforming, Undersized Lots ll)-lO Page iv · · · · · 10.22 10.23 10.24 10.25 10.26 10.27 10.28 10.29 TABLES Table 1 FIGURES Figure 1 Figure 2 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Need to Analyze Grumman Property Need for and Conflicts with Master Plan Code Enforcement Water Supply and Consumption Conservation Opportunity Subdivision Enhancement Rural Incentive District Town-Wide Vote on Proposed Action Openness 10-17 10-17 10-23 10-23 10-24 10-24 10-25 10-25 Zoning Categorization of Land in Updated Farmland Inventories 3-5 Vacant Non-Conforming Parcels Non-Conforming Parcels After 5-Acre Upzoning ACCEPTANCE OF DRAFT GEIS, Town Board, June 3, 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING, Town Board, June 19, 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING, Town Board, June 23, 2003 TIL4,NSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING, Town Board, June 24, 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING, Town Board, July 8, 2003 APPENDIX F APPENDIX G G-1 Volume 2 of 2 TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING, Town Board, July 15, 2003 WRITTEN COMMENTS F.A.[.R. Growth Management Plan for a Rural Southold, Southold Business Alliance, undated G-2 Letters from Lending Institutions in Support of Comments from Steve Mudd, June 13-15, 2003 G-3 Letter from Krupski Family, undated G-4 Letter from Robert W. and Helen W. Keith, June 19, 2003 G-5 Letter from Mary Foster Morgan, June 19, 2003 G-6 Letter from J.L. Conway, Commissioner, Southold Park District, undated G-7 Letter from George W. Clark, June 21, 2003 G-8 Letter from John C. Tuthill, June 22, 2003 G-9 Comments from William W. Schriever, June 19, 2003 G-10 Comments from Ray Huntington, June 23, 2003 Page v Southold Coraprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS G-I 1 Letter from Joseph A. Lee, June 23, 2003 G-12 Letter from Julie Amper, June 23, 2003 G-13 Letter from Leila & James McKay, June 23, 2003 G-14 Letter from Helen A. McPartland, June 23, 2003 G-15 Letter from R.L. Feger, et al, June 23, 2003 G-16 Letter from Ed Booth, June 23, 2003 G-17 Comments from Long Island Farm Bureau, Rebecca Wiseman. Assocmtc Director, June 24, 2003 G-18 Data in Support of Comments from Joseph Gergela, Executive Director, Long Island Farm Bureau, June 23, 2003 G-19 Letter from Richard F. Lark, June 24, 2003 G-20 Letter from Mr. & Mrs. David L. Fisher, June 25, 2003 G-21 e-mail to Town Clerk's Office from Ken Schneider, June 26, 201)3 G-22 Letter from Elsie S. Bleimiller, undated G-23 DGEIS Questions tbr Follow-Up, Bill Edwards, 7/15/2003 G-24 Letter to Albert Krupski, President, Board of Trustees, from Valerie Scopaz. Town Planner, June 19, 2003 G-25 Letter from John Barnes, 6/30/03 G-26 Letter from Deanna Alp -t and Elissa Rosner, June 30, 2003 G-27 Letter from Jeanne Genovese, June 26, 2003 G-28 Letter from Mr. And Mrs. Domenick Congemi, undated G-29 Letter from Fred and Joan Schwab, June 28, 2003 G-30 Letter from Barbara & John Zaveski, et al, 6.30.03 G-31 Letter from Linda Bertani, Secretary/Treasurer, Southold Park District, June 24, 2003 G-32 e-mail from Cristina and Joe Como, July 10, 2003 G-33 Letter from Deanna Alpert and Elissa Rosner, June 29. 2003 G-34 e-mail from Ray Huntington, July 7, 2003 G-35 Letter from Cathy Craig, July 2, 2003 G-36 Letter from Andrew Greene, July 2, 2003 G-37 Letter from Walter Gaipa, July 6, 2003 G-38 Letter from Clare E. Brown, July 11, 2003 G-39 Letter from James H. McKay, July 1 l, 2003 G-40 Letter fi'om Stephen Weir, June 25, 2003 G-41 Fig. Four, Expansion of Metropolitan Coastal Areas, undated G-42 Letter from Marie A. Domenici, July 15, 2003 G-43 Documents in Support of Comments from George Penny, undated G-44 e-mail from Doris McGreevey, July 18, 2003 G-45 Letter from William W. Esseks, July 2 I, 2003 G-46 Letter from D.J. Gray, July 21, 2003 G-47 Memo from Town Agricultural Advisory Board, July 22. 2003 G-48 Memo from Joseph Gergela, Executive Director, Long Island Fam~ Bureau. July 23, 2003 G-49 Letter from Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., July 25, 2003 G-50 Memo from Edward C. Booth, July 17, 2003 Page ,i · Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS G-51 Letter from The Jurzenia Family, Jul3, 25, 2003 G-52 Letter from Ray Huntington, July 25, 2003 G-53 Letter from Abigail A. Wickhan~, July 25, 2003 G-54 Memo from Town Land Preservation Committee, July 25, 2003 G-55 Memo from Jane V. Burger, July 25, 2003 G-56 Letter from The Peconic Land Trust, July 24, 2003 G-57 Memo from Eric D. KeiL undated G-58 Memo from William W. Schriever, July 25, 2003 G-59 Letter from North Fork Environmental Council, Inc., July 25, 2003 G-60 Letter from Town Planning Board, July 25, 2003 G-61 Memo from Thomas Wickham, July 24, 2003 APPENDIX H APPENDIX RIAM MODEL RUN: 5-ACRE UPZONING SCDHS LETTER, Division of Environmental Quality, August 5, 2003 Page · Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED ACTION This document is a Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS) prepared for the Southold Town Board, as sponsor of this proposal, to analyze the potential impacts of a set of amendments to the Southold Town Code and various Town regulations, procedures, policies, planning and management initiatives being considered by the Board. Specifically, the proposed action considers implementation of relevant and important planning and program tools and mechanisms described and recommended in the numerous planning studies undertaken within the Town over the past 20 years. These studies, plans and recommendations have been reviewed in terms of current needs and Town goals, in order to achieve the Town's vision as articulated in those plans. Review of the plans and studies found that many newer documents reiterated prior recommendations, resulting in much consistency between studies and the goals of the Town over the years. It should be emphasized that the proposed action involves primarily legislative changes, with no specific physical changes proposed. The Draft GEIS (prepared earlier and accepted by the Board) described and discussed the existing zoning regulations that govern land use and development within the Town, the 43 planning tools, and the potential impacts of their implementation (including the impacts of development conducted in conformance with them). This document responds to comments raised by the public and involved agencies on the DGEIS and proposed action. This FGEIS is a part of the GEIS record; the DGEIS is incorporated by reference such that the combination of the DGEIS and this document constitutes the complete GEIS. 1.1 Introduction 1.1.1 Purpose of this Document This GElS is submitted in compliance with the rules and regulations for implementation of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), as administered by the Southold Town Board. A GEIS is required under SEQRA in order to provide the lead agency with the information and analysis necessary to make an informed decision on a proposed action where one or more significant impacts are anticipated. Exploration of mitigation measures and analysis of reasonable alternatives are also required within a GEIS. This FGEIS addresses issues and comments provided by the public, and interested and involved agencies on the information presented in the DGEIS and public hearing. This document addresses the agency and written public comments on the DGEIS received by the Lead Agency, and the oral public comments provided during the June 19, 2003 Town Board hearing (continued to June 23~a, June 24TM, July 8th and July 15tn). After acceptance of the FGEIS by the lead agency and at least a final 10-day comment period, the Town Board will be responsible for the preparation of a Statement of Findings, which will form the basis for the final decision on the application. Following this process, thc Town Board will render a decision on the proposed action. Page 1-1 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strateg) I~inal Generic EtS 1.1.2 Organization of this Document Appendix A contains the Town Board resolution accepting the DGEIS as complete and acceptable tbr public review and comment, which also scheduled the date tbr the public hearing on the proposed action. Appendices B-F contain the transcripts for the June 19th, June __~ . June 24th, July 8th and July 15tn hearings, respectively. Written comments were received l?om numerous soumes, and are presented in their original tbrm in Appendix G. In these latter six appendices, substantive comments have been indicated and numbered sequentially, along with the section where the response can be frbund. There were a total of 569 separate comments: Appendix B contains comments B-I to B-57, Appendix C contains comments C-I to C-57. Appendix D contains comments D-I to D-102. Appendix E contains comments E-I to E-49. Appendix F contains comments F-1 to F-59, and Appendix G contains comments G-1 to G-245. Finally, Appendices H and I contain a RIAMS computer analysis assuming a 5-acre upzoning, and correspondence from the SCDHS, respectively. The comments have been organized by some .type of common characteristic into Sections 2 through 10: for example, Section 2 addresses those comments dealing with the DGEIS content and/or details of the CIS plan, Section 3 addresses alternatives-related comments, etc. Then, because a significant proportion of the comments within these sections are similar to, closely related to and/or duplicate other comments, it was decided to further group these related conunents together, so that only one response would be necessary tbr each grouping. As a result, only 103 different groups of comments were made; each subsection within Sections 2-10 addresses one group of comments. The comment numbers to which the response refers are listed in each subsection so that the reader may refer back to Appendices B-G to review the comments in their original form. Each response provides the information necessary for the Lead Agency to tnake all informed decision on the specific impacts of the proposed action. This document fulfills the obligation the Southold Town Board in completing a Final GEIS based upon 6NYCRR Part 617.9 (bllS). Page 1-2 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final GElS 2.~0 DOCUMENT & PLAN-RELATED COMMENTS AND RESPON. SES 2.1 Availability/Access to DGEIS, Additional Time Needed to Review/Comment on DGEIS, Neeessi .ty for Additional Hearings and Need to Extend Moratorium Comments B-l, B-3, B-35, B-57, C-5, C-23. C-26, C-28, D-5, D-7, D-25, D-35, D-42, D-60, D- 70, D-76, D-78, D-92, D-94, E-16, G-4, G-39, G-51, G-60 and G-153: These comments refer to: a lack of availabiliff' qf the DGEIS for public review and comment; insufficient time to .formulate comments and/or questions, and thus to determine an informed opinion on the proposed action; a request of the Town Board (as lead agency) to provide for additional time and hearings for the public to review and comment on the DGEIS; and a suggestion that the moratorium be extended. Response: The DGEIS was made available in a manner as required by the State Environmental Quality Review Act, Part §617.12 (b), and in fact the Town made the document more accessible than requirements. Under SEQRA, an EIS must be filed with the chief executive officer of the municipality, the lead agency, all involved agencies, persons who requested a copy, and the NYSDEC office in Albany. A fee may be charged to recover the costs of publication of the EIS for those requesting a copy. and if sufficient copies are not available to meet public interest, an additional copy must be filed with the local library. The document must also be readily accessible to the public and made available on request. The Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy DGEIS was filed consistent with the requirements noted above. In addition, two (2) copies of the DGEIS were filed with each library in the Town, and libraries made at least one (1) copy available on a loan basis; and, the document was posted on the Town of Southold web site to affbrd access to those with computer access to the world wide web and additional copies could be loaned or purchased from the Town Clerk's office. As a result, the document was readily available, met the requirements, and was in fact more accessible than requirements dictate. The hearing process on the DGEIS was also extended to afford the public more than the time periods in SEQRA require. SEQRA Part §617.9 fa)(4) indicates that a public hearing on a DGEIS should be held if there is a sufficient degree of public interest, the heating must be advertised in a local newspaper 14 days prior to the heating, the hearing must be held between 15 and 60 days after filing of notice, and comments will be received by the lead agency fbr not less than 30 days after document acceptance of 10 days from the date the public hearing is closed, whichever last occurs. For the proposed action, the document was accepted on June 3, 2003, a public hearing was held on June 19 after filing notice in the two local newspapers and advertising on the Town web site at least 14 days prior to the hearing. The hearing was continued on June 23, June 24 and July 15; comments were received during the regular Town Board hearing on July 8th. and after closing the hearing on July 15, comments were accepted by the lead agency until July 28, 2003. The heating was continued as a result of public requests for extension of the comment period, and thereibre the Board was responsive to the public's request. As a result, the comment period was 55 days, including 4 public hearing segments affording the Page 2-1 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final GElS opportunity for public comment, thus providing more than the required time ti-amc tbr public input on the document. The Town Board prepared the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy (CIS} during a moratorium affecting certain types of land subdivisions and site plan applications tbr muh~ple- residence projects. This was intended to allow the Town Board to consider certain implementation tools outlined in the CIS. The moratorium ends on November 4, 2003, and thus, the Town Board will determine the need to extend the moratorium and render a decision based upon deliberation and public input. 2.2 DGEIS Contents Comments D-91, F~13, F-47, G-93 to G-120. G-122, G-127, G-142, G-146. G-147. G-161 to G- 200 and G-204 to G-238: These comments express doubts that the current DGEIS adequately addresses the scope .lot' thc document, and provides sufficient analysis to enable a proper revie~* q/' the proposed actio~: supplementation and/or rescission/revision ma), be appropriate. Response: A public scoping process was held, with an advertised scoping hearing held on January 29, 2003. The public was afforded adequate time to be heard and to submit comments on the scope of the DGEIS for the Sonthold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy. The final scope was responsive to the comments of the public, and the DGE1S was prepared and accepted based on the final scope. The purpose of the public hearing on the DGEIS is to allow the public the opportunity to review and comment on the document prepared in conformance with the scope. General statements expressing doubts on adequacy of the DGEIS can not be responded to: however, each and every substantive comment on the DGEIS will have an accompanying response. In general, the DGEIS provided an extremely detailed presentation of the Town's proposed Implementation Strategy, the existing Town conditions, the potential impacts of the project, mitigation, alternatives and all other sections required in a DGEIS. The document was accepted by the lead agency. The SEQRA process provides the opportunity tbr public comment. responses in a Final GELS, and a 10-day filing period atler acceptance of the FGEIS, followed by issuance of a Statement of Findings on the GEIS and the ability of the Town Board to render decisions on the action or series of actions consistent with the Findings. No comments or information obtained during the heating and comment period indicated a reason to alter the required SEQRA process for this action. 2.3 Additional/Improved Maps and Documentation Needed for Informational Purposes Comments B-4, D~26, D-32, E-2, E-3~ E-17, E-34, F-I and F-2: These comments suggest that additional maps showing baseline and backgronnd inJormation, ax well as information pertinent to the proposed action be provided. _~hr the use and education q! the public. Page 2-2 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final GElS Response: The DGEIS included a series of 27 maps prepared primarily using the Town of Southold Geographic Information System (GIS) to illustrate key aspects of the Town's resources and zoning controls. The maps prepared were consistent with the narrative information in the document, and these provided an additional means of presenting information to the public. While these comments did not offer specificity regarding additional maps to be prepared, there were comments which provide specific requests for mapping, and these will be responded to in the appropriate section of this FGEIS. 2.4 Contents of Proposed Action Comments B-24, D-27, D-40, D-41, D-71, D-83, D-84, G-62. G-239 and G-243: These comments reflect questions and concerns regarding the extent of the proposed action, the completeness of &e DGEIS, the contents of the proposed action, and the reliabiR~_ and perceived bias qf the document's preparers. Response: The proposed action is clearly defined in Section 1.0 of the DGEIS. The action is fairly broad, as it involves a series of actions that implement the comprehensive plan of the Town as it was established over the past 20 years in order to ensure that Southold's growth conforms to established goals. The DGEIS indicates that a "... series of actions has been designed to achieve these goals through legislative means, educational and public awareness, capital improvements and expenditures, direct Town management and inter-agency/quasi-agency initiatives." The Town's goals were identified in the DGEIS as follows: · To preserve land including farmland, open space and recreational landscapes · To preserve the rural, cultural and historic character of the hamlets and surrounding countryside. · To preserve the Town's remaining natural environment; to prevent further deterioration of the Town's natural resources and to restore the Town's degraded natural resources back to their previous quality. · To preserve and promote a range of housing and business opportunities that support a socio- economically diverse community. · To increase transportation efficiency and to create attractive alternatives to automobile travel, while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of roadways in the Town. The action was defined in terms of individual implementation tools to achieve these goals. The broad context of the goals was discussed, the individual tools intended to achieve each of the goals were outlined, and each of the implementation tools was discussed. The DGEIS is a Generic document and may be broader, and more general than site or project specific EIS's. As required under SEQRA Part §617.10 (a), the action and the resulting DGEIS document fits the exact definition for a DGEIS. The document clearly discusses the logic and rationale for the CIS, and provides additional detail on choices advanced. At the moratorium Page 2-3 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strateg~ Final GElS team's request, the Town Board appointed two liaisons to work closely with the team. One or both of these liaisons was often present at work sessions held by the moratorium tealn. Several sessions were also held with the entire Town Board. The Town Board was involved with the process of establishing the nature of the proposed action, and through seoping, review of the DGEIS, and acceptance of the DGEIS, the Board has defined the intent of the CIS and the nature of the action. The document is complete with respect to SEQRA requirements tbr content of a DGEIS. The Town Board created a team to prepare the Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy and the DGEIS. The team was selected to bring together a number of nnportant perspectives and backgrounds including; interdisciplinary professional level roles relevant to thc CIS (professional planners, environmental professionals and attomeysl, and. objective representation. The Moratorium Team met with the Town Board, provided initial consultation and was created as a result of the Town's confidence in the ability of the team to complete the task at hand. The definition of the task is extremely important as, from lhe commencement the project, the team was to review studies, plans and recommendations that the Town had already completed to examine the current relevance and update where appropriate the various planning techniques available to achieve the Town's vision as articulated in those plans. Review of the plans and studies found that many newer documents reiterated prior recommendations, resulting in strong, continuing consistency and interconnectedness between studies and the goals of the Town over the years. The team was to update, clarify, search for consistency and inconsistencies, and objectively analyze a series of actions that would improve the community character and quality of the overall Town. The Town Board's desire to not overlook possible planning techniques that may exist beyond those identified in past studies was also a factor that lead to the Town's choice of the diversity of roles on the team, and the Town Board's authorization to have two team members visit other areas on the east coast to meet with planners confi-onting similar is.~ues and examine other planning tools. By its very composition, members of the team also brougt~ ,'aried perspectives to the table to ensure that other tools were given consideratinn. In addition, the team conducted on-line searches, telephone interviews, consultations with a university professor specializing in agricultural land preservation, review of planning literature and intemet medias to obtain current information on planning options, as well as speaking with some Town officials. Town department heads. As a result, the Town of Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy and the DGEIS are based on the Town's own comprehensive planning efforts, was prepared b3 members professional in their fields, was prepared by a diverse group of individuals, and was commissioned and structured in a manner that supported open-mindedness and objectivity. Members of the team included Town Planner Valerie Scopaz. Town Attorney GregmT Yakaboski, Town Land Preservation Coordinator Melissa Spiro, attorney and planner James Gesualdi who specializes in municipal and private consulting services, attorney Lisa Kombnnk who represents private and municipal clients and specializes in land use law, professional planner Patrick Cleary of Cleary Consulting who specializes in municipal planning consulting, and environmental planning professional Charles Voorhis of Nelson, Pope & Voorhis who Page 2-4 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final GElS specializes in private and municipal consulting. The general background, qualifications and experience of team members is included in Appendix B, opening testimony from the public hearing of June 19, 2002. The tean~ was supported by other Town staff including John Sepcnoski the Town's GIS manager, Mark Terry a wetlands expert with planning expertise, and others noted within the inside cover page of the DGEIS. The team met in public work sessions with the Town Board on a number of occasions, and more frequently with liaison councilmen Tom Wickham and Bill Moore during the course of preparation of the document to ensure that appropriate Town Board input was obtained during the preparation of documents. The Town Board was heavily involved in the preparation of early drafts of the DGEIS. Based on the foregoing, the infbrmation contained in the DGEIS is reliable, comprehensive and unbiased, and provides a significant body of information dealing with many important issues confronting the Town, including business in general and of farming in particular, as well as the inter-relationship of many of those issues including; open space preservation, retention of agricultural uses, environmental resource protection, sustainable land use, affordable housing, parks and recreation, and policy and implementation of comprehensive plamfing efforts, Zoning Law improvements, and land use administration and management. 2.5 Need Action Plan Comments B-32, B-34, G-141 and G-145: These comments note the absence of an "action plan" in the proposed action or DGEIS, and recommend that one be prepared, inchtded in the proposed action, and analyzed in the GELS. Response: The Comprehensive Implementation Strategy was prepared in response to a moratorium enacted by the Town Board. The purpose of the moratorium as indicated in Local Law No. 3 of 2003, was as follows: The Town Board finds that increased growth and development of residential subdivisions and multi-family developments requiring site plan approval within the Town of Southyold are placing severe pressure on water supply, agricultural lands, and open and recreational space, rural character, natural resources and transportation infi'astructure of the Town." Such stress upon the Town's natural and cultural resources may not enable the Town to be consistent with its stated goals or maintain its vision. As a result, the Town Board enacted a moratorium on residential subdivisions and multi-family developments requiring site plan approval, so that the Town would have sufficient time to determine the extent of these problems and to develop and implement a plan to protect these resources and qualities. The purpose of the moratorium specifically states that several inter- related planning initiatives should be considered, noted as follows: the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP), business in general and of farming in particular, and concerns in regard to affordable housing availability and public infrastructure usage. Page 2-5 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strateg.~ Final GElS With the completion of the EIS process for the Comprehensive Implememation Strategy. the Town Board will be in a position to address the critical issues covered by the moratorium, in a manner that allows the Town to achieve its goals and vision. The Town Board is serious m intent to follow through with land use measures, as evidenced by the enactment or' the moratorium and the structuring of the CIS to be an implementation plan and not another study. There are time constraints with respect to the moratorium period (which has been extended to November 4, 20031, and as a result the Town Board will make decisions on implementation priorities accordingly. In addition, simultaneous with the preparation of the CIS, and intertwined with it, the Town Board authorized the initial study of legal feasibility and parameters tbr one planning tool ii!eluded in the CIS, specifically, the Rural Incentive District (RID). It is expected that the Board will review those implementation tools most closely related to residential subdivisions and multifamily developments which are of the most timely importance due to the growth potential recognized in the moratorium resolution. There are still incompatibilities between the Town's current Zoning Code and the overall goals of the Town. The Town also recognizes the crisis in aflbrdable housing and would be expected to move expeditiously toward implementation of those tools that address affordable housing issues throughout the Town of Southold. Of no less importance is the Town's desire to protect natural resources. Threats posed by subdivision and residential site plans will be addressed expediently through the adoption or' protection measures for environmental resource preservation. Other issues, such as defining hamlets, and enhancing existing business and agricultural opportunities can then be evaluated in the context of other implemented tools and their effect on the Town's natural and human environment. 2.6 List of Acronyms Comment B-38: "That's another thing I might want to criticize, some of the people in the report here. When you have acror[vms, I know you 'ye done a very good job qf spelling out what the word is n'hen you have acronyms, but qfter you read for about ten or 15 pages, rna_vbe at 2:00 itt the morning you Jbrget what the acronym is, so in the summary I told you to put in the librat3', make a table (ti' contents for the acronym so (f somebody wants to refer back to what the acronym meant, it will be a handy reference for them." Response: The DGEIS contains a List of Acronyms, which defines the acronyms used in the document: it is found immediately after the Table of Contents. 2.7 Comments from Southold Parks District Commissioner Comments B-43, G-5 and G-58: "M_v name is d.L. Conway. I am one of the Commissioners of the SouthoM Park District. ! would like to comment on some of the reJbrences in your study about the parks located within thc Township q£Southold. Page 2-6 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final GElS On Page 1-42, Item Number 27 under the heading q£ 'Administer Parks of Town-wide Significance, ' second sentence states: 'These partitions are supported by tat' levies. ' lYre feel it should also note that only the residents q£the park district pay the taxes. Response: Individual property owners residing within park districts are levied a special assessment tax on behalf of that particular park district. Only those owners of property within a particular park district are levied a tax for that park district. On Page 1-45, Item Number 32, under the heading of 'Park Districts/School District Boundaries Conformi~.', ' it is recommended that the boundaries be redrawn. Again, we would like to point out that only park district residents pa)' park district taxes, and it is their tax dollars only that maintain park district properties. Response: Comment noted. The statements made in the DGEIS refer to recommendations made in the LWRP to consider integrating the park districts within the Town under an umbrella of Town- wide management at some point in the future; to consider redrawing some district boundaries to include areas not currently within a district, so as to enable access to waterfront by all residents: to consider closer working relationships between park districts and the Town in order to reduce costs, to leverage resources and to compete more effectively for grants to improve facilities. On Page 2-58, under 'Park District Beaches, ' the park's inventory of Southold park district is listed, fourth park listed is the Horton Point site; the second states: 'The lighthouse site was converted into a museum maintained by the Southold Historical SocieO,. ' This is not correct. The lighthouse and the grounds are on'ned and maintained by' the Southold Park District. The ground floor o. f the lighthouse is on loan to the Southold Historical Socie~. 'Jbr use as a museum. Response: Comment noted. On Page 3-41, Item Number 27, under 'Administer Parks of Town-wide Significance, ' the first sentence states: 'This tool will provide for Town administration of parks having Town-wide significance. ' What does that mean?" Response: This comment refers to a recommendation included in the 1982 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Survey. The recommendation suggested that there are certain parks located within the town that are of town wide significance, and therefore their use should not be restricted to residents of an individual park district. The plan does not identify which parks are of town wide significance, but rather suggests that further study would be needed to properly identify them. Page 2-7 Southold Comprehensive implementation Strateg) Final GElS More simply than use and access, the concept behind this recommendation suggests that a town wide park management viewpoint would be beneficial to the town as a whole in the planning for the Town's recreational needs. 2.8 Future Actions and SEQRA Reviews Comments B-56, E-4 and G-245: These comments note questions as to the fi~ture revie~v process to be applied to the proposed action as well as to development applications subsequent to this action. Response: The Draft GEIS accurately describes the future review process to be applied to subsequent development applications. As detailed in Section 1.0, page 1-2 of the Draft GELS: With respect to subsequent SEQRA procedures, [Title 6, New York State Code of Rules and Regulations] Part 617.10 (d) states: (d) When a final genetic ElS has been filed under this part: No further SEQR compliance is required if a subsequent proposed action will be carded out in conformance with the conditions and thresholds established for such actions in the generic EIS or its findings statement: (2) An amended findings statement must be prepared if the subsequent proposed actioo was adequately addressed in the generic EIS but was not addressed or was not adequately addressed in the findings statement of the generic ElS: A negative declaration must be prepared if a subsequent proposed action was not addressed or was not adequately addressed in the generic EIS aod the subsequent action will not result in any significant environmental impacts; (4) A supplement to the final generic EIS must be prepared if the subsequent proposed action was not addressed or was not adequately addressed in the geueric EIS and the subsequent action may have one or more significant adverse environmental impacts. Thus, after the Findings Statement has been issued by the lead agency (the Town Board) and the SEQRA review has been concluded, the Findings Statement will list and discuss any future conditions and/or thresholds which arise from the GElS and are to be applied to any and all future CIS-related actions. For actions that conform to these conditions, no additional SEQRA review is necessary; for actions that do not conform, a supplement to the GElS will be required, detailing and discussing potential adverse impacts of that future proposal. Page 2-8 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final GElS 2.9 Purpose of DGEIS is Not Well Defined Comment G-8: "Purpose of DGEIS is' not well defined: ,4s I interpret the material in this DGEIS, at least a majoria_, of the members of the Town Board have a/ready decided m reduce the density of development in the Town by exact/)' the amount which could be achieved by up-zoning the lands nou' under 2-acre zoning to 5-acre zoning, name/), those lands zoned AC and R-80. However, if this zoning were implemented, it would have some very deleterious effects including accelerate the destruction of our most productive farmland. Apparentl. v some members view the farmland as simpl), open-space and are primarily focused on achieving the reduction in density by means of 5-acre zoning while other members are deeply concerned about the destruction of the _farmland and are searching for other ~t'ays to achieve the same reduction in density without destroying the farmland. In addition, there appears to be a strong desire to compensate the land owners for the loss of their development rights rather than simply to rezone the land to prohibit residential development. Evidently the purpose of this DGE1S shouM be to propose a solution to this dilemma which will allow the farmland to be presera,ed and will provide compensation to the land owners for the loss of their development rights. Obviously, finding a way to pay for that compensation is one key element in achieving the solution. Maybe you can improve on this statement, but something like this sto~3' needs lO be told in the opening paragraphs 'of the DGEIS document and in the Summary." Response: It is important to emphasize that the CIS DGEIS addresses an "action" involving 43 planning tools. The document provides a vehicle and a mechanism tbr evaluating the impacts of each of the planning tools, and to evaluate how effectively each tool might be used in order to achieve the Town's goals. This analysis is necessary befbre any decision can be made on the use of any particular tool or combination of tools. If pre-conceived positions were stated by Town Board members prior to the CIS DGEIS review process, those positions did not reflect the new information and analysis conducted within this process. Any decision that is made in the future will obviously be influenced and sapported by the information obtained during this SEQR process. There is no purpose served in speculating on the motives of individual Town Board member's views prior to the SEQR review process. The process of conducting the SEQR review affords Town Board members the opportunity to take a "hard look" at the consequences of the action. It is not the purpose of the CIS DGEIS to propose exclusive solutions but rather to evaluate thc potential environmental impact of the full range of the 43 tools, and if impacts are detected, to provide viable mitigation measures. For a more thorough discussion of the impact of tool #4 (upzoning) on land values, refer to Response, Section 7.1. 2.10 Additional Suggestions for Inclusion in Proposed Action Comment D-28: Page 2-9 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strateg) Final GElS "They knock qffordable housing. They knock home occupation. There have been a lot o/ complaints according to this document on home occupation, but absoluteh' no mentton tx made pt'how they're going to correct it later in the document. Response: The DGEIS confirms the need tbr aftbrdable housing, It also notes that the cra'rent Town programs are not meeting the need. As described on pages 1-27 of the DGEIS. it has been proposed to limit the extent or size of home businesses permitted within residential uses and to encourage businesses to move into appropriately zoned districts so as to maintain the character and quality of residential districts. No significant adverse environmental impacts were identified. thus no mitigation measures were required should the Town restrict home occupations to business run by a single person. Residential office and LB district should be reviewed. The HB district code should be amended. Density and lot size requirements for a minimum, should require larger minimum lot size residential use. Response: This comment suggests that the RO, LB, and HB Zoning Districts should be reviewed and amended. It is unclear what elements of these zones the author of the comment believes should be amended, other than that larger minimum lot sizes should be required tBr residential uses. The RO, LB, and HB Districts each fulfill a specific niche within the town's land use hierarchs. The RO, Residential Office Zoning District, covers 109 acres of the town, and its pu~ose as described in the Zoning Ordinance is to "provide a transition area between business areas and low density residential development along major roads which would provide opportunity tbr limited non-residential uses in essentially residential areas." The LB, Limited Business Zoning District, covers 164 acres and its purpose is to '~provide an opportunity to accommodate limited business activity along highway corridors, but in areas outside the hamlet central business areas, that is consistent with the rural and historic character of surrounding areas and uses. Emphasis will be placed on review of design features so that existing and future uses will not detract fro , surrounding uses. The additional uses must generate low amounts of traffic and be designed to protect the residential and rural character of the area." The HB, Hamlet Business Zoning District, covers 209 acres and its purpose is to "provide for business development in the hamlet central business areas, including retail, office, and services uses, public and semi-public uses, as well as hotel and motel and multi-family residential development that will support and enhance the retail development and provide a focus for the hamlet area." While all three of these zoning districts accommodate non-residential uses, their purposes are distinct and different. Moreover, the zoning controls governing development on these properties varies significantly. For example, the minimum lot area in the HB Zone is 20,000 square tket, m the RO Zone it is 40,000 square feet, and in the LB Zone it is 80,000 square feet. Increasing the minimum lot size in the HB Zone. for example, would significantly impact the character of the hamlet areas. It should be noted that the intent of the HB zone is to encourage "walkable" communities, based on compact, concentrated development. Rather than encouraging compact Page 2-10 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final GElS development, increasing lot sizes would disburse building, resulting in sprawling development that would impinge on the surrounding open space and agricultural resources. The same situation would occur in the LB Zone as well as the Re Zone. Generally speaking, the non- residential uses that exist in these areas are concentrated and compact. Any increase in the lot areas would discourage this form of development and result in more vehicular traffic. "Sprawl" development has the negative impact of encroaching on surrounding open space and agricultural areas which the Town has targeted for preservation. The Town's goal is to preserve the character of the hamlets and the surrounding countryside. In order to achieve this goal, the dense development of the hamlet must not be allowed to encroach or sprawl into the countryside. The code previously required special exception approval and did not explicitly permit t3vo~family dwellings. If you ?e going to make changes, what are the)'? You're not telling us anything. AHD district review. The AH district does not create permanent supply of afJbrdable dwelling units. It was never intended to. It was ent~. -level housing." Response: The first part of this comment appears to refer to a separate proposal for legislation that the Town Board adopted regarding accessory apartments. The second comment is acknowledged. The AHD district pro~,ides entry-level housing that may be sold on the open market seven years after its creation. Experience has shown that these units do not necessarily remain available as entry-level housing. The analysis contained in the DGEIS shows that creating entry-level housing meets a housing need ~. Given the existing growth pressures, the Town's attraction as a resort and second-home community, and our desire to protect an estimated 80 percent of the remaining land for farms and open space purposes, the Town cannot expect to continue to provide affordable housing opportunities through the creation of new starter housing for future generations. A permanent supply of affordable housing has been created on Fishers Island and could be created on the mainland through use of the various tools discussed in the DGEIS. Page 2-11 3.0 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strateg.~ Final Generic ElS ALTERNATIVES-RELATED COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3.1 Alternative Means of Land Acquisition Comments B-6, D-37. D-102. G-121 and G-202: These comments provide a number of alternative mechanisms whereby casements over percent of q~kcted properties could be implemented, such as outright purchase, an bnproveme~tt District, condemnation, purchase of development rights grant, and tax abatement. Response: These comments suggest several different methods by which development rights could be secured. These methods are all essentially variations of the PDR approach, each requiring thc expenditure of funds, in one form or another, to pay for the right to preserve. The environmental impact of these suggestions are identical to the PDR concept currently in place and ongoing m the Town of Southold and acknowledged in the DGEIS. 3.2 FAIR Plan Comments B-33, C-51, G-I and G-85: These com~nents request that the F.A.I.R. Plan proposed by the Southold Business Alliance bc reviewed by the To*vn Board. as an alternative means oJ'attaining the ToYvn 's goals. Response: The F.A.I.R. plan augments the PDR program with direct governmental limits and quotas on the number of new lots and building permits that can be issued over a given time. A quota system is very difficult to administer and runs the real risk of depriving landowners o[ their property rights and individual due process. In order for a quota system to be successfully implemented, it must reflect sound underlying planning principles. Such a system, designed simply to restrict the number of houses constructed, would likely be illegal. The F.A.I.R. plan also suggests that subdivisions should be reviewed competitively. Such a concept may also pose problems. Ifa site plan or subdivision complies with all ol'the applicable land use and zoning regulations, and is not otherwise impacted by environmental or other constraints, then approval should be assured. Imposing a competitive process that makes one fully complying project "more approvable" than another fully complying project is unfair and illegal. 3.3 Alternative Development Rights Proposal Comment C-38: ... my proposal was that you issue development rights.[hr all Q[ the land that ri'as developable at that point, and then when those development rights ~*'ere used up, that would bring the proeess Page 3- I Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS to a halt, and you would have to btty those development rights in order to develop on some other piece of properO,. So it *,ould restrict the total, you conld redevelop, but you would put a cap lO the total quanti~. , qf development. " Response: The concept of fixing portable development rights to the remaining developable land within the Town is problematic for several reasons. First, transferring development, based solely on economics and without regard to patterns of land use (or zoning) may result in the creation of adverse environmental impacts in the areas into which the development is transferred. A developer could buy multiple development fights and drop them all into a given area - creating a de-facto subdivision, thereby circumventing the review and approval process. Wouldn't a finite pool of development rights inevitably escalate in value, based on nothing more than simple supply and demand? Is this the most appropriate system in a community where affordable housing is in such short supply? 3.4 Need for Additional Alternatives Comment D-72: "The Town of SouthoM was not considering - excuse me - except.for the transfer of development rights and focusing growth into the hamlet centers. I didn't see anything in the plan where the Town of Southold was considering more intensive development than is already allowed by current zoning and the current master plan. If we were considering more intense uses than the current two acre zoning, say down zoning to one acre zoning, I'm sure that the residents of the Town would be crying and screaming to have an environment impact statement done to see what negative affects more intense uses might have upon the environment. So, that while we know that the DEC mandates SEQRA and requires an environmental itnpact statement be done, if we're not proposing more density' than the current code would allow, what are the residents of Southold paying.[br? Eve~. one of us already knows that the prospect of less development may very likely have positive impacts upon the environment." Response: The Town of Southold is not contemplating permitting more intensive development town wide than is already allowed under current zoning. However, the proposed action does include mechanisms whereby development could be relocated from areas intended for preservation and/or protection from development, and placed or sent to areas appropriate for such impact. This is a central tenet of the "Smart Growth" concept, where development is preferentially directed to areas where infrastructure is already available or can be economically provided, so that community character of the entire community can be enhanced. Page 3-2 Southold Comprehensive Implementation ~trateg3 Final Generic ElS This comment suggests that an alternative to the proposed action should have been an evaluation of more intensive zoning. In its discussion of ahematives, the SEQRA Handbook states that "It is important to discuss the reasonable ahematives to the project (or portions thereof~ that achieve the same or similar objectives of the project sponsor, have relatively the same or reduced adverse environmental effects, and can be implemented in a time frame similar to that of the proposed action." Therefore, SEQRA does not require, nor would it be worthwhile, to evaluate an alternative that allows tbr more intense development, when such an ahemative is express(,, contras' to the Town's clearly articulated goals and would, in the opinion of the author of the comment, result m far greater environmental impacts than the proposed action. The DGEIS provides a thorough and detailed "hard look" at the range of potential adverse impacts of the proposed action, and adheres fully to the requirements of the NYS SEQRA process. 3.5 Alternatives Comment E-41: "No action alternatives, compliance with Town goals. On page 8-12. no action alternative docs not meet the Town's goal of preseta,ing farmland and open space, existing zoning anti land use controls allow as-p[2right development to occur throughout the Town's most important space and agricuhural areas. Then the), go on with it. The Town's goal, (! it's going to be changed should be reestablished. The Master Plan should be reestablished. ,(/'you're going to take areas and you're going to change the concept in here by the use qf another zone to do it. the Master Plan calls for the t*vo acre zone to accomplish this." Response: The proposed action involved a thorough review of both the LWRP and all supporting documentation; as such, it rests on a solid planning foundation, and is fully consistent with established town wide goals and supporting plan recommendations and conclusions. Technically speaking, the Town authorized the creation of the 1983 Master Plan, and in 1989 adopted a new zoning map and code, ostensibly to implement the 1983 Master Plan. However. the Town Board never adopted the 1983 Master Plan. Also, as was highlighted in the 1991 US- UK Stewardship Exchange Report and the 1994 Stewardship Task Force Report, the 1989 zoning map and code did not fully implement the 1983 Master Plan. In tact, certain elements ot' the 1989 map and code were found to be achieving ends contrary to those stated in the 1983 Master Plan. The goals of the 1983 Master Plan have been further refined through studies and actions undertaken since then. The 2003 LWRP document reaffirms the 1983 Master Plan goals and is designed to function as the Town's Master Plan. In April of 2003, the Town Board approved a Page 3-3 · $outhold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy, Final Generic ElS final LWRP document which was submitted to the NYSDOS for federal and state agency revie?v and, we hope. approval. The purpose of the CIS DGEIS is to evaluate tools identified in the Town's past planning studies, including the 1983 Master Plan, to determine the environmental impacts. The CIS DGEIS therefore does not contradict the 1983 Master Plan. It simply analyzes these tools in the context of current development pressures facing the Town of Southold in the year 2003. Some tools, that perhaps were not seriously considered 20 years ago, were examined in light of the current situations. Comment E-42: ... on Page 8-5. Portions orR-40 are actively farmed while others are intensively developed The 80-60 reductions wouM be appropriate in certain areas zoned R-40 while they would be inappropriate in others. When did R~40 get into this? This is the only mention orR-40 that I'm aware of and why did that get into this document? It's another illusion that people don't know. Non, people are going to hear this, the), 're going to see this and they're going to sa)', hey, you ]~on,, geez, I thought it was just the two acre guys. Non' they're going after the one acre gu3~q. " Response: The Blue Ribbon Commission, in its July 14, 2002 Final Report, preservation targets: stated the following · The permanent preservation of at least 80°,/0 of unprotected land currently in the Town's agricultural inventory, some 6,900 acres, most but not all of it in the AC zone; · The permanent preservation of at least 80% of unprotected open space, some 3,900 acres; · A reduction in potential density of housing units of at least 60%, relative to what w.ould be permitted with full build-out at current zoning. The 1999 Farm and Farmland Inventory found viable working farms located within a range of zones, as well as in R-80 and A~C zones totaling 10,325 acres. Table 1 presents a distribution of these acreages. That is the reason portions of the R-40 Zone were included within the 5~acre upzoning concept. Table 1 Zoning Categorization of Land in Updated Farmland Inventories ZOning Acres AC 7,383 R-80 2,218 R-200 380 R40 156 L[O 59 Page 3-4 Southold Comprehensive Implernenlation Strateg) Final Generic ElS HD 47 LI 27 B ? RO 6 RR 27 HB TOTAL 10,325 Comment E-43: "Page 8-10, 8.6, consider upzontng to a minimum lot size.fbr yield size larger than.live acres. That ma), be an area where that fits. You may have a sensitive area, you may have an area el environmental concern, but l, you know, just to say that you mc(v use it at some time in theJuturc. I don't believe it exists in the Town zoning code. If.vou 're going to put it itt the lown zoning code, that documentation, somebo&' should be prepared so that people can see what's coming Just mentioning it in here as a pe~petnal consideration, somebody may - xomebod3' 's going to grab this document two years down the road and none q[ )'ott may be here. arm say. hex'. that nas in that big planning study the), did. Let's pull it off the shelf and throw itt ten acre zoning. They have already done the SEQRA on it. Consider .five acre upzoning pfa latL~er area than proposed" Response: Section 8.6 addresses a 10-acre upzoning alternative. The author of the comment expresses concern that this alternative could, in the future, be implemented because it was discussed in the DGEIS. The purpose of the DGEIS is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of various prescribed alternatives. If the Lead Agency determines that the 10-acre upzoning alternative has fewer overall environmental impacts than a five-acre upzoning, then it can. through the adoption of appropriate Findings express this position. If, on the other hand, another defined alternative is found to be preferable based on associated impacts and mitigation, then the Lead Agency's Findings would so state that conclusion. It would not be possible to pick and choose elements fi.om the DGEIS for future implementation if their implementation would be inconsistent or contrary to the adopted Findings. Many tools, plans and ideas are addressed throughout the DGEIS. Simply because they are addressed in the document, does not mean that they will bc implemented. The SEQRA process is only one step in the process. It must be brought through to its conclusion before any decision can be made by the Town Board as to which action or combination of actions to adopt. Comment E-44: "8.14, 8. 7. 1 description of alternatives. The alternative invoh'es expanding the ?ire acre ,tpzoning to additional lands primarily portions pf the R~40 district that have historically and continue to be used for agriculture or as open space. 1 don't think that anyboc~v knows that this is in there. I don't think that there's people out there. I think ~[ there's a .lhrmer that has u Page 3-5 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS parcel that's zoned R-40, thinks that he's safe, but according to this doc,tment, this couM pop yp at atO, time. And l don 't think that that's a proper way to approach things." Response: Alternative 8.7 was specifically included to address the possibility of adding all of the residentially zoned lands found within the Town's Farmland Inventory., to the area to be upzoned to S-acres. That area would include 156 acres of land presently zoned R-40. This alternative is evaluated itl the context of compliance with Town goals as well as potential impacts. This approach provides for a full review of the concept of including the additional lands, and is entirely consistent with the SEQRA regulations. Comment E-45: "8-16, consider creation of an R-60 zoning district to apply to R-40 land; do you k-now what that means? Make the R-40s nonconforming. I will bring a map to the next meeting from the Town Master Platt. And in it. I have higldighted in different colors the different zones that **.'ere rendered nonconforming by the Master Plan. To which I refitse to pass the Master Plan until the Town put something in the Ibwn code that said that these people could develop according to the side yards and the setbac ',qs that existed at the time that these lots **,ere created." Response: The creation of a new R-60 zone in areas currently zoned R-40 would in fact, result in the creation of non-conformities. This issue addressed in the discussion of impacts associated with this particular alternative. The Town has dealt with this issue before. For example, when the 1989 Zoning Code was adopted, many properties were zoned R-40 that did not conform to that new designation. The non-confbrmities were addressed in the sections of the zoning code that permitted differing setback and other standards which recognized the non-conforming aspects of lots created prior to that time. Comment E-46: "Consideration of an affordable housing overlay district. We have it. It exists. Iffy notes here sa)' I don't think he understands. I don't think anybody's read it or understands it. It is an overlay district. It can be applied within a mile - half a mile, I believe, of the post office in eve~. hamlet, dust a point in here is that the only way that this can be - affordable housing can be triggered is in response to an application, and that's true. Now, if the Town Board wants to take the nerve and designate something within that overlay zone or anywhere within that overlay zone an AHD zone. for God's sake, do it. But eve~_ time somebody comes in with an idea, the word goes up, that guy's a developer, he can .forget it. Look what he's going to do. He's going to take four acres and put seven, eight units on it. That's **'hat affordable housing is all about. Smaller land is the only way it works. Either that or get some rental going but you got to do something. So this whole Page, 8-20 ahs to be rewritten in the context of what exists in the Town of Southold because whoever wrote this page doesn't know." Page 3-6 Southold Comprehensive Implementation $lrateg.~ Final Generic ElS Response: Alternative 8.11 suggests that the AHD overlay district or similar zoning device should bc proactively sited within the Town and not employed reactively, as it is today. Further, thi> alternative proposes a way of creating a permanent supply of affbrdable housing as opposed to creating temporary entry-level housing, which is the issue here. Comment E-47: "And the next page, the propero' eligibiliO, guidelines will be crq]~ed so that the q!tbrdable housing overlay'zones will be applicable in appropriate portions ql the Ibwn such a.~ within thc hamlet centers or within the proposed HALO zones. Such guidelines nould preven! inappropriate rezoning./or the location of qffordable housing prQ/ect in an area where context q/ Jarming would arise. Now that absolutely contradicts what it scO.s on the other page. because that is what we have, and this is saying what we should have. We have it it's there." Response: The Town has an affbrdable housing zone that can be selectively located on specific parcels. It has been applied only at the request of a developer. The DGE1S is discussing tbrmally identifying sites where affordable housing should be accommodated, and installing the appropriate zoning immediately, without necessarily waiting tbr a developer to propose a project. The DGEIS also suggests defining, in advance, the hamlet center and HALO boundaries, so that the public has some input into these, and the rationale for selectively zoning specific pareets. Finally, the DGEIS notes that the Town's current AHD district does not create permanent affordable housing. Comment E-48: "Page 8-21, top of the page. Consider allo*ving./drm labor housing through incentives. Th0' address the need for farm labor housing. There is a need for farm labor housing. 'Cause Jarm labor housing is cutting into the legitimate young working class people in this Fown. Il you let the Jdrmers do something like th0. do in Riverhead, you go down and look at Hal)' Hollow Nurseo,, the)' have got some units out therefor their help, th{v fit ve~sv nice6', back off the road. It's a preto, white building an L-shape, God knows how marry units are in it. It's a beautifid thing, but this thing here is allowing farm labor housing only on farms through incentives, beet it doesn't mention any incentives. You just left me on that one. I mean, if you're going to address incentives, please put them in." Response: The CIS DGEIS is a generic environmental impact statement, designed to evaluate the environmental impacts of 43 planning tools. The DGEIS does not propose specific new ordinance language. If the concept of farm labor housing is lbund to be acceptable and it does not produce adverse environmental impacts, then, pursuant to the filing of Findings. the Towu Board can begin crafting specific zoning language to provide incentives and standards tbr the creation and location of farm labor housing. Page 3-'/ · Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Comment G-87: "3. Southo[d Town Ag AdvisoL'v Board respectfully requests the following build-out scenarios be included in the DGEIS document. A reasonable no-action build-out scenario · A no-action build-out scenario be included using the Town ~ last 5 yearpreservation track record · A build-out scenario be included that does not include up-zoning, instead uses the preservation tools available as mentioned in the 2000-2201 Farmland Protection Strate~ and the Blue Ribbon Committee Report." Response: The Build-out analysis presented in the DGE1S is a standard planning tool used to document the level of development that could theoretically occur in the community based on existing land use and zoning controls and environmental constraints. The Build-Out analysis was never intended to predict future conditions. The DGEIS Section 3.1.3 clearly identifies the logic and limitations of the Build-Out analysis. The Build-Out included in the DGEIS is "reasonable" based on the use and purpose of the analysis. The existing land preservation track record variables referred to by the author of the comment, cannot be utilized in the build-out methodology because, unlike the zoning and lands use factors which reflect existing Town laws and regulations, or the environmental constraints, which relate to quantifiable physical features, land preselwation rates are based on past voluntary actions, which may or may not be duplicated in the future. If, on the other hand, a set rate of land preservation were quantified and required by law, regulation or mandate, then the rates could be included into the build-out tbrmula. Comment G- 152: "(8) Additional Tools and Concepts are Neglected. One of the concepts discussed during the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) was for the Town to monitor preservation and development and adjust its plan accordingly. This is not discussed in the DGEIS and the Land Presera,ation Committee (LPC) requests that it be added to the analysis. In short, this concept was a 'conditional upzoning ; one where development/preservation would be measured continuously and mitigation measures applied as necessary to meet goal driven objectives. Up-zoning would only be used as a last resort should all other efforts fail. Given the recent track record, the LPC believed this concept has merit, will far exceed the results of S-acre zoning and should be given full consideration in the GEIS. Certain other documented action ideas and tools are neglected. These include: · Installment PDR sales · Like-kind exchanges Page 3-8 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strateg) Final Generic ElS Establishing a land bank where the Ton'n could purchase ./arm/and I~)~' eventual resale to a farmer Bonding against.[iaure CPFD income · Points based appraisals Buildingpermit quotas · New lot quotas · Competitive subdivision ~ite plan processes .4ll can have yeO' positive impact on current land preservation efforts. · Could not these tools be considered in the GElS and the most promising tools.lurther dqfined and evaluated,/br their impact on build-out and R/A),I?" Response: The DGEIS did not pass judgment on the available planning tools and techniques, nor did it set forth an implementation strategy to achieve Town goals. These tasks will occur when the Town Board, serving as the Lead Agency for this SEQRA review adopts its "Findings." The DGEIS and this FGEIS are designed to evaluate impacts, consider mitigation and assess alternatives to the "action" as defined or described in Section 1.0 of the DGEIS. The Lead Agency cao certainly consider "conditional upzoning" as a method to achieve its goals. The first five additional tools mentioned by this speaker represent variations of the PDR program. As documented in the DGEIS, continuation of the PDR program in general will not result in any adverse environmental impacts, and is a viable tool to achieve the Town's goals. It follows that additional enhancements or variations of the PDR program that are designed to improve its effectiveness or increase its attractiveness to landowners also would not result in an)' adverse environmental impacts. The concept of building permit or new lot quotas was not addressed in detail in the DGEIS. Quota systems are problematic to design and implement. They have the potential to seriousl5 affect property rights, and individual due process, and may well raise the takings issue. In order for quotas to be successfully implemented, they must reflect sound underlying plmming principles, and a documented capital improvement program to expand a limited public service infrastructure. Quota systems simply pace the rate of new development by tying it to the rate at which public service infrastructure (e.g. roads, schools, public water, sewage treatment plants, utility lines, etc.) is financed and built. Adopting a quota system that puts a cap on the number or' building permits issued per year simply to slow down the numbers of new houses built in a year would not be constitutionally defensible if challenged in court. "Competitive" subdivisions and site plans is also a concept that may prove problematic. If a site plan or subdivision complies with all of the applicable land use and zoning regulations and requirements, and is not otherwise impacted by environmental constraints, the prqject should be approved. Making the process competitive, so that one project is "more approvable" than another, even though both comply with the applicable rules, is essentially unfair, is not supported Page 3-9 · Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS by enabling Town Law, and would escalate the cost of obtaining land use approvals - a cost that would inevitably be passed through to the homebuyer, thereby inflating housing costs even more. Comment G- 159: "4) The Moratorium Committee should consider adding to the alternative section a Modi~ed and Updated Version o[' the Southold Town Farm an..d Farmland Preservation Stratel~. We **,ere very surprised that there was very little mention in the DGEIS of the Farmland Preservation Strateg), that was unanimously adopted by the Town a few ),ears ago. Much of the recent success in preservation, which is well documented in the DGEIS, has been due to the efforts of the Town Board, Planning Board. Planning Department, and Land Preservation Committee in following through on the basic strategies outlined in the Farm and Farmland Preservation Strategy. The Farm and Farmland Preservation Strategy has been veo, effective because it is based on principles offairness and respect. It is our opinion tl~at most landowners and farmers view the strategy as a reasonable and practical alternative to traditional development. A number of the recommendations in that strategy have yet to be implemented. The strategy could be updated to reflect current commttnity needs and to address current concerns. It couM also include specific recommendations .for mandatory preservation of farmland in traditional development plans (i.e., 60-65 percent clustering provisionsJ as **'ell as other new strategies appropriate to the current circumstances." Response: The DGEIS documented the success of the Farm and Farmland Preservation Strategy. Appendix F-3 presents an accurate accounting of the overall land preservation program from 1997 to the present. A number of the 43 implementation tools would assist in furthering the implementation of the Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy. The Strategy is a viable and successful component in achieving the Town's land preservation goals. The DGEIS explored the question of whether this program alone is capable of achieving the goal of preserving 80 percent of all unprotected land currently in the Town's aghcultural inventory, preserving 80 percent of unprotected open space and reducing potential population by reducing the number of potential housing units 60 percent. As documented more fully in Response, Section 3.6, it is expected that there would be a substantial cost to presetwation of 80 percent of the remaining farmland and open space if these lands are preserved through voluntary PDR alone, and again, because the program is voluntary, it is unclear if full compliance with the goal would ever be achieved. 3.6 No Action Alternative Comments F-12, G-126, G-151~ G-155, G-156 and G-240: These comments request that the No Action alternative presented and analyzed in the DGEIS be reconsidered, to reflect current land preservation and related efforts. Response: The Build-out analysis is a planning tool that estimates full development under existing zoning and land use controls for the purposes of helping set clear preservation and development targets. The Build-out analysis was based upon existing land use controls and enviroi~aantal constraints Page 3-10 $outhold Comprehensive Implementation $trateg.~ Final Generic ElS that am reflected in the laws and regulations of the Town. The Build-out analysis was not used to predict future development. Consequently, its methodology does not take into account land acquisitions or the purchase of development rights or other voluntary land preser~ at,on eflk, rt~ However, if the Town were to legally mandate a set amount of land preservation in a given period, then that quantitative factor could be effectively incorporated into the Build-out tbrmula. Currently, private land preservation is a voluntary act, thus the pace or' preservatton varie, considerably. The tracking synopsis of land preservation efforts during the years 1097 to 2{}02 shows the actual number of acres preserved during this period. It does not explain the extenuating circumstances that ma5' have affected some landowner decisions to sell development rights instead of pursuing full development. It should be noted that the Build-out analysis conducted for the CIS DGEIS reflects a full build- out that is twenty-four pement less than the full build-out figure generated by the Suftblk Countx Planning Department in 1998, a figure which has been widely accepted and utilized lbr numerous County planning efforts. The CIS DGEIS build-out is a measured refinement of the county's build-out figure and is substantially more accurate. The goal of the Town's land preservation program is to preserve 80 percent of the remaining farmland and open space existing in the community today, or approximately 10.132 acres. '[his figure is 80 percent of the total subdividable and non-subdividable vacant land, as well as wetlands, slope areas, beaches and bluffs. This total is stated because historically, wetlands and slope areas have been part of farmland and more importantly, open space preservation, and because these environmentally sensitive lands are also part of the Town's open space. An alternative aggregate acreage would include the quanti .ty of vacant buildable land that is either subdividable or non-subdividable and could be developed (exclusive of wetlands, slopes, beaches and bluffs). The total acreage that comprises this figure is 11,090 as derived from the Build-out analysis, An even more conservative number of 80 percent presetw'ation could be applied to this acreage, yielding a land preservation target of 8.872 acres. It is noted that environmentally sensitive lands would be preserved through subdivision review which would result in reduced density for these lands, and would ensure protection through land use review. It is also important to understand the funding sources available. These sources are variable and preservation policies change routinely. It is noted that land preservation eftbrts are m tact voluntary. While preservation efforts will certainly likely continue, the pool of willing participants will, to a certain degree, diminish. This is a characteristic of any voluntary program. The author of the comment appears to suggest that a more detailed analysis should be devoted to these two unpredictable factors. Unirbrtunately, it is impossible to definitively quanti~' future ~nding and future preserYation rates. Nevertheless, efforts will be made to outline fi~nding sources and acquisition costs, relative to the Town goals, so that an understanding will be reached regarding the more predictable and variable factors. If the Town's 80 percent land preservation goal were achieved under the lowest target acreage, approximately 8,872 acres of agricultural and open space land would be protected Once the Page 3-11 · Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS goal of preservation of 80 percent of the total farmland and open space is achieved, large-sca~le land preservation will no longer be necessary. Currently, the cost of development rights ranges from $25,000 to $30,000 per acre; development rights acquisition is most often used for farmland, where there is a residual value to the land for agricultural use. In the case of non- agricultural preservation, or open space, fee title acquisition is more common. For fee title acquisition, land values are generally much higher since there is little residual value of vacant land It is recognized that there are other preservation programs which can be considered. Over the past 6 years, the Suffolk County program for preservation of open space preserved on average, 87 acres per year; the private easements, land trusts, etc., account for 13 acres per year, subdivision open space accounted for 13 acres per year, NYSDEC acquisitions accounted for 2 acres. Some of the development rights purchases would not have occurred without private involvement by individuals other than the original property owners. The Town program resulted in preservation of 145 acres, which when combined with the acreage above, results in the total preservation record of 260 acres per year over the past 6 years. There are also other sources of funds available for preservation in addition to the Town 2% Land Transfer Tax which provides the primary source of Town PDR funds; these sources include, Suffolk County involvement in Southold open space and farmland preservation efforts, NYS Agriculture & Markets Farm Preservation Grants, Federal Natural Resource Conservation Service Grants, and private donations toward land acquisition. It is noted that the Suffolk County open space and farmland acquisition acres (along with Suffolk County and DEC acquisition, private easements, girls, etc.) are accounted for in the average of 260 acres per year over the past 6 years. The recent total of NYS and Federal Grants may be in the range of $2 million over the past 2 years. This could account for approximately $1 million per year, or at current preservation costs, on the order of 40 acres per year. It is also noted that in the future. Town Open Space/Agriculttu'al Bonds may be available to help replenish acquisition funds: however, this is subject to referendum, and will result in a direct cost to the taxpayers of Southold Town. The Peconic Land Trust has been instrumental in structuring preservation opportunities, and as noted above, preservation efforts by PLT are included in the average rate of preservation. Further, there are many owners that will not sell development rights, and also would not seek to develop their land. These other forms of preservation are important, and will help to reduce the extremely high cost of preservation through PDR; however, these forms of preservation are not guaranteed, and there is no meaningful way to predict preservation rates based on these methods. The Town will still need to aggressively pursue PDR using the 2 percent fund, in order to achieve stated preservation goals. If the Town and County preservation efforts were the only source for land acquisition, based on the current rate of 260 acres (average over the past 6 years), then it would take 34 years to preserve the lower target acreage of farmland and open space. Based on current development rights values, the cost to purchase 8,872 acres (at $25,000-$30,O00/acre, which is less than actual cost) would be on the order of $225,000,000. Page 3-12 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strateg) Final Generic ElS If preservation efibrts other than the 2 percent Land Transfer Tax were to continue lbr l(I years. it would amount to $10,000,000 {based upon the lowest development fights xalues ol $25,000/acre), which is less than 5 percent of the total cost of preservation of 8() percent of the remaining farmland and open space. This indicates that the primary, source of funding and preservation, will be the 2 percent Land Transfer Tax. Projecting the rate of preservation over a 10 year period allows the preservation track record to be overlayed on the Build-out analysis. Using the preservation rate of 260 acres per .,,'ear, m l0 years, 2,600 acres would be preserved. This would reduce the build out density by 1,041~ units Subtracting the 2,600 acres from the lower target open space figure of 8,872 {80°,'o of l 1,090) would result in 6,272 acres remaining for preservation. Conversely, a total of 20 percent of the total of l 1,090 acres, or 2,218 acres, was allocated for development. Applying the development rate of 200-225 acres per year, indicates that after 10 years, 2,000-2,250 acres would have been developed. Therefore, based on comparison of the preservation rate with the development rate, after 10 years the Town would be either 32 acres over its maximum additional development, nr 218 acres under the maximum development potential. In either case, it is apparent that the current rate of preservation is not sufficient to preserve the target goal of 80 percent farmland and open space. Overlaying this with the Build-out, and assuming that th¢ majority ,~t' preservation occurs in the A-C and R-80 distr/cts, it is determined that an additional 800-9(1(} units would be constructed in the Town as a result of continued development over the I 0 year period. At that point in time, the Town would still need to preserve 71 percent, or 6,272 acres of the original target farmland and open space acres. The fiscal significance of preservation can also be projected. In order to understand the magnitude of these preservation costs, if the Town were to rely primarily on the 2 percent fund (which remains the primary and most reliable funding source as noted above) and the Town's own borrowing capacity (the Town's constitutional debt limit is $260 million), the following scenario would evolve. Given recent history, the 2 percent fund will generate approxiinately $3 million annually. If that entire amount were applied to serve the debt of new borrowing, then $37.5 million in new bonds could be floated. This figure is based on the tbllowing assumptions: Borrowing $1 million dollars at 5% interest fur a term of 20 years costs $80,000 in principal and interest each year. Development rights cost $25,000/acre {average- based on 2003 dollars 2°,o fund generates $3 million annually $3 million/S80,000 = $37.5 million Each $150,000 - $170,000 constitutes a "point" in Town taxes. $3 million annually {if paid in Town taxes) results in a 17.6% - 20.0% increase in Town taxes each )'ear the bond is being repaid. Based upon this analysis, it becomes apparent that relying on $3 million of 2 percent monies annually would leverage $37.5 million dollars without impacting the Town's tax rate. As noted above, the total 80 pement land preservation cost would be $225 million dollars. The $37.5 million bond would bring the outstanding preservation cost down to $187,500,000. Page 3-13 · Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Currently, the Town has at its disposal for land preservation, approximately $6,000,000 in un- issued bonds, over $7,000,000 from the 2 percent fund, over $1,000~000 from New York State, and perhaps another $1,000,000 from grants, original bonds, and other sources, for a total of $15 million. Applying these dollars, the remaining outstanding land preservation cost would be brought down to $172,500,000. Therefore, over five times the borrowing that could be accomplished utilizing the 2 percent monies to service the debt (an essentially neutral tax impact) would be required to meet the Town's land preservation goal. As mentioned above, the 17.6 percent - 20 percent tax increase required for each $3 million of debt service (which in mm leverages $37.5 million in bonds) would be multiplied 5 times over- resulting in a 100 percent increase in Town taxes. There is no guarantee that these alternative fundings sources will continue, or continue at the present rates; however, listing of these sources provides additional perspective of the magnitude of preservation needed. It is apparent that the value of development rights will increase, and that the cost of preservation will be higher than projected above, given the additional cost of fee title purchase and increasing land values. As a result, it is expected that the cost of preservation would be even higher than predicted above. Contrary to the assertion by the author of the comment, an upzoning would not upset .the character of the area, but rather will guarantee a percentage density decrease, thereby more fully assuring that the open character of the community remains intact. If farmers wish to remain in the business of farming, and continue agricultural operations on their property, the upzoning, which governs the amount of residential development that might be permitted on the land if the agricultural use were abandoned, will have little or no effect on the actual business of agriculture. The question of farmer's equity as it is affected by the underlying zoning is a different issue and is a valid concern, one that has been addressed through the development of the RID tool. The RID is a mechanism that has been designed to assure that those participating in the RID will maintain the value of their development rights at a 2-acre density for the purpose of selling those rights. As previously noted, even absent a RID, evidence suggests that the impact on land values that might result from the upzoning will be relatively minor, and that even this impact will rebound quickly, preserving existing equity and allowing for future growth in value. There is no question that the economy of Southold benefits from the business of agriculture. However, it is important to note that agriculture accounts for only a portion of the Town's economy, and employs only 1.9 percent of the Town's workforce. While agricultural lands are a traditional and vital part of the local economy, they are also important, because they anchor the Town's rural character and quality of life. 3.7 Alternative Up-Zoning Proposal Page 3-14 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strateg) Final Generic ElS Comment F-25: "[~hat happens if we upzone all R-80 land to R-200. which is.five acres, with the exception o/:t ~ _[armland. Then vt,e put a long-term, temporal, building moratorium on all AC.farmland sin'.tot a period o_[}/h,e years. Now. the exemption to that moratorium might be at~vboc~v that might warn to get into the.farming business. And we could have a committee of./armers who ~ould take ~ look at it, and we couM set, oh. (f this land didn't have a house on it. we could sar'. wc would permit one d~t'elling pet' 20 acres, per 25 acres, whatever, you could get a.larmer'.s committee decide what would be the most appropriate buildings. It could also establish a grace period.tot .[~trms that do not have AC' designation -- and there are some out there -- they could app(v.lor designation and farms that had AC land that was no longer viable could apply to lose its designation. You would establish a buiMing pool of buildable land that would be basicalh' our open space land attire acre zoning, and that's virtuall), what we have right now. ' Now the interesting./ha/are qfthis o_t'a tempora~.~, building moratorium is that./armer.s can stdl negotiate their sale of development rights based on t~*'o acres. So they don't lose the true eqmo value they're losing, which is -- ask Tom Wickham. He sold a piece pt'properO' last sprin.e, t~r the spring be[ore that, (['it had been valued a/five acres, it would have been a hell q/'a la/less than what he got. And that's just the realiO' of ir If yoa're going to have.tive acre zonin.e, t'ott'/'c going to get less valueJbr 3'our development rights sale." Response: The author of this comment is suggesting an alternative that inx~olves a five-acre upzoning of the R-80 lands only. Lands within the AC Zone would be placed under a "long term temporar.~ building moratorium" during which only farming would be allowed to occur. The author's reliance on a moratorium is problematic. A moratorium on development is a local law or ordinance that suspends the right of property owners to obtain development approvals during which time a community considers, drafts or adopts land use plans or rules or responds to new or changing circumstances not adequately dealt with by its current laws. There is no specific authority under Town law to adopt a long-term moratorium. The right of a community to adopt a moratorium is considered an "implied power." By all accounts, a moratorium is considered the most extreme land use action that a municipality can take because it completely suspends thc rights of property owners. As such, the courts have been rigorous in requiring municipalities to demonstrate a reasonableness for the moratorium and that the municipality demonstrate a true emergency or dire necessity prior to the adoption of a moratorium. For this reason, the length of moratoria are scrutinized. Generally, moratoria last several months m length. Moratoria that extend beyond that period must have a valid reasonable purpose. Moratoriums have been upheld for periods of up to three years where the necessity and purpose have been adequately demonstrated and substantial progress on drafting new plans or solutions have been made. The concept of a "long term temporary moratorium" would be unprecedented. It is not uncommon for courts to award substantial damages similar to takings, to property owners unfairly burdened by unjustified moratoria. Allowing a committee of farmers to establish density standards, absent any governing regulations (e.g. zoning) would likely prove to be similarly problematic. While a fainter's Page 3-15 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS perspective on the use of farmland is clearly desirable, abrogating individual property rights_to what amounts to an arbitrary system that is unsupported by New York State Town Law would clearly be subject to criticism, and could possibly be unconstitutional. The author's reference to a pool of developable land that would be basically "open space land at the 5-acre zoning" fails to recognize that the preservation of open space is also a Town goal. A significant amount of the R-80 land is composed of environmentally constrained property~ including wetlands, beaches, bluffs, forested areas, ponds~ and lakes, etc. Transferring the development burden into the R-80 districts would clearly accelerate the degradation of these environmentally sensitive lands, in contravention of the Town's goals. The suggestion that a "long term temporary building moratorium" would provide an opportunity for farmers to negotiate the development rights based on two acres, fails to recognize that a moratorium would not force land preservation negotiations. In a voluntary preservation program, a farmer's decision to sell development rights is based on a range of financial considerations, not just the underlying zoning of the land. Page 3-16 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strateg) Final Generic ElS 4.0 PDR/TDR-RELATED COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 4.1 Adequacy of Funding for Land Acquisition and TDR Program Comments B-7, G-27, F-20 and G-123: These comments note that the DGEIS indicates that the proposed l'ran{/br qt' Development Rights (TDR) program would take development rights away ?om landowners without compensation, and that the State and Couno' are required to provide $125-130 million.lot the program. Response: The document does not in any way indicate that development rights will be taken away from landowners without compensation. The TDR program, as defined in the document would provide equity to landowners by creating a market for development rights. The market can be created through the use of incentives to encourage the purchase of development rights b.~ developers Jr'or transfer to other locations for the purpose of increasing housing diversity and strengthening Hamlet Locus zones and hamlet centers. Several variations of a TDR program are possible. Landowners could be compensated through purchase of development rights by governmental entities (including the Town), thereby allowing the Town to re-issue development rights at a reduced cost in order to promote specific land use policies such as affordable housing. This would achieve other goals~ and provide partial revenue back to the Town to reduce overall preservation program costs and replenish funding of acquisition programs. Another variation of the program could involve creating a market such that development rights would be established and issued as credits, allowing the private market to buy and sell credits that would ultimately be redeemed through land use proposals that meet Town goals, resulting in increased density on appropriate sites while sterilizing open space and agricultural land in farmland and open space preservation areas. All of the measures described provide direct compensation to the landowner. The DGEIS fully contemplated a continuing Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Program. PDR is funded by 2percent land transfer tax that was authorized by the citizens of the Town. Other PDR funding sources include; Town Open Space Bonds, NYS Agriculture & Markets Farm Preservation Grants, Federal Natural Resource Conservation Service Grants and the Suffolk County Environmental Preservation Program in Southold Town. Continuation of the PDR program would benefit and partially enable a successful TDR program. Continuation of the PDR program is also critical to the RID, which would enable the Town to provide farmowner equity (through PDR) in the future. The State and County are not required to provide $125-130 million for the PDR program, but the5' currently are directing financial resources to the continuation of PDR in keeping with the desires of community officials, State and Courty officials and the citizenry of the Town of Southold. There is no negative environmental impact associated with this program. Page 4-1 · Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS 4.2 TDR Origin/Destination Analysis Comments B-8 and F-9: These comments reflect concerns not only in regard to the impacts on areas .from which development rights will be removed, but also to those areas where development rights will be located, in terms of social, ph. vsical and economic impacts. Response: If adopted, a TDR program should be designed to be consistent with Town Comprehensive Planning effort, s; therefore, there is a presumption that preservation of sending areas and controlled increase in the density in receiving areas would be environmentally compatible. Clear guidelines for increasing density in receiving areas would have to be defined. TDR is a well-established, progressive land use tool that has been utilized in order to preserve one or more significant environmental characteristics of a property for the benefit of an entire community, while at the same time protecting the value of landowners' property by enabling the development potential of that land to be realized albeit elsewhere in the community, in a more appropriate location. The sending locations would be areas of open space or agricultural lands (under certain restrictions) and/or parcels with unique qualities such as steep slopes, wetlands and wetland buffer areas, critical woodlands, groundwater recharge areas, diverse and unique habitats, or agriculture-support lands. The DGEIS indicates that a receiving area for transferred development rights must have one or more of the following characteristics: · Proximity to hamlet centers; · Lack of environmental sensitivity; · Suitable road access; · Available public water; and · Ability to handle sewage or access to a sewage treatment plant (STP). A receiving area meeting all these standards would result in less potential for[ environmental impacts. In addition, several intuitive factors add to understanding a potential reduction of environmental impacts, land use viability and benefits ofa TDR program, noted as follows: · Incrememal increase in potential subdivisions would occur in zones around hamlets, where infrastructure is already available and resulting impacts would be minimized. · Use of the Planned Development District (PDD) concept, to enable implementation of innovative land development techniques, where "special public benefits" not otherwise possible would result. · Development of a variety of appropriate and needed housing types. · Avoidance of the monotonous and fiscally unsustainable "sprawl" pattern of development. As noted in the DGEIS, a TDR program must comply with Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) regulations. Not only must. the public benefit be clear and significant, but there can be no threat to the public health or the groundwater from which we obtain our drinking · Page 4-2 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strateg.,, Final Generic ElS water. The SCDHS has set trbrth clear and definitive guidelines under which transfers of rights to receiving areas may take place. · Receiving parcels should be within areas serviced by public water. ,, Receiving parcels should not exceed twice the density allowed under the Suffolk t'ounty Sanitary. Code (SCSC) unless an appropriate lbrm of sewage treatment is available. · Receiving pamels should be subject to fertilized area restrictions, clearing restrictions and site plan or subdivision mview, · Receiving parcels should be subject to further design standards anti'or special exception criteria as may be detemfined through further review and analysis; such standards may include design parameters, development guidelines, buffering, clearing restrictions, fertilized area restrictions, setbacks, infrastructure installation and measures to improxe community compatibility. The DGEIS noted that the Town could use the HALO concept, which is essentially a nex~ floating incentive zoning district adjacent to the hamlet centers to define areas capable of receiving development rights. The HALO concept is grounded on the idea of enhancing existing hamlets and containing new growth within and around those centers. This concept is central to the Town's goals of preserving the qualities of its traditional hamlets and of preventing the auto- dependent sprawl-type of development that characterizes many of Long Island's communities. Finally, there are creative ways of using transferred development rights within a Planned Development District (PDD) whereby the Town's other goal of providing more affordable housing and greater diversity of housing stock could be realized. If housing diversity is created (in the tbrm of smaller homes on smaller lots. or other tbrms of attached units, zero lot line units or apartment style units) as a result of TDR to hamlet areas and/or PDD development, there will be a change in demographic and fiscal factors as tbllows: · Smaller homes support smaller households, generate fewer school-aged children, t'ewer vehicle trips and less solid waste. · Smaller units are more affordable as compared to single family development. · While total tax revenue from smaller units will be less, since there are fewer school-aged children, tax revenue is better able to cover the cost of education. · Smaller homes are more consistent with the character of the hamlets. In conclusion, a carefully designed TDR program will not have a negative environmental impact. 4.3 PDR Program Status and Funding Comments B-9, B-18, B-46, B-47, 13-54, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-7, C-10, C-16, C-35. D-49. D-93. D- 98, F-4, F-10, F-15, F-51. G-17, G-20 and G-78: These comments note that: the existing Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program is successful; question whether and why applications under review for inclusion in this program are reputedly not being processed expeditiously; request in. formation as to why upzoning to Page 4-3 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS reduce yield potential in lieu of this existing program has been included in the DGEIS; and whether there is an), assurance for landowners that their development rights will be purchased at a fair value. Response: The recent past history of the Town's land preservation program indicates that approximately 260 acres per year (on average) were protected from development (1997-2002). During the same time period for tracking and monitoring as reported in the DGEIS (1997-2002), the reduction in density ranged from 54.35-74.59 percent dependent upon whether the Peconic Landing Project is included or not. It is important to recognize that the latter numbers (from 1997-2002) includes land from which development rights were purchased, land that was donated to the Town (or the county or the Peconic Land Trust or the Nature Conservacy), as well as land that was purchased outfight (fee title) for preservation purposes. This number includes preservation through the subdivision cluster procedure. Also, the Town and County Purchase of Development Right programs are a subset of the total land preservation effort. It is important to note that the Town never set a target preservation goal for land preservation, in general, or for its own Purchase of Development Rights program, in specific. Consequently, the Town of Southold has no pre-set benchmark with which to measure the success of the land preservation program. Upzoning was considered in the CIS because it is a land use technique that was identified in past plans and studies, and is a recognized tool for meeting density reduction goals. A stated goal of the Town is to preserve 80 percent of the Town's remaining farmland and open space which today totals 8,872 acres and to reduce density by 60 percent. Upzoning with clustering can assist with meeting this goal. The DGEIS discussed in detail the Land Preservation Efforts and Future Development Trends in Section 3.1.3 of that document. Information was presented with regard to the current track record of land preservation efforts, as well as the factors which influenced that track record such as market conditions and lack of water availability. Section 3.1.3 also discussed expected increases in development pressures due to the Town's proximity to New York City, the rise in telecommuting, seasonal home conversion to year round housing, the popularity of the Town as a resort, the unique quality of life here, and the near-future availability of public water from Riverhead and other sources. The past rate of preservation may not be sustainable in the face of these pressures, particularly where the landowners are not farmers or have no interest in farming. Preservation through PDR or the title purchase requires available funds and a continued commitment to land preservation by landowners and government alike. At the current rate of preservation, 80 percent of the remaining farmland and open space in the Town (about 8,872 town wide including all vacant land) would take approximately 34 years. No one can predict the continued availability of funding, future government intent, and the ability of government to purchase a smaller number of available acres in an escalating real estate market with unknown · Page 4-4 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strateg) Final Generic ElS funding potential. For these reasons, and based on the analysis completed tbr the CIS, upzonmg was retained as a potential land use tool for consideration. It is also important to recognize that during the 1997-2002 period, the conversion of thrmland and open space (other vacant buildable land) to other uses was taking place at the same pace as land preservation efforts. A study of building permits issued for new dwelling units only during the 1997-2002 period found that, each year approximately 200-225 acres were converted from farmland or open space (other vacant buildable land) to residential use. This stud5' did not take into account land lost to commercial site development since that was not within the scope of review covere~l by the moratorium. The average mount of land preservation from 1997-2002 is 260 acres per year. The estimated average amount of residential development over the past 6 years has been 200 to 225 acres per year. If we assume from this analysis that the rate of development will not decrease and is now marginally less than the rate of preservation and we also assume a target goal of preserving 80 percent of all farm and open space land within the Town, then it is clear that the rate at which land is being preserved will have to be increased dramatically in order to counter the rate at which land is being developed. Presently, there are approximately 950 acres of land in the preservation "pipeline." This means that there are active negotiations or discussions taking place between landowners and government agencies {and/or the PLT) about preserving 950 acres of land. It should be noted here that until a sale or donation is actually made the land in question remains vulnerable to development. With regard to the question whether there are any assurances of landowners receiving fair value for development fights in the event of an upzoning; government is required to pay thir value based on appraisals, which take into account comparable sales. There is no question that the value of a development right may be affected upward or downward by the zoning classification of the acreage. Thus, the value of a development right in a I acre zone may be different from that of a right in a 2 or 5-acre zone. Regardless of the zoning classification, however, government is required to pay fair value for the rights. Fair value of property will fluctuate in response to market forces. Fair value may fluctuate within zoning districts as well as across them. Fair value may rise or fall over time in response to the general health of the regional economy and the strength of the demand for land versus the supply of land for building proposes. If the Town adopts a target goal of preserving 80 percent of its existing farm and open space lands, (8,872acres), this action will automatically reduce the supply of land for building purposes by 80 pement. The reduction of the supply will result in an increase in the value of the land that remains available for building purposes as well as the existing built lots. Over time, the reduced supply and the increase in value will be reflected in the sales of comparables and subsequent appraisals and in the "fair value" prices paid for the development rights on the 80 percent of land targeted for preservation. Page 4-5 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS 4.4 Implications on Land Value from Transferred Development Comments B-10, G-79 and G-81: These comments reflect questions and concerns related to the reduction in vahte of land following TDR, and impacts to the abili~ of farmers to continue operations on land from which development potential has been transferred. There is also reference to restrictions associated with view easements and the potential impact of view easements on land value and taxation Response: The purpose of the DGEIS is to assess whether there are negative environmental impacts that would occur from using any one of the 43 planning and implementation tools identified as the "Action". Analyzing the negative or positive financial impacts is a legitimate concern, but it is not within the defined scope of this DGEIS. The Town Board could authorize a separate analysis to project the anticipated or potential impacts on landowner equity of each and any proposed action. Part of this comment seems to refer to the proposed Scenic By-Ways Overlay Development Controls which would include standards and guidelines that address building siting and architecture, viewsheds, open space, tree preservation and other buffer landscaping. These controls would apply to all parcels along scenic stretches of NYS Route 25 and CR 48. The overlay development controls would provide better guidance for the Planning and Zoning Boards, the Building Department, and applicants to maintain viewsheds and plan development in a visually sensitive manner. These are factors that the Planning Board already takes into account during subdivision and site plan review. These factors are currently part of the SEQRA process for land use applications. The overlay district would be a pro-active approach towards maintaining a resource that has been identified as important, rather than a reactionary approach. The beneficiaries are developers, the residents and the driving public including Town residents and visitors that travel on the State and County highways that are designated as scenic by-ways in the Town. At present, view preservation goals are achieved on larger parcels through voluntary sale of development rights and clustering, in order to maintain setbacks m~d viewsheds. View preservation goals on smaller parcels relies more heavily on good use of architectural styling, careful siting/building dimensions and placement, and strategic landscaping to maintain the aesthetic integrity of views. These implementation measures have been and will be used regardless of the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy. Through the CIS, the Town is examining the use of Scenic By-Ways Overlay Development Controls, consistent with the recommendations of an existing study, to identify and maintain important viewsheds, proactively. The Town seeks to maintain and support the business of farming as a means of ensuring conformance with its goal of preserving farmland. The DGEIS assembled information, studied potential environmental impacts, obtained public input and will ultimately provide information which the Town Board can use to make decisions. · Page 4-6 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS 4.5 PDR "Paradox" Comment B-20: "But the interesting thing and the paradox' comes from the Jacl that (f they zoned_/or sttv 5-acre --one. just to use the current example, ~f.vou zone Jbr 5-acre zoning the same./armland, and then you want to take away the rights to develop that as residential properS.', you end up having to buy back all those rights that you gave the parties in the zoning; in other words, you're giving them the rights that you 're going to have to turn around and tax the hell out qf everybodv to buy it back. And this is the paradox'." Response: This comment does not recognize that a purchase of development rights program ~s presently in operation and 1, 2 and 5-acre zoning will continue to occur. The Town has purchased development rights from property in the 1, 2 and 5-acre zoning districts. If an upzoning to R-200 (5-acm) should take place on R-40 (l-acre), R-80 and A-C 12-acrel zoned land, the net effect will be that the number of development rights [assuming one t development right equals one (1) dwelling unit] will go down. In practical terms, the lower the number of development rights the fewer the number of rights the Town will have to purchase order to meet its target goal of 80 percent preservation. If an upzoning is combined with a RID-type tool, the Town would commit to the future purchase of the same number of development rights currently held by landowners regardless of any loss ot development rights created by a RID. 4.6 TDR and Compensation for Loss of "Rights" Comments B-21 and B-22: These comments question whether and how.farmers would be compensated Jor the loss qf their development rights. Response: As stated in the DGEIS and other responses contained in this GEIS, farmers could be compensated for development rights through the purchase or transfer of development rights. If the comment refers to a loss of development rights which may occur if 5-acre zoning is implemented, evidence shows that per acre land value may temporarily decrease, and then stabilize given the demand for land and the high base land value for Iow density development and/or lucrative agricultural business. If a RID is implemented as outlined in the DGEIS~ then compensation could be based on the same number of development rights as currently exists under 2-acre zoning. 4.7 SCDHS Density. and TDR Page 4-7 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Comments B-23, C-39 and F-5: These comments note questions with respect to the potential impact on yields fi'om application of SCDHS criteria and standards when implementing a TDR transaction. Response: SCDHS criteria for transfer of development rights would have to be adhered to in structuring a Town TDR program. The SCDHS requirements are included in the DGEIS Section 1.3.2, Implementation Tool #12, with an acknowledgement that the Town would comply with SCDHS TDR requirements. Appendix I contains a letter fi.om the SCDHS Division of Environmental Quality to the SCWA in which the SCDHS indicates its agreement with the goals of the SCWA's Five Year Water Supply Plan for the Town of Southold. In particular, the letter notes that use of the Water Service Area Map should be "...used to guide short-term decisions on water main extensions based on housing densities and known contamination issues." If the Town's TDR program meets with SCDHS' TDR requirements, there are no negative environmental impacts anticipated. 4.8 Effectiveness of PDR Program Comment C-36: "3,~v specific questions regarding the study. I would like to understand what makes us different from the rest of Long Island: the preservation program has been in place since, I believe 1976; we were the first counO, in the nation to enact it And it certainly didn't save the other towns of Long Island from over development. So I would like to understand if there is something special about us and the way we're doing things to see if it's possible that voluntary preservation **,ill in .fact save our town and the qualiO, that we enjoy today." Response: The DGEIS includes a section titled Land Preservation Efforts and Future Development Trends (Section 3.1.3), which describes tracking and monitoring of preservation efforts, and factors that contribute to future preservation efforts and development pressures. This information coupled with data presented in Section 4.3 indicates that over the last 6 years, development has been occurring at a rate of 200-225 acres per year while preservation has been occurring at a rate of 260 acres per year. There are factors noted that would tend to increase development pressure such as land use trends on other parts of Long Island, potential water availability, telecommuting and the desirability of the North Fork. Section 4.3 of this FGEIS discusses the average past preservation acreage figure (1997-2002) of 260 acres per year, and indicates that if this rate is assumed to occur into the future, it would take approximately 34 years to achieve 80 percent preservation of all subdividable and available · Page 4-8 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Slrateg) Final Generic EIS vacant lands. If the remaining 20 percent were developed within the predicted years based Ol1 the current rate of conversion of buildable land (200 to 225 acres per year}, those thctors identified in above (which make Southold unique and prone to development pressurel indicate that the current voluntary preservation programs may not be sufficient to allow the Town ot' Southold to achieve the stated thrmland and open space preservation goals unless the rate preservation is speeded up or the rate of development is slowed dramatically. 4.9 Reimbursements to Property Owners Comments C-44 and C-45: These comments propose a methodolog3, whereby landowners would be monetarily compensated .for the loss of his development rights. Response: The existing purchase of development rights program as well as land preservation techniques contemplated in the Southold CIS, have a common element which includes monetary compensation for development rights. From a no action alternative, which would include continued PDR, to a 5-acre upzoning, which would still compensate landowners ibr development rights (albeit at a lesser number of potential development rights)~ to a 5-acre upzoning combined with the Rural Implementation District (RID) to allow landowners to be compensated based on 2-acre zoning in exchange for the public benefit of giving the public an additional ten years tat a minimum to raise funds to acquire those development rights) maintaining lhrmland, and all assume that PDR will continue. As a result, the concept behind the Town farmland and open space preservation program assures some monetary compensation to landowners tbr development rights. 4.10 PDR Calculation Process and Implications Comments C-55, C-56, D-82 and G-131: These comments question how development rights are calculated in relation to the PDR program. The comment fi~rther requests information as to how the credits are redeemed. Response: The PDR calculation process is based on appraisal of the value of the development rights on a given parcel of land. The overall process is described as follows: · Land Preservation application received. · Application reviewed by Land Preservation Department (Department) and scheduled for next Land Prese~'ation Committee {Committee) meeting. If subdivision component, Planning Board staff and Planning Board review concept. · Committee reviews application and authorizes appraisal process. · Appraisal ordered. Page 4-0 · Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strateg) Final Generic ElS · Appraisal reviewed by Department and commattee. ConmUttee votes on proposed offer. -- · Pumhase negotiated by Committee member or Department or in some cases The Nature Conservancy or the Peconic Land Trust. · Acceptance letter prepared and signed by landowner. · Department advises Town Board of proposed project. · Contract prepared by Town and sent to landowt~er. ,, Landowner signs contract. · Department schedules Town Board public hearing. · Iown Board authorizes pumhase and Supervisor signs contract. · Survey, title and environmental site assessment ordered. When survey, title and environmental due diligence are completed, the closing is scheduled. If subdivision part of project, landowner usually awaits final subdivision approval prior to closing. Notes: 1. Although the above is prepared as a list, many of the listed items occur concurrently. 2. If subdivision is part of project, subdivision process occurs at a pace determined by the landowner. For example, lando~aer may wish to start subdivision process prior to determination of preservation purchase price, or landowner may wish to hold the subdivision application until such time that preservation purchase price has been determined. 3. During existing moratorium, landowner is not able to make formal application until such time that preservation contract is executed. The current PDR process is voluntary, and compensation occurs based on the above process at the time of closing. Credits or development rights are not redeemed, but rather compensation is made for the appraised value of the land. Once closing occurs, the land is encumbered in the Town tax assessor records and on the land deed so that development potential is properly recorded as purchased. · Page 4-10 5.0 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS AFFORDABLE HOUSING-RELATED COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5.1 Establish Housing AuthoriU, Comment B-31: "[~Ttat you need, get started with a housing authoriO' that has bonding potential: bm' some land for some people; set up a program of buildings and houses, some garden apartments .[br young people so they can earn some equi~' and save some equiO'. Do what East Ha~npton did. on resale you only get the rate qf inflation. You have to sell it back lO the housing authorio' " Response: The author of the comment recommends the creation of a housing authority, similar to that created in East Hampton. A housing authority is a quasi-govermnentaL non-profit, tax-exempt organization that generally provides housing for low and moderate income families. Housing authorities have the powers of eminent domain, can sue and be sued, and can insure or provide for the insurance of property. Housing authorities also can administer or manage housing programs such as the Federal Section 8 program. A housing authority can invest money m housing developments and issue tax-exempt bonds. A housing authority can also be involved with more specific financial programs, for instance, it can operate down payment assistance programs. A housing authority can develop housing alone or in collaboration with other entities. It can also own and manage housing developments. A housing authority would have direct access to federal funding programs such as HOME funds. Colnmunity Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, HOPE funds, Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) funds, and additional targeted programs. A housing authority is one tool that can be used to support a comprehensive townwide affi~rdable housing strategy. It should be recognized that the most substantial benefit of a housing authority, its ability to raise revenue through the issuance of low interest bonds, results in a corresponding debt that must be offset through an adequate revenue stream, presumably the creation of rental or affordable housing for sale. The scale of the projects undertaken by the authority must be robust enough to develop an adequate revenue stream. Small scale or limited scope authorities often struggle to develop adequate revenue streams. 5.2 Impacts on Cottage House Owners & Provision of Affordable Housing Comments C- 17 and C- 18: These comments refer to the conversion of cottage housing (small, second or seasonal homesl to large year-round dwellings not seasonal or in character with existing neighborhoods, the potential to address affordable housing, and its intpact on properO' values. Response: Cottage housing represents a potentially viable pool of existing dwelling units that, it' sate and code-compliant, may serve to meet some portion of the Town's affordable housing needs. A~ Page 5-1 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS previously documented, solving the Town's affordable housing problem will require a range of solutions which, if taken individually, may not represent a significant solution, however when viewed cumulatively, will begin to meet the Town's documented needs. 5.3 Upzoning and Its Relationship to Affordable Housing Comments D-18, D-74, D-90, E-7, E-8, E-9, E-13, E-27 and E~35: These comments indicate concerns that: the suggestion in the DGEIS that upzoning will increase land values to such a degree that affordable housing will not be promoted, so saying that upzoning wi//promote affordable housing is disingenuous (actually, affordable housing will result from the Town's flexibiHo' to locate such growth in hamlet areas, where appropriate}; recommends review of the Petaluma case. wherein limitations on the number of building permits *vas successfully used as a growth-control mechanism (with the exception of affordable housing applications); and sufficient amounts of affordable housing units would not be provided by the proposed action. Response: The concern that upzoning fi.om 2 acres to 5-acres will affect housing affordability can be discounted. Given the characteristics of the existing residential housing market within the Town of Southold, a new home on a 2-acre lot today sells far in excess of any measure of affordability. Based on two years of actual sales data, the average cost of a single-family home in Southold was found to be nearly $400,000. Certainly, the increase in land costs that are likely to result from a reduction of potential lots in the face of a steady or rising demand as a result of an upzoning would only further escalate the cost of housing. But it must be understood that this escalation would occur wholly above the already exceeded affordability threshold levels. The issue is not the high end of the housing market that currently exists in the 2-acre zone, and which would continue to exist if this area were upzoned. The issue, and challenge, is to create affordable housing that can be economically constructed in and around the hamlet areas where the presence of existing infrastructure and more reasonably priced real estate exists. To reiterate, if the Town did not upzone, but chose instead, to preserve 80 percent of all farmland and open space through voluntary preservation alone, the affordable housing issue would remain as critical as if the 80 percent preservation took place through upzoning alone. In other words, the target of 80 percent preservation, in and as of itself, will worsen the affordable housing issue. The CIS DGEIS discusses the possibility of an upzoning in conjunction with encouraging additional growth and increased densities within the hamlets. Specifically, the CIS DGEIS includes a discussion of the creation of a new HALO zone surrounding the hamlet centers which would accommodate additional growth, including the development of affordable housing. The discussion of development within the hamlets and the proposed HALO zones are more fully described in Appendix A-8 of the DGEIS. · Page 5-2 6.0 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Straleg) Final Generic ElS UPZONING-RELATED COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 6.1 Implications of 5-Acre Clustering and "Sterilization" of Land Comment B-17: "There's a comment al the.first informational meeting when Greg YakabosM said trader 5-acre zoning with a one-acre cluster effectively sterilizes.lbur other acres. 147tat.[~lir-minded Southold landowner wouldn't cringe over that comment?" Response: The concept of clustering is to establish the yield of a parcel based on zoning, and through New York State Town Law Section 278, utilize flexibility in lot dimensional requirements to reduce lot size in order to preserve sensitive environmental features and/or farmland/open space. Regardless of the base zoning, the Town has the ability to require clustering. Where the lot to be subdivided is 10 acres or larger the Town Board mandates that the Planning Board cluster. A clustered-lot development based on 5-acre zoning will provide the same number of individual lots as would result from a traditional full subdivision of that same site; there is no reduction io the number of lots, only in the size of those lots. This preserves the landowner's yield while enabling him to simultaneously retain agricultural or open space use of that portion of the site which is not allocated into these clustered lots. The Planning Board currently has the flexibility to create variably sized lots within a cluster. The Town Board could restrict the Planning Board's ability to exercise discretion by mandating that clustered lots in the 5 acre (R-200) zone be sized between one to 2-acres in area. The smaller the size of clustered lots the more land is preserved from residential development, thus the more land is available to be thrmed. Use of the clustering technique enables the landowner to not only profit from the residential potential of his property, but to also continue to profit from the remaining agricultural use of the majority of his property. 6.2 25-Acre Zoning on Sensitive Lands Comment B-44: "They want that ~_'pe qf l(lk, and, personally, 1 am~/br the 4, 5-acre zoning, l am Jor 25-acre zoning. Find o,tt where the most sensitive environmental lands are; categorize them: evaluate them: save them. }['e all want them. Band [Dam] Pond, Hallock's Bay, we want the sensitive lands to stay. It's not al[ the Jhrmers. It has nothing to do with farmers. The 5-acre zoning shouldn't be pertaining to.farms. It shouM be pertaining to sensitive lands. Do you know who's going to own a 25-acre lot? The wealthy. }Vho's going to own a ten-acre lot? Again, the veG' well-to-do. The 5-acre lot, again, money is going to own them. Page Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic £1S We have to do and compensate and try to keep the most valuable assets of Southold Town here. It's our view. it's the farm kids. It's their grandchildren. They're going to leave. With 25-acre zoning, ten acre zoning. 5-acre zoning, they're going to leave. They can't afford to stay. So to compensate for that. you need the 2-acre the one-acre and you also need the qttarter- acre· There is ways to get water. Put the water in. Get the small lots." Response: Preservation of environmentally sensitive lands is an important component of the Town's land preservation goals. An equally important goal is the retention of farmland. The Town is seeking to preserve 80 percent of all farmland and open space land (8,872 acres). This target will eliminate some potentially buildable land from the supply, thereby ensuring a high demand for the remaining developable land. As was described earlier in Section 5.3 of the FGEIS the affordable housing issue is a pressing issue now. Regardless of what tool (or tools) is used to preserve land from development, the decision to preserve 80 percent of the remaining farm and open space lands within the Town will aggravate an existing problem and not create an entirely new problem. The reader is referred to Section 5.3 of this FGEIS for more information. 6.3 Recommendations of Prior Reports for S-Acre Upzoning, and Associated Impacts Comments B-49, C-25, C-30, D-& D-13, D-30, D-36, D-38, D-43~ D-44, E-6, E-15, E-40, G-91 and (3-92: These comments inquire as to why recommendations (including upzoning) stated in the previous Town plans and studies (such as the Blue Ribbon Commission and Town Farmland Preservation Strategy) but not implemented were included in this proposed action. Response: The Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy is not a study, but a plan of implementation of land use recommendations that are found to be consistent with the Town's stated goals. One o£ the goals is the reduction of density, and a common means of density reduction is upzoning. The CIS sought to not lose the record of information available in past Town studies, and from the outset recognized that past studies were useful but needed to be reviewed for current context and relevancy. Review of past studies supported the basic goals that create the Town's vision, and through review, a number of consistencies were noted. Upzoning remains a viable land use tool to reduce the density of potential development within a given area. The CIS recognized upzoning along with a number of other valuable land use tools, and established the overall implementation strategy with solid roots in the Town's long-term comprehensive planning efforts, in a form that would culminate in a plan that best achieves the Town goals and minimizes adverse impacts. · Page 6-~ Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strateg.x Final Generic ElS 6.4 Comparison of Southold Town to Other Localities Comments B-50. D-51. £-29, F-40, G-47. G-160 and G-242: These comments question why the Town ql' Southold was compared to other localities in the, count~, in regard to land preseta'ation q[forts, and request just(/~cation as to the comparability to these areas. Response: Napa Valley, California several counties in Mary. land, and Wan*Ack, New York were found to have experience in such issues, and were noted in the CIS along with other regions having related experience. None of the areas researched were the same as the Town of Southold. and for this reason, the overall environmental setting of Southold was documented in detail m Section 2.0 of the DGEIS. To the extent that Southold can learn from the experiences of other regions, reference to these regions was provided. It is however noted that Southold is unique in consideration of its proximity to New York City: development trends on kong Island: desirability of north fork living environment; the intensity of development pressure: increasing real estate values; the farm uses; crops; moderate climate; sandy soils; water supply issues: the extensive maritime environment and other conditions. No models were identified that were exactly comparable to Southold, given the conditions noted above. However, to omit experiences from other pans of the country from consideration, simply because conditions are not identical to Southold, would have compromised the search tbr available in~bnnation applicable to farmland preservation issues. 6.5 Public Understanding of Upzoning to 5-Acre Comments C-9, G-19 and G-40: These comments note a public perception that the proposed action is based on a blanket upzoning to 5-acre lots. Response: The consideration of 5-acre upzoning as a land use, density reduction tool is clearly defined in Section 1.3.2 of the DGEIS, Implementation Tool #4. Upzoning, as considered in the Southold CIS, would involve requiring a minimum of 5-acres/R-200 per dwelling fbr 3,4eld purposes m the A-C district, and changing the zoning of the R-80 district to R-200. An upzoning will not necessarily result in the creation of 5-acre building lots in these zoning districts. The/:bllo~ving is stated in the DGEIS with regard to clustering: The Cluster Development provisions contained in Chapter 100-181 of the Zoning Code of the Town requires clustering where lots of ten (10) acres or ~nore in the A-C, R-40, R-80. R-120. R- 200 and R-400 residential districts are proposed to be subdivided, subject to certain minintum lot size provisions and subject to a yield map that contbrms to all requirements of the Zoning Code and Subdivision Regulations. Clustering is recommended to ensure protection of resources. maximization of contiguous farmland and ensuring compatibility between different land uses. Page ~-3 · Southold Comprehensive implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS The upzoning, as considered in the DGEIS, would apply only to the A-C and R-80 zoning districts as well as 156 acres of the R-40 zoning district currently devoted to agricultural use. The perception that upzoning would create 5-acre lots is not accurate with respect to the ultimate lot size achieved in development, as mandatory clustering would require the Planning Board to create smaller lots to ensure protection of resources, maximization of contiguous farmland/open space and ensure compatibility between different land uses. 6.6 Impact on Farms from Other Upzoning Programs Comment C-29: "How has previous upzoning qffected agriculture? Such as, how many farms were there before the Town upzoned land; how many farms after upzoning? What affect on development did the previous upzoning do? What affect did it have on developments? If'ere there more developments, less? How much proper.ty was taken out of farmland and open space.for these developments? Response: Since 1957, there have been several upzonings in Southold. It is difficult, if not impossible to definitively answer this question, because no definitive survey was taken prior to and after past upzonings. However, insight can be gained from the existing body of experience specific to Southold Town. 1983, the Town upzoned certain lands within the "A" Residential and Agricultural District from 1 to 2 acres. In 1989, additional areas in Town were upzoned to 3, 5 and 10-acre zoning. The Town has bought development rights from property zoned 5-acres. In 1999, a Farm & Farmland Protection Strategy, found 10,232 acres of farmlands to be in active agricultural use. Of that, 7,466 acres were estimated as being in active crop use, 1,490 acres were estimated as being fallow, and 1,276 acres were estimated as being support acreages. Fallow acreage included "... land that was obviously fanned at one time, or land that could easily be farmed with minor clearing of the area...includes overgrown land, some cover crop, and/or low growth trees/shrubbery (but not woodland). Support land acreage included "...land that accompanied an active crop and served the purpose of support, such as roads, agricultural structures, open space to make farming purposes easier...". However, as the 1999 Farm and Farmland Strategy revealed, approximately 2,942 acres or 28 percent of the total land identified as being farm, fallow and support acreage, is located outside the A-C zoning district. As of August 14, 2003, the townwide acreage of farmland totaled 10,325 acres. The DGEIS, Section 2.6.1, Land Use Patterns, recognizes the importance of, as well as changes in, the agricultural industry as follows: Southold developed as, and remains today, an agricultural cormnunity. Agriculture dominates the landscape and defines the character of the Town. Nearly one-third of the Town, approximately 10,207 acres, is devoted to active agriculture use (Town of Southold GIS, 2003). For generations, Southold's sandy but fertile soils were almost exclusively used to produce potatoes. During the 1970s, a number of factors combined which brought about an end to the era of these traditional farms: · Page6-4 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strateg.~ Final Generic ElS · Bans and bmitations on the use of fertilizers and pesticides. · Increased fuel costs flor farm machinery as well as petroleum-based lbrtihzers 1. · Increase in land values for conversion to non-agricultural purposes. · Change in market preferences for agriculture products. Add to this, unique personal or family situations and farmland that has been held by investors who lease the land to farmers, and it is apparent that the influences on the agricultural industrx are complex. Also of note, is the agricultural industry response to market pressures and demand for alternative types of agricultural production, also noted in the Farmland Protection Strategy and noted below: Coincident with the decline of the potato farms was the rise of the diversification of the Fown's agricultural industry, led by the creation of a new sector - vineyards. Today. the ['own', agricultural base is divided among the following crops {arranged according to decreasing acreage devoted to each crop; Town of Southold Farmland Protection Strate~,. 1999). · Vineyards · Vegetables · Grain · Potatoes · Sod and nurser5.' · Feed corn · Fruit · Greenhouses · Horses · Christmas trees Thus, there has been a change in the agricultural industry that has occurred as a result of many influences, the combination of which makes it nearly impossible to determine the magnitude of the effect of any one factor. The Town seeks to provide incentives for continuation of lhrming, and has outlined in these incentives in the Farmland Protection Strategy. Participation in one primary incentive tool is very high, as evidenced in the Farmland Protection Strategy which states: "Areas in agricultural use have been established in the Town of Southold whereby owners of eligible properties voluntarily apply for "Agricultural District" status, which provides tax reliefi At present, there are 6,581 acres in the Town devoted to Agricultural Districts." For update purposes, there are approximately 6,585 acres currently in agricultural districts. Farmowners also gain benefit of compensation ]~br development rights as an incentive to continue farming through the PDR program. As of August of 2003, the Town and County have purchased development rights to approximately 2,845 acres of farmland { 1,449.3 acres County PDR and 1,395.3 acres Town PDR). However, even as development rights are acquired at a rate of approximately 260 acres per year (from all types of preservation and purchases, including fee title acquisitions), the conversion of land to development at an estimated rate of 220-225 acres per year continues. As a result, the Town will not meet its stated goal of 80 percent preservation and 60 percent reduction in potential housing density. Page · Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS PDR essentially reduces density through retirement of development rights in exchange for monetaD, compensation to the owner who voluntarily chooses to sell those development rights. The original seller receives the benefit of compensation. However, farmland where development rights have been sold may later be re-sold and put to a diversity of agricultural uses that provide income thus allowing for continuation of agricultural enterprise. PDR has the effect of removing all development potential and ultimately, the equity created by that development potential. Yet farming continues and land without development rights retains value, allowing for the sale and resale of farm properties. Upzoning does not remove all development potential. Thus, if there is no evidence of a direct link between the PDR program and the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use, there is no apparent basis to conclude that upzoning would increase pressure to convert farming to non- agricultural use. In closing, the decision to compensate landowners for loss of equity is a matter of public policy. 6.7 Land Use Pattern Comment C-34: "Row 7. talk about better land use pattern; what better land use patterns are you looking for? }ghat changes in land use designation on privately owned land that you mentioned are you talking about? g~'ll landowners be notified?" Response: The current land use of a site may not always reflect the zoning assigned to that property. A "grandfathering" may have occurred, where a land use established prior to a subsequent zoning change (and now inappropriate in consideration of land use patterns or proximity to sensitive and/or valuable environmental resources) is allowed to remain in place. Or, a land use or zoning pattern may have become established in an area where desired land uses have changed (for example, along Mattituck Creek, or near Greenport). It is the Town's responsibility to ensure that land uses are appropriate not only for an individual site, but also for the vicinity around that site; it is through zoning that this can be achieved. It is for these types of reasons that this Tool is recommended. Table 3-3 of the DGEIS briefly presents the 43 individual tools comprising the proposed action; Tool # 7 reads as follows: Review Zoning Map (Mattituck Creek, industrial on Route 25 west of Greenport, HD in Greenport; water dependent uses, AHD - repeal or expand process) In order to determine where such conflicts are located, the Zoning Map would be reviewed. Table 3-3 also lists (briefly) the beneficial impact of this tool: · Page 6-6 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strateg~ Final Generic Provides for better land use pattern in sensitive and important areas oUlown The Southold CIS indicates that the current land use pattern throughout the Town is essentially in conformance with the Town's vision, and efforts should be made to preserve the current land use pattern which reflects Southold's unique rural character, maritime history and bucolic atmosphere. In certain places~ as noted in Table 3-3 of the DGEIS, a review of the zoning map is recommended so as to determine whether changes should be made. A number of possible tools are under consideration to assist in maintaining the qualities of Southold that are enjoyed by residents and visitors alike, and that contribute to the economic stability and vitality of the Town. Section 1.3.1 of the DGEIS outlines the various implementation tools under consideration in the following categories: · Planning Process, Zoning and Zoning Code · EducatioWEntbrcement · Capital Improvements/Expenditures · Direct Town Management · Inter-Agency:Quasi-Agency Initiatives The reader is directed to Section 1.3.1 and Table 1-1 for more specific information on proposed changes which may include changes in land use designation under this program. Should the Town Board choose to implement changes in land use designation, all appropriate heating and notification procedures will be adhered to as required by law. 6.8 Concept of 80 percent/60 percent is Left Undef'med Comments G-9 and G-201: "Concept of 80 percent/60 perc~tt is left undefined: The concept of "80 percent preseta'ation and 60 percent densiO, reduction" is not even mentioned in the Summa~'. It first appears in thc tort on page 3-8 and again on page 3-27, which is about two-thirds of the way through the main body of the text of the DGEIS document. The _first time it is described is on page 8-4 itt connection with one of the Ahernatives. This description should appear in one qf the opening paragraphs of the DGEIS document and in the Summary. The concept of 80 percent/60 percent appears to be a code name Jbr 5-acre zoning. To demonstrate, (/'a parcel of land non' subject to 2-acre zoning is up-zoned to 5-acre zoning and clustering is required using l-acre lots therc would be 4-acres left over for each 5-acres developed theret~v preserving 80 percent. -Uso the, densiO, of development would be two-fifths as great as under 2-acre zoning thereby providing a densiO' reduction qf three-fifths or 60 percent. But that is not sufficient Jbr a definition fherc should be sample calculation showing how the concept would be applied to achieve the results desired. And once the implementation o.f the concept using 5-acre zoning has been clearly defined, then the definition should be expanded to include other means ~?l' implementation. particularly those based on the purchase or transfer qf development rights." Page 6-7 · Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Response: The 43 implementation tools were derived from past planning studies, and the derivation is outlined in detail in the matrices referenced in Section 1.1.1 of the DGEIS and included in Appendix A. As a result, the comment is incorrect in reference to where the concept of "80 percent preservation and 60 percent density reduction" first appears. The 80 percent/60 percent concept was recommended by the Final Response of the Blue Ribbon Commission for a Rural Southold in July 2002. In addition, the DGEIS indicates that the basis for the Southold CIS was initiated by a moratorium, the purpose of which specifically states that several inter-related planning initiatives should be considered, noted as follows: the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission and the Local Waterfi'ont Revitalization Program (LWRP), and concerns in regard to affordable housing availability and public infrastructure usage. As a result, the Blue Ribbon Commission report is reviewed in the DGEIS and it is this document that established the goals for preservation of 80 percent preservation and 60 percent density reduction. The DGEIS Section 2.6.3, Land Use Plans & Recommendations, page 2-46 states the following: Blue Ribbon Comrmssion for a Rural Southold, Final Report (July 14, 2002) This report provides recommendations designed to preserve farmland, open space and the rural aesthetics associated with agriculture and open space preservation in the Town. The report established goals tbr preservation of 80 percent of the remaining farmland and open space, with a density reduction of 60 percent. This report outlined the initial provisions for a Rural Incentive District and recognized conservation subdivision, continuation of PDR and TDR as primary land use tools to achieve the stated goals. A sample calculation of the type requested is included on page 3-26 of the DGEIS (Section 3.2.1 ), and is excerpted as follows: This tool, coupled with part of Tool #6 (mandatory clustering) ensures conformance with the Town goals of 80 percent land preser~'ation, and 60 percent density reduction. In general terms, if density is reduced from a 2-acre to a 5-acre yield, and 80 percent of a given parcel remains in agrict~ltural production, up to 16 homes (rather than 40) could be built on 20 acres of a 100 acre parcel, thereby preserving the target 80 percent and reducing density by 60 percent. It is noted that SCDHS density standards for development further support a reduced land use density, if the Town's goal of preserving farmland, farm soils and farm use is to be met. In other words, under Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, land that is farmed is not permitted to be counted toward yield, as the application of fertilizer and land use intensity is considered to be coincident with density allowance on a given parcel. As a result, if farmland is to be set aside, residential yield must be reduced in order to preserve farmland. The first three goals of the Town are re-stated below. · To preserve land including farmland, open space and recreational landscapes · To preserve the rural, cultural and historic character of the hamlets and surrounding countryside. · To preserve the Town's remaining natural environment; to prevent further deterioration of the Town's natural resources and to restore the Town's degraded natural resources back to their previous quality. · Page 6-8 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strateg3 Final Generic ElS It is noted that all three goals deal with preserving farmland, open space and environment-al resources, which help to comprise the rural, cultural and historic character ot' the hamlets and surrounding countryside. Open space preservation and density reduction are obvious techniques to ensure conformance with these goals. The comment requests that the definition of 5-acre zoning be expanded to include PDR and TDR. It is anticipated that the PDR program will continue regardless of whether or not a 5-acre upzoning tool is implemented. If a RID is implemented in connection with 5-acre upzoning, the PDR program is critical to compensation of farmowners based on a 2-acre yield. TDR is also outlined in the Southold CIS program (Section 1.3.2; Implementation Tool #12): however, this tool is primarily intended to shift density and provide landowner compensation. The tool would not reduce density, which is a primary function of potential upzoning as well as PDR. 6.9 Life After Build-Out is Not Anticipated Comment G- 10: This comment requests that the DGEIS include a discussion and anat,'sis ql' Town build-oltt conditions assuming that the proposed action (particularly the 5-acre upzoning) is implemented. Response: The DGEIS provides the intbrmation requested in this comment in Section 3.2.2. which includes an analysis of the projected Town conditions with implementation of 80 percent open space preservation and 60 percent density reduction. Section 9.5 of this FGEIS provides further information with regard to Build-Out methodology for density reduction analysis in the A-C and R-80 zoning district, tbr all vacant and vacant subdividable land. As noted in Section 9.5.5-acre upzoning is more closely represented by the analysis included in Appendix H of this FGEIS. It should be noted that the density forecast by the Build-Out analysis is not intended to be achieved. Such analysis is useful as a benchmark by which to assess the effectiveness of planning tools. 6.10 Need an Analysis of all of the Zoning Required to Implement a Zoning Plan Comment G- 13: "Need an analysis of aH of the zoning required to implement a ~oning plan: Each plan to presem,e farmland and open space and to limit residential density ql.'[bcts development throughout the To~,'n, not jltst in the AC and R-80 zones. If dex,elopment is pushed back itl one place it will bulge out somewhere else. If residential development is prohibited on Jarmland then it ri'ill occur in some other areas of the Town. Does a particular plan prepare {br this new development t~v providing public water and public sewers to a limited area? Or does it accelerate the build-out ~' adopting 5-acre zoning and cause tile development to spread like a cancer over the remaining vacant land. This DGEIS should prepare an analysis of all q[' the zoning required to implement at least the Jbllowing three plans: (1~ Fhe basic ~¢0 percent, 60 percent plan implemented with 5-acre zoning q£the .~tC and R-80 zones: (2~ The plan to contintte Page 0-9 · $outhold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic £1S with 2-acre zoning but to preseta'e farmland and open space by purchasing or transferring development rights and t~v the other means suggested in Section 1.0 pi'the DGEIS; and (3~ The plan to preserve the farmland and to provide open space by prohibiting residential development in the AC zone as proposed in Alternative 8.5. [f other plans are being considered seriously then they shouM be included as }*'ell. Each plan should be defined by its advocates." Response: The DGEIS provides the information requested in Conunent G-13. It recognizes the interrelationship of various zoning initiatives and assesses the impact of a variety of scenarios. The DGEIS complies with SEQRA requirements and analyzes alternatives as well. The commentator is directed to the following soumes of information contained in the DGEIS in response to this comment. (1) DGEIS, Section 3.2 Potential Impacts of the Proposed Action, and DGEIS, Appendix F. This section details the potential impacts of the Proposed Action as defined in DGEIS, Section 1.0, and as compared with the Town existing conditions as defined in DGEIS, Section 2.0, to determine the potential impacts of the basic 80 pement/60 percent plan implemented with 5-acre zoning of the A-C and R-80 zones. The section includes: a discussion of the impact of each of the implementation tools; a Regiotml Impact Assessment Model (RIAM) analysis of the impact of the proposed action with respect to the overall Town including coverage, water use and quality, demographics, taxation/school district impacts, transportation, and solid waste; and, a discussion of the impact of the project on natural and human resources of the Town. (2) DGEIS, Section 3.1 Future Conditions Without the Proposed Action. This section includes a build-out analysis, analysis of the impacts associated with the build- out analysis, and a complete section on the continuation of PDR for the purpose of continued farmland preservation in the comext of maintaining 2-acre zoning. (3) DGEIS, Section 8.5. This section includes an assessment of an alternative to preserve the farmland and to provide open space by prohibiting residential development in the A-C zone, including advantages, disadvantages, impacts and comparison. Since a primary goal of the Town is density reduction, prohibiting development in one area of the Town, does not necessarily mean that it will occur elsewhere in the Town although it may increase development pressure elsewhere in the Town. Upzoning and Purchase of Development Rights essentially reduce development density and therefore neither would result in increased development elsewhere in the Town. TDR, a tool that shifts development density, allows development to occur in areas equipped to accommodate such development and also allows other goals to be addressed such as housing diversity, affordable housing and strengthening of hamlets. The need for sewage treatment is determined by SCDHS in review of project density. Given the current overall, relatively large lot size of residential district requirements in Southold, there is no need fbr widespread regional sewering; this is further supported by the RIAM calculations having to do with the concentration of nitrogen in recharge (see DGEIS, Appendix F). The Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA) recently completed a GElS on their 5-year water supply plan for the Town of Southold and issued a findings statement dated July 21, 2003. The · Page 6-10 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strateg.'~ Final Generic ElS statement contains several "findings" that are important with regard to Southold water sup[d?, issues noted as fullows: B. C. D. E. Sufficient water exists in the Town of Southold to support tull build-out of the town. SCWA can purchase water from the Town of Riverhead Water District without having significant environmental impacts. SCWA cao develop 2 wells at the Hallockville Museum Site without significant impacl to the enviromnent. SCWA finds there are beneficial impacts for lnaintaining some wells m the Southold. Water can be transmitted from the Central Pine Barrens Region to thc Towo of Soutbokl without significant environmental impact. Water supply is necessary to serve the existing population, and the SCWA is considenng options to expand availability of public water supply in Southold Town. Proper planning and zoning measures must be put into place in anticipation of available water supply; residents of the -[own should be sen'ed with potable water and SCWA is seeking to address the need to sup[d? a reliable water supply for existing and future Town residents. 6.11 Upzoning and Proposed Action and Undermining Farming Comments D-16, D-21, D-34 and D-48: These comments indicate concerns with respect to: 5-acre zoning would undermine Jarms and not protect open space or farming; there is a conflict between comments in the DGEIS which indicate land values would be increased (so that qtJbrdable housing would not result~ and comments that indicate upzoning would reduce land values, so that farmers would be less able to borrow sufficient Jhnds on their land value; fears that restrictions will prevent landowners fi'om doing **'hat the), want with their land (such as clearing, .fencing, etc.): and a suggestion that thc Town look into other cases nationwide where upzoning actually preserved.thrmland. Response: Based on analysis conducted as part of the DGEIS, it is not expected that 5-acre upzoning would undermine farming. The commentator is referred to DGEIS Section 3.2.1 for intbrmation concerning potential impacts of 5-acre upzoning. It is also noted that 5-acre upzoning in combination with a Rural Incentive District, were designed to provide protection in terms equity and the ability to borrow and/or sell development rights. The intent is to protect both open space and farmland and the business of farming. A variety of tools, measures and town commitment are needed to achieve this goal. T.:e DGEIS recognizes that there currently is a lack of affordable housing in the Town Southold, and that affordable housing would not be expected to be improved, increased or addressed in connection with housing in the A-C or R-80 zones, whether they are zoned /bt 2- acre or 5-acre yield equivalents. Aftbrdable housing which will likely be to the hamlet centers and surrounding areas must be addressed through a variety of tools and et~brts such as those outlined in DGEIS, Section 1.3. Page b-I l · Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Land use restrictions are common in any municipal jurisdiction with zoning in place. Restrictions can include measures such as clearing limitations, fertilizer dependent vegetation limits, wetlands and wetland buffer protection, steep slope avoidance, landscaping requirements, fencing guidelines, and general design guidelines. Restrictions can ensure orderly development and protect or maintain land values by setting enforceable guidelines and outside parameters within which people can safely develop without endangering health safety and welfare of themselves or others. Other examples of communities where upzoning occurred are provided in Section 3.2.1 of the DGEIS. Long Island and the Town of Southold are unique in terms of proximity to New York City, the abundant natural and cultural resources characteristic of Southold, and the resultant desirability of the locale and intensity of development pressure. Upzoning with mandatory cluster is one implementation tool that achieves the goal of density reduction by curtailing the ultimate number of units that may result should development pressure continue or increase. Other measures besides density reduction are needed in order to achieve the overall goals of preserving 80 percent of thrmland and open space; support for the farming community and the business of farming must also be integrated within an overall plan for farmland presetwation.. 6.12 Impact on Farming from Prior Upzonings Comment D-45: "tfq~at evidence do you have that shows the impact of the previous change from I-acre to 2- acres on farmland? Is it not true that at the time qf that change, many farmers quit farming? And 1 believe that this was addressed during the Blue Ribbon Commission and basically the response, the answer was ignored, that a lot of farmers did leave in the early 90 's. " Response: Information regarding the Town's previous rezoning from l-acre to 2-acre zoning would be superceded by the current real estate values. Consistent with other references, a minor downturn in value would have been expected; however, escalating real estate values has more than made up for any temporary dip. As noted earlier in Section 6.6, there have been several upzonings in Southold since zoning was adopted in 1957. The minimum lot sizes have increased from 1 to 3, 5 and 10 acre zoning in certain places in Southold. Parts of Orient, south of SR25 were zoned 5 acre in 1989 and farming remains in place. Viable farms have not disappeared. It must be recognized that global economics and technological advances have had profound effects on the business of fanning. The agricultural industry is affected by outside forces beyond our control, in much the same way that the real estate market in Southold is influenced by regional housing trends. Section 6.6 of this FGEIS addresses influences on the business of farming that contribute to conversion of farm use to non-farm use. Conversion of farmland has been occurring over an extended period of time for a variety of reasons including weather/envirormaental conditions, · Page 6-12 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strateg.~ Final Generic ElS market conditions, increased fuel costs, limitations on the use or' fertilizers and pesticides. personal/family reasons, ownership/investment reasons, and increase in land xalues t~t' conversion to non-agricultural purposes. As a result, the conditions which contribute to loss u! farmland are complex and may not be attributable to any one condition. 6.13 Clustering and Land Values Comment D-52: ".4nd if it did involve clustering ho**' did the clustering work, and how were the values presets,ed? Consider a 30 acre parcel, which presently n.ould yieM 12 or 13 building lots at one acre each, with the balance being preserved land. The buyer p(one q/these lots is paying/or 2- acres, but has the actual use of one acre. t~Ttile this condition has not so./ur q['lected the land values, consider now the impact of S-acre zoning with clustering in which the purchaser pro's five acres, but still has the practical use p[about one acre. At that point, the bio,er's pitying waterfront prices but not getting waterfront. And I can tell you that the impact p[ upzoning with clustering, which is the onh' way to do it, potential(v has a greater impact on values than the DGEIS report - hard to say that indicates. So I ask the authors qf the report: Have you researched the impact q/' upzoning to acres with clustering on the value pt the land: what happened when it was done?" Response: It is inaccurate to say that the buyer of one of these lots is paying for 2-acres, but has the actual use of one acre. The buyer ora clustered lot pays the value of that lot on the open market. Also, the open space resulting fi.om the cluster is enjoyed collectively by the community and its residents. A single family dwelling would be expected to have strong value on both moderate and large size lots. A one-acre lot is t~pical of a homesite which allows a home buyer to own and maintain a substantial plot of land for private use. Such homesites could include pools, landscaped settings and more than enough area to comprise an attractive residential set' Homesites larger than one-acre, are typically not completely used, or are purchased tbr other purposes which may include keeping of horse& farming or other private activity. It is important to note that the buyer of a residential lot in the area comprised of A-C zoning, also benefits front the reduced density, open space and agricultural use characteristics that dominate the district. This must be balanced with ensuring that residential areas are not in conflict with agricultural use areas, recognizing that A-C is intended to promote active agricultural use. As a result, owners of A-C district land should recognize that agricultural use is a dominant activity in the A-C zone, and certain measures including clustering are tools that the Town can use to maintain agricultural uses, situate controlled residential use in areas adjacent to public infrastructure (such as roadsl or to protect existing farm operations and maintain buffers from agricultural use areas. The DGEIS sought to generally document the potential impact of upzoning on land values in view of the strong real estate market, and unique characteristics and qualities of Southold Town. and did so using available information and factoring in local conditions. A minor, temporary Page 6-13 · Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS decrease in land value was predicted as a possibility. It should be noted that should a RID be adopted in connection with 5-acre upzoning, equity should remain the same as compensation based on existing 2-acre density. While clustered development within A-C can protect residences t¥om farms, the two uses rarely co-exist peacefully unless residents of housing near farms accept the inherent nature of farming. It must be recognized that the residents of the Town of Southold share a common vision to maintain the current rural, cultural and natural resources of the Town that make it unique and provide overall, socio-economic diversity and stability. A major aspect of the Town's existing unique setting are the farms and farmland. The methods for achieving protection are varied and include the list of land use options that are currently being considered. In any case, extensive residential development in the A-C zone is contrary to the Town's goals, as a result, farmland and open space protection and density reduction are both needed and can be achieved by the variety of techniques considered by the Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy. Regardless of the tool or set of tools chosen to achieve 80 percent preservation of farm and open land and 60 percent reduction in dwelling unit density, there are no negative environmental impacts anticipated. · Page 6-14 Southold Comprehensive Implemen~ration Strateg.~ Final Generic ElS 7.0 ECONOMICS-RELATED COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 7.1 Complete and Unbiased Socio-Eeonomic Analysis Needed, to include Agricultural Business, Equity. and ProperS' Values Comments B-14, B-15, B-16. B-30, B-41, B-52, C-8, C-19, C-32, C-33, C-'17. D-4. D-il, D-lO, D-Il, D-12, D-20, D-56, D-57, D-58, D-59, D-73, D-87, D-88, D-89, D-96, D-97. D-99. t5-5, 20, E-28, E-32, F-6, F-7, F-8, F-II, F-16, F-17, F-18, F-19, F-29. F-39, F-41. F-52, G-t8, G-23, G-28, G-29, G-46, G-48, G-89, G-124, G-125, G-144, G-148 and G-157: These comments note that an analysis of the potential effects o.! the proposed action, particular an upzoning to 5-acres, on agricultural and Town-wide socio-economics, equi(v and propertl values, be conducted. Response: A number of comments were offered during the public hearing process indicating that the DGEIS should include a full economic analysis in order to fully evaluate the impact of the 5-acre upzoning tool. In accordance with State Enviromnental Quality Review Act (SEQRAI's statutory mandate, and consistent with established case law, the scope of the DGEIS did not include or call for such a study. In New York. the courts have consistently rejected attempts to require Environmental lmpact Statement {EIS)'s to categorically provide in-depth analyses of the economic costs and benefits of actions. In short, it is not SEQRA's role to assure the profitability of a projeck a given return on a particular investment, or the associated influence a project may have on the profits, investments or values clamed by others. The purpose of the SEQRA review is to take a hard look at possible environmental impacts. That said, it should be understood that at a ,.'e~' basic level, almost every action has a point beyond which it would no longer be economically viable to continue. So it ~s important to understand the relationship between the cost and extent of project mitigation m' } eferred alternatives and the proposed prqiect. In the context of this SEQR review, however, the relative impact on certain property owners' equity in response to one particular aspect of the action le.g. only one of the 43 planning tools that make up the action) does not require detailed economic analysis. The purpose of SEQRA is to assess environmental impacts, not impacts on equity. Given the sensitivity of this issue, and the Town Board's concerns, the CIS DGEIS did evaluate the relative economic impact that clustered upzoning may have on land values generall3. The CIS team explored other areas where upzonings of predominantly agricuhural lands occurred m communities within 100 miles or so from a major metropolitan area, and where population pressures are intense. As it tums out, not many examples exist. The examples that were idenuiied include: Southampton. NY: Baltimore, Talbot and Montgome~3 Counties, MD: and, Napa Valley. CA. Additionally, the CIS team sought out the advice of a number of experts m the field, notabl.~ Dr. Thomas Daniels of SLINY Albany, who was invited to thc To~n tbr an intensive Iwo-da5 workshop. These eftbrts were supplemented by traditional literature research conducted through · Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS The cost of the Farmland Preservation Program does have a financial impact on the community. Current levels of funding have been found to be acceptable, as evidenced by past voter support for bonding referendum. Relying solely on this program as the only method to achieve the Town's 80 pement land preservation goal will have a corresponding fiscal impact. As described more fully in Response, Section 3.6, relying entirely on the voluntary farmland preservation program, it will cost approximately $225 million to secure the development rights on the remaining 8,872 acres. Such an expenditure will result in an increase in Town taxes of at least 100 percent. The community must decide if it is willing to absorb the fiscal impact resulting fi.om relying solely on the voluntary Land Preservation Program to achieve the Town's 80 percent goal, or if it wishes to reduce that burden through the use of additional tools. Finally, while land preservation efforts to date have been successful, the current pace of preservation is not taking place fast enough to enable us to meet the target given the current pace of development. 7.3 Taxpayer Contributions to Fund Preservation Efforts Comment C-20: "The difference between the ~'o plans when you cut to the heart of it is, one plan says it's time for taxpayers to be treated fairly, it's time for some taxpayer relief, and after 20 years it's time to update our zoning codes to reflect the risks and the events that have transpired in 20 years. The other plan says, no, taxpayers should pay for all q£that. My question is the one I can't get an answer on, maybe the moratorium work group can give me the answer on it, how in the world is the plan that has the same density reduction goals, the same land preservation goals, as the plan that calls for updating our zoning codes somehow more fair to those in need of affordable housing, ho}*, in the world is that plan more fair to average Southold residents, average taxpayers, to a diverse communiO', to stable properS., taxes? Because I can't get an answer on that, and it just doesn't make sense, and, quite frankly, it's polluting the public debate, however we decide to move on." Response: The DGEIS document is an evaluation of different tools and their potential environmental impacts. It is not proposing plans. The comments are not accurate. That said, as noted in Response, Section 7.2 of the FGEIS, total reliance on the Town's Land Preservation Program to achieve the 80 percent goal will inevitably result in measurable increases in real property taxes within the community. Given the current fiscal and budgetary circumstances of federal, state and county governments, it may not be realistic to expect that these agencies will expand their financial commitment and proportional share of land preservation dollars and commit them to meet Southold needs. Theretbrc, it must be concluded that the financial burden of increasing land preservation efforts fast enough to outpace development pressures may fall on residents' shoulders. Between the upzoning concept on one hah& and solely relying on tlae Town's Land Preservation Program on the other, it has become Page 7-3 Southold Comprehensive lmplementatioa Strateg3 Final Generic £[5 clear that the latter would result in an increased financial burden tba-oughout the conlmunlty, iF|lc upzoning concept has the potential to primarily affect the future real estate sales value of those who choose to sell their farms or open space lands irbr the purpose of real estate development at maximum densities. The upzoning concept also has the potential to reduce the value of development rights purchased through the PDR program. Development rights have been purchased fi'om the land in l-own zoned 5-acre. There are negotiations taking place on 5-acre zoned land. An upzoning does not negate a PDR program. It is important to note that residential real estate development of the Town's agricultural lands and open spaces is inconsistent with the Town's goals and articulated vision for the future: which is preservation of 80 percent of agricultural and farmlands and a 60 percent reduction m potential density. The cost of reaching the target goal is one issue. How it affects the current residents is another. Southold has never defined "affordable housing" other than that stated in the AHD district of its Zoning Code. Under those guidelines, a family of four earning $17,603 annually would be eligible. The average per capita income in Southold is $27,617. In Southold the average selling price of a house over the past two years was $400,00.. Conclusion: Southold is not aflbrdable nOW. 7.4 Town Tax Abatement Authority Comment C-50: "There is one yeO, incorrect aspect to this, and maybe this is near and dear to tn)' heart because it concerns taxes, and I don't want to look like a cheapskate, but there is no basis itl New }brk Stale LawJbr the Ton'n to offer tax abatements to people who do things with their propero' like presera,ation. 1 'ye discussed this with people, Melissa. I know a couple oJ times. The fact is that the Town, a~[v tm*n can't create its own tax exemption poliQv. Any exemptions that are available, are already available policies are already there as a matter of New York State Real ProperO' Fax' Law, and it 'x not for its, it's not in our jurisdiction to add to that or subtract from that in any way. But again, these are things that need to be talked about htrger more though(fid setting. [ believe." Response: Comment acknowledged. Currently there is no basis in New York State law tbr the Town to offer tax abatements other than those available under New York State Real Property Tax Law. It is not known whether future amendments to New York State Real Prope~x_',' Tax Law could be made to legally otter such abatement. Page 7-4 · Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS 7.5 Cost of Compensating the Farmers for Development Rights is Not Revealed Comment G-I 1: This comment indicates that the DGEIS does not include any provision (including the cost of such a program and the source of its funding)for landowners to be compensated for the loss in their yield as a result of the proposed action, particularly ~f S-acre upzoning were intplemented. Response: The DGEIS is not designed to evaluate how to reimburse property owners for losses in equity that may result from a zoning action. The Town Board could commission a separate analysis to attempt to predict the extent of any potential loss (or gain) in equity. Ultimately, however, it is not possible to predict the real estate market. Government has the power to make decisions that may affect equity in land. The courts have ruled consistently that as long as a property owner retains the ability to use his land there is no taking of property value. 7.6 Need a Comparison of the Cost of Installing Private Utilities versus Public Utilities Comment G- 14: "Need a comparison of the cost of installing private utilities versus public utilities: At a minimum, the transfer of development rights requires the availability of public water. And development at suburban densities requires that availability of both public water and public sewers. The decision to provide public utilities to a development must be made by the government in virtually all cases because the cost of installing such improvements must be spread over a large number of customers for the project to be practical. The Town Board is required to make the zoning decisions for the Town and having an estimate of the costs of residential development at an), particular density in an)' particular area is essential in maMng such zoning decisions. This DGEIS should provide a comparison of the typical costs of installing public water and of installing a private well and water system _fora residential lot based on the width of the house lots in a development or some other measure of the densiO'. ,4nd similarly this DGEIS should provide a comparison of the typical costs of installing a public sewer and of installing a private cesspool system for a residential lot. These costs ma), differ significantly in each area of the Town depending on the current availability of public water and public sewers in that area. Also, there ma)' be local areas where private wells or cesspools are d~fficull (f not impossible to install because of ground water pollution or impermeable soils. But it is these costs that are going to influence the selection bi' the Town Board of the land to be zoned~for higher-density development. And that selection is far more important to the majoriO: o.[ the citizens than the selection qf the land tq be preserved because the higher-densi~.' development is where they will live!" Response: So long as water supply and wastewater disposal meet Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) regulations there will be no negative enviromnental impact. In general the more dense the development, the lower the cost per unit. l'he overall planning concept behind transferring development from the agricultural and open space areas of the Town and into the Page 7-5 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strateg) Final Generic ElS hamlets is contingent upon an adequate utility infrastructure within the hamlets to absorb additional growth. Generally, the cost of connecting into existing water lines ~s significantly less that the cost of drilling new wells. However, expauding the water main network accommodate an expanding population would be a financial cost shared by a larger pool vf Water District customers. The logical efficiency and cost effectiveness of supplying water to a more concentrated population within the hamlets is evidenL compared to the cost of distributing water among a more dispersed population in the outlying areas. Public water is not available throughout the Town. Public sewers are not available in the hamlets except inside and around the Village ot Greenport. Therefore, individual cesspools, costing approximately $2,500 would be required tk,r new residential development. 7.7 Requests for Tax Information Comment G-44: "1. How man), resMentia[ property tax paying parcels are there? .4nd what are the xum o/they' payments ? 2. How many commercial property tar paying parcels are there? And what are the sum of their payments ? 3. How man), "Other" property tax paying parcels are there? And what are the sum q/ thetr pqvments ? 4. How many acres qf each q! the./bllowing, A-C, R-80, R-120, R-200 and R-400 which are presently being.,fhrmed or are open space still have their development rights? You probabh' see where I'm going with this. How much will it costS?" Response: Categories of Land Use Residential 12~799 Commercial 962 Industrial 7 Amusement 170 Vacant 3 ~069 Number of Parcels Several studies have shown that agricultural land required less services than residenttal land. For every dollar per acre paid by agricultural land, less than a third is required tu provide service-;. For every dollar per acre paid by residential land. one and a third times that amount ts required provide services. Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS 7.8 Economic and Social Assessment of Town Carrying Capacity Comment D-8: "~hat also strikes me as missing and absent in this discussion is a thorough economic and social assessment ~f the cart3,ing capaci~., of our communiO,, of the resources required now and in the.future to sustain an), growth and development and to maintain, what I consider to be our superior qualio' of life. The interplay then between population and development has really not been looked at deeply and thoroughly in this report." Response: The author of the comment failed to identify this extensive discussion in the DGEIS. The author of the comment refers to carrying capaciO,, a concept typically utilized in the evaluation and management of natural resources. In the case of community planning, carrying capacity is evaluated using a planning tool called "build-out." In the same way carrying capacity can tell us how many deer an acre of forest can support, a build-out analysis tells us how many people can live in a community given existing zoning and land use controls. Table 3.1 and Appendix F of the DGEIS present a comprehensive build-out analysis prepared specifically for the CIS. This build-out takes into account existing zoning and land use controls, as well as all measurable environmental constraints. A significant portion of the DGEIS was devoted to the interplay between population and development. Section 3.0 of the DGEIS contains a RIAM Analysis which identifies the tax implications of maintaining the full level of development. According to this analysis, a population increase resulting from full build conditions (estimated at 16,933 capita) would result in a school district deficit (-$13,486,988) due to the cost to educate the number of children generated (4,266) this population increase. The DGEIS also provides a RIAM Analysis should the 80 percentJ60 percent target be achieved in the A-C and R-80 zones. This analysis showed that a lower population increase (l 1,278 capita) would generate less school aged children (2,700) resulting in a lower school district deficit than under full build conditions (-$7,490,537). · Page 7-7 8.0 $outhold Comprehensive implementation Strategy Fiaal Generic ElS FARMLAND PRESERVATION-RELATED COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 8.1 Establishment of View Easements Comments B-5, D-46 and G-77: These comments refer to requirements imposed upon properO' owners and developers a~ a resu]! of requirements for presem,ation/enhancement qf views across their properticx. /or thc establishment of viewsheds. Response: The Town of Southold has expressed a clear policy with respect to scenic views. This policy ~s detailed in the Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (SSCMP), dated April 2000. In addition to documenting the importance of scenic views and vistas within the Town, the plan calls for establishing scenic overlay districts along Routes 25 and 48. These overlay zones are generally designed to preserve significant viewsheds along the Town's two main thoroughfares which were designated Scenic Byways by New York State in 2002. The purpose of the overlay zone would be to ensure that new development in integrated into the vista so as not to destroy it. There is no negative environmental impact anticipated as this measure would ensure that a significant component of Southold's attraction (as a resort community) is protected. In fact~ the SSCMP found that Southold's economic base rests squarely on its ecological uniqueness, diversity and beauty. 8.2 Town Code Amendment to Prohibit Residential Use in Agricultural Districts Comments B-19, C-40, C-41 and C-42: These comments suggest that the Town rezone farmland to a zoning cate£o~3' in which residential development would be prohibited, as a way qf preseta,ing.[armland. Response: Planning tool #1 described m the DGEIS addresses removing uses other than agriculture from the AC zoning district. Refer to the discussion of this planning tool in the DGEIS. pages 1-20-21. Table 3-3, page 3-25, Table 4-1 and 4-2. This tool would eliminate conflicts between farmers and residential property owners. It would ensure meeting the target of 80 percent/60 percent and it would reintbrce existing development in and around the hamlet. This tool also would free up land preservation monies for thc acquisition of non-agricultural land for the purposes of protecting ecologically sensitive open space, natural resources, drainage swales, historical sites, archeological sites, groundwater protection and scenic vistas, while allowing farmers to pursue the business of tgrming with a minimum of interference. This tool could also expaud the t3pes of agricultural enterprises that could be undertaken by fam~ers as well as allowing them to provide on-site housing tbr their labor force. Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS 8.3 Analysis of Success of Existing Farmland Preservation Measures Comments B-27, D-53, D-54, G-128 and G-241: These comments request that .future analyses of development include the effect of continued private and Town and Count), land presera,ation efforts. Response: Past land preservation trends may not continue in the future due to changing realities in the regional economy, such as the shrinking supply of land in general on Long Island and the increased availability of public water. The farmland preservation programs are voluntary, thus dependent on willingness of property owners to sell as well as a willingness and ability on the part of several layers of government to purchase development rights at fair market value. The amount of future funding may var), and is ultimately unpredictable. For these reasons, it is impossible to assess the future success of the Program. The sources of money are described in detail in Section 7.2 of the FGEIS. The question that can be answered is the success of past preservation efforts. These past preservation rates may or may not reflect future efforts, but they do provide a useful gauge of possible future preservation rates. Appendix F-3 of the DGEIS provides a very thorough and detailed accounting of land preservation efforts since 1997. 8.4 "Preservation" Defined Comments C-6 and G-16: "}Ve need to define some terms so we can understand each other... "PRESER VA TION". l~e need to define To me it means: "land on which the Town, or other qualified government or trust, owns the development rights or title." Response: The term PRESERVATION is not defined in the Town Code. The above comment suggests that ownership is necessary for land to be preserved. In fact, preservation can occur through covenants, restrictions and easements, on private property as well as through many other means not necessarily entailing public ownership. The build-out analysis provides a useful definition. "Protected Lands" are defined as All lands permanently protected including publicly owned land, park districts, publicly owned development rights (Ton'n and County), private open space (including site plans and subdivisions), conservation organization open space and covenants, restrictions and easements. · Page 8-2 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Straeegy Final Generic ElS 8.5 Success of Other RID Programs Comment C- 15: "Councilman [Vickham tells us that the rural incentive district is going to./ix eveo'thing, and I know my' questions tend to be rhetorical, but l ask this seriously and would like examples they. 'ye been found, and il' they're in the document, I apologize, il vim could point me to them. Did you find one communio' within 100 miles o, f a major cin' to achieve goals similar to ours that count on only personal development rights in a rural incentive district; in .[act, did y,ou find an., community that utilized the rural incentive district and PDRs to achieve a goal similar to ours? Because I would like to know where the), are, because we have not .[bund them. Maybe search in some Freudian way hasn't been as open as it ought to be." Response: Other than the Town of Southampton, the CIS team did not find any other communities within close proximity to a major ci~; with similar aggressive land preservation goals, which is relying on a PDR program with a RID mechanism. It must be noted that Southampton's Agricultural Planned Development District (the equivalent of a RID) program was prepared to address agricultural overlay district land within Southampton Town, approximately 2 percent of Southampton's total land mass. By contrast, Southold is attempting to preserve 7,167 acres of farmland and 1,705 acres of open space {this acreage represents actual unprotected farm acreage) over a town land area of 29,081.53 acres or 30.5 pement of the Town. If enacted, a RID is not anticipated to have a negative environmental impact. However, it may have a fiscal impact due to the amount of acreage proposed to be preserved (approximately l/3 of the Town's land mass. ) 8.6 Scenic B.~nvays and Farmland Operations Restrictions Comments C-46, C-48 and E-19: These comments address concerns about additional limitations itnposed on .latin building construction and layouts due to restrictions fi'om scenic, byways legislation, and whether cout,tO' inns/wineries should be subject to these restrictions. Response: The action described in the DGEIS addresses Scenic B~vay Overlay Development Controls, as planning tool #17. This tool includes guidelines for the siting of stmctures within scemc b.~xvay overlay zones. All structures, regardless of use, would be affected by these guidelines, including inns and wineries. No negative environmental impact is anticipated because this tool would protect a significant aspect of the Town's environment. Refer to FGEIS Section 4.4 for previous in-depth discussion on this. Page 8-3 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS 8.7 Need a Plan to Maintain Farmland in Agricultural Production Comment G- 12: "Need a plan to maintain farmland in agricultural production: Prohibiting residential development on farmland by itself is not sufficient to maintain farmland in agricultural production. Obvious[y the real estate tm' assessment on the vacant land ,ci][ decrease significantly once residential development is prohibited. Thus the cost of ownership will be much lower than it is now which will be especially beneficial to the farmers. But our communiO, is becoming more and more a playground for the rich who may find it attractive to purchase the farmland and to convert the land to recreational use and to provide open-space surrounding their big estates. For example, the construction of a new golf course on farmland is one possib[e use we have observed in Riverhead. Also the purchase of furmland by the environmental organizations to preserve the land as open-space is another possibilio,. If the preservation of .[i~rm[and in agricultural production is our goal, then the use of the land for other purposes must be actively discouraged if it cannot be prohibited. Hopefully, this goal can be achieved by. adopting additional zoning restrictions and by in'creasing the real estate tax assessment significantly for uses other than farming. This DGE[S should recommend the tools available to achieve this goal. Also some land previous(v farmed has been converted to other uses such as open-space for cluster subdivisions or for land preservation and its current use may be restricted by recorded covenants that are incompatible with the goal of maintaining farmland in agricultural production. The DGEIS should examine the possibility of restoring this former farmland to agricultural production. Can the zoning ordinance be used to require the landowner to restore the_farmland to agricultural production? ~rhat other tools are available to achieve this goa[?" Response: Preventing the conversion of farmland to developed land preserves the ability or opportunity to farm but does not and cannot guarantee the viability of the farming indusUT. Maintaining farmland in aga-icultural production is a separate issue. Numerous complex and interrelated factors, including land use and zoning controls, agricultural market economics, tax policies, transportation considerations, and availability of farm labor, among others, affect the business of farming. The Town of Southold has the ability to directly influence only a few of these factors. The area where the Town does have significant influence is in the area of land use. Two important tools evaluated in the DGEIS dealt specifically with these factors. The first evaluated the elimination of non-agricultural uses from the AC zone (principally residential uses). The second evaluated the reduction of residential densities primarily in the AC and R-go zoning districts through either the purchase of development rights or upzoning or a combination thereof. These tools can preserve the Town's agricultural land resource thereby ensuring the opportunity to farm. Other tools discussed in the DGEIS can help the business of farming stay viable. These include the following. Tax assessment strategies currently being utilized to the extent allowable under law to assist agricultural businesses within the community through tax abatements. However, the Town does not have the authority to punitively assess non-preferred uses (such as residences} in agricultural areas. Page 8-4 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strateg,,, Final Generic The concept of converting cluster subdivision open space to agricultural use represent.', an innovative concept. Further research is being conducted to determine if land used to calculate thc density of a clustered subdivision, and then permanently set aside as open space, can then be re- used as agricultural land. It is important to bear in mind that the Towns 80 percent land preservation goal applies to agricultural land as well as open space. Even if cluster subdivisiun open space cannot be re-used for agricultural purposes, the permanent dedication of the land as open space would also serve to contribute to the overall Town goal. The Southold Planning Board has and continues to create "large lot" clustered subdivisions where the best farmland is set aside with a buildable envelope included in one large lot and the remainder of the residential lots are grouped together in such a way as to enable the t'armland to be profitably farmed. The Planning Board employs this same approach with preservation or conservation subdivision where development rights are purchased. The Planning Board could attach covenants and restrictions on clustered land within a subdivision similar to those placed on land from which development rights are sold. 8.8 Long Island Farm Bureau Comments Comments D-61 to D-69, and G-30 to G-38: · "Explain the use of the following subjective statements made in reJbrence to the economic impact of an up-zone .... not anticipated to be sign(l~cant. ' 'no significant socto-economic impacts are expected as a result qf this action... '. in addition, identify the supporting documents that were used to come to this conclusion. Response: The statements regarding the relative significance of the economic impact of the 5-acre upzoning were based upon research conducted by the CIS team~ the Blue Ribbon Commission, and case studies described more fully in FGEIS Sections 6.11, 7.1 and Sectioo 3.2.1 of the DGEIS. Explain the gross discrepancy between the DGEIS document and the 2003 .~lrticle ^' Environmental Qualio., Review on issue q['need to access economic impact ot~ the lbrming industr). ,. Response: The CIS DGEIS addresses the economic impact of the Action in complete consistency with thc requirements of SEQRA. No "gross discrepancy" exists, a, asserted by lhe author vt' thc comment. The summary qf the LEGG MASON doctonent indicates that an exhaustive revirm ol thc economic impact of up-zoning~farmland was not conducted by thc moratorium p[ant~in~ lCtlm Please. review and r~ort on thc sign(/~cance q['thix docttnte~tt t~) the DGEIS. · Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Response: An exhaustive review of the economic impact of upzoning on farmland was not conducted as part of the SEQRA review process nor was it intended to be the focus of the DGEIS. As previously described in Response, Section 7.1 such a review is beyond the mandate of SEQRA. However, recognizing the importance of this issue, the CIS team conducted an unusually thorough and in-depth evaluation and analysis. The LEGG MASON was one of the numerous documents referred to during the compilation of the DGEIS. · [f~hat is the definition of 'critical environmental areas '? Response: A critical environmental area is defined in Section 617.20) of 6NYCRR Part 617, State Environmental Quality Review Act as: Critical environmental area (CEA) means a specific geographic area designated by a state or local agency, having exceptional or unique environmental characteristics." · How is 'Scenic Byways' defined? Response: In accordance with the NYS Scenic Byways Program, in 2000, the Town of Southold and New York State designated Rnutes 25 and 48 as Scenic Byways, in accordance with the criteria cited in the state nomination handbook. Specifically: Route 25 embodies the Town's basic pattern of hamlets defined by open space, giving access to recreational facilities, rural and urban views, natural features from woodland to meadow to marshland to seascape, cultural landmarks, working farms, mad waterfronts, and historic structures and coatplexes. Route 48 is characteristic of the Town's basic agxicultural character - wide expanses of farm fields defined by distant tree breaks, punctuated by intermittent views of Long Island Sound or undeveloped woodlands. The Byway designation defines the scenic, visual aspects of the travel corridor and enables the Town to protect that corridor from visual degradation. The intent of the designation is to protect a scenic feature that defines how people experience Southold Town. The State's progrmn has a strong economic component in that it seeks to protect the scenic corridor for the economic benefits that accrue from it, not just the environmental benefits. · Page 8-6 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS IFhat is the dqfinition oJ' 'pt'ejects that remove sign!ficant acreage' tquant(~' 'sienificant acreage '), and what actions would dqfine 'agriculture usc '? Response: No set threshold defines "significant acreage." Such a judgment is made by the Planning Board on a case by case basis. Typically the Planning Board tries to maintain the bulk of a subdivision site containing farmland in a configuration that would support farming activities. Wherever possible the Planning Board tries to ensure that |0 acre remains contiguous~ 10 acres is the minimum acreage for entD, in the Agriculture District program. n How ntat~v 'spec(fled number of lots' is needed to exceed conventional subdivisions? Response: Subdivisions must be clustered if the acreage involved exceeds 10 acres. · What is the 'minimum thresholdpercentage' ora sign({icant natural feature.' Response: No set threshold defines "minimum threshold percentage." Such a judgment is made by the Planning Board on a case by case basis subsequent to a hard look during the SEQRA review process. · Define: 'minimum threshold number of vehicle trips' Do 'vehicle trips' include soccer moms and little league games?" Response: The term "vehicle trips" refers to '~trip generation." Trip generation is the number oi vehicles (usually meaning autos and trucks) generated by a unit of land use. A trip is a one-way movement from origin to destination. Each trip has two trip ends. Trip generation ~s always given for a specific period of time, which is generally a single hour (normally a peak hour) or a full day. The primary source for trip generation information if the Institute of Transportation Engineers Manual ~[ Trip Generation. Data from this manual comes from a large number of empirical studies. Soccer moms and little league games are included in the trip generation of an athletic field. Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS 8.9 Farming on Clustered-Lot Sites Comments D-14, D-47 and D-95: These comments reflect concerns that farming operations on clustered-lot sites would be too small to function profitably, wouM impact residential neighbors, and would be too small to provide sustainable amounts offood for the vicinity. Response: The Planning Board tries to ensure that farmland is contained in a clustered large lot so as to ensure potential profitability. These comments illustrate the inherent conflicts that result when residential uses are permitted as of right on farmland. The two uses are not compatible in general except where the farm family lives on the farm and where farm labor is housed nearby. That said, there are many creative ways that a subdivision can be designed to ensure retention of a critical mass of farmland, while providing for viable residential development. As the intent of the clustering technique is to protect sensitive and/or valuable resources and to provide for efficient and economical site design, the developed portions of clustered-lot sites are preferably located near roadways and simultaneously away from prime soils, wetlands, etc. When individual cluster applications are reviewed by the Town, the arrangement of retained farmland can be planned so as to provide contiguous farmlands with adjacent sites, thereby also minimizing conflicts between uses. The fewer the residential units the greater the flexibility in site design and situating of residential development in a compatible manner with f~-'rning. At present, there are many examples of partial PDR, coupled with clustering and retention of farmland. 8.10 Tree Preservation Comments D-79, D-10(), E-18 and G-132 to G-137: These comments provide specific concerns and questions in regard to the proposed Tree Preservation Law. Response: The consideration of a Tree Preservation Law would be expected to specifically apply to undeveloped lots in excess of l-acre in size, and would exempt farmland. As a result, inspections of small, developed farm properties would not occur. · Page 8-8 9.0 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic BUILD-OUT ANALYSIS-RELATED COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 9.1 Comments on Build-Out Calculations Comments B-28, C-43, E-22. E-23, E-24, E-25, E-26, F-3, F-31. F-32, F-33, F-34, F-48. F-49. G-86 and G-143: These comments r~fer to a number oJ concerns, questions and errors in the Build-out computation tables. Response: The Build-out Analysis is presented in detail in Section 3.3.1. The Build-out was prepared using the Town's Geographic Information System and Town GIS coordinator Jotm Sepenoski was involved throughout the preparation of the Build-out. The table presented in Appendix F-1 is important to review and understand as the notes provide information on derivation of the Build- out combined with the description in Section 3.3.1. The Build-Out analysis provides a point of reference against which to measure different land management tools. It is particularly useful for the purposes of tracking rates of preservation and development. It is recognized that the Build-out projections are theoretical, and that Southold's goal or vision is to avoid reaching those projections. The challenge for Town decision-makers is to establish land use policy and regulations that ensure that build-out is not achieved. The concept of using a build-out analysis is consistent with nearly all comprehensive planning efforts. Recent planning work, including the SEEDS project and the Suffolk County Wate~ Authorities GEIS (on water supply options) all rely on build-out analysis methods. The Southold CIS Build-Out Analysis is one of the more accurate ones produced, and in fact projects t~wer potential units than other build-out analyses currently in use tbr Southold. The Build-out exercise is important as a method to measure the extent of development potential in order to understand the preservation task that remains to meet the goals of the Town. As z~ result, only land which has some level of legal or ensured protection is removed from the land potentially available for development. This is the only true and accurate method to detemfinc development potential. While there are limitations and assumptions with any computer generated document: all eJtt~rts xvere made to establish the most accurate build-out analysis possible. Specific comments on concerns, questions and errors will be addressed in other parts of this section 9.2 "Margin for Error" in Calculations for Build-Out Analysis Comment B-29: "...there's no estimate in )'our report as to what the margin.lot error cotdd be. and .~'c, it co~dd vesF conceivab(v be less in terms oJ what might actually happen Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS I don't know whether in coming up with ),our assumptions you gave any reduction for the.fact that not only does the Planning Board have area criteria in subdivisions, but that there are significant Health Department constraints that may further reduce ),our density, i didn't see an analysis for that, and I'm not sure that, although I did see you took out wetlands in terms of coming up with acreage figures, I don't know if you went beyond that and assumed, which I think is a good assumption, that even on an upland parcel there are areas that are too close so that you would be further reducing the abili~_ , to subdivide a properS. So I do think there are probably a number of lowering assumptions in that number that need to be explored, and also, I think it's important that the public understand that it does not appear that that figure presumed an), additional preservation efforts on a voluntao' basis. And so this is the absolute worst case scenario in a perfect developer's world, where nothing bad goes wrong for a subdivision, and that's not the real worm when you're subdividing propers.,..." Response: The Build-Out Analysis took into account every circumstance under which the Planmng Board, during its SEQRA and planning review of a subdivision application is able to remove land from yield density. That is why the potential Build-out numbers are lower than any analysis that is current for the Town of Southold. To reiterate the strictness with which this analysis was undertaken, we conducted a new wetlands slope and beach survey. In addition, Health Department density limitations were taken into account. Districts which allow several types of uses (such as the HD, HB and M-II districts) were computed using "low" and "high" yields as a result of the availability of or lack of water supply and/or public sewage treatment. The results on the Build-out numbers are clearly noted. The commercial/industrial coverages are average based on review of actual approved site plans and are not based on the maximum zoning coverage which could be achieved under current zoning. As a result, the commercial/industrial coverages already takes into account SCDHS density limitations. The Build-out assumes that lots will comply with zoning in terms of area. However, furore decisions by the Zoning Board of Appeals for land splits that are less than the required minimum lot size are not accounted for. It has been reported that a number of illegal accessory apartments exist within the Town, however the Build-out did not account for these dwellings. As a result, while there are some factors that could result in less units than predicted, there are others that could result in increased density. Given the regional nature of the analysis, it is believed that the Build-out analysis prepared for the Southold CIS is of sufficient accuracy for the intended purpose, and is more accurate than prior build-out analyses and methodologies tbr Southold Town. · Page 9-2 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic 9.3 MajoriW of Land at Risk is in Lots 2 Acres or Less in Size Comment B-36: "Some o. f the comments that I'd like to make that l think this report serves as a good baseline]or is that Table 3-l, which is the full Build-out analysis, and whether people at'e going to quibble about how that was put together or not. I don't think this is the night to do something like that, [ think we should talk in global terms. As you look in all the particular areas that have been defined, such as the .4C area, R-40, R-80, all through that table, you 'Il.find out ~! you sum zip the properO, that's less than 2-acres, less than 2-acres in this Town, starting with R-40 and R-80 and wor[a'ng your way through, you 7l come up with a number that's about 4839. which is what ! came up with just through a calculator. The total that I came up with, the total 1 didn't agree with, and I'm not going to worst about quibbling about getting the same total ax l,ou did: mm,be I was doing this at a time R/night when I shouldn't be doing it - but it was 7610. So the lot size. less than 2-acres cotnes out to 67.6 percent. So if you're looking at land that's at risk in this Town, it's not the.farm land. It's land that's less than 2- acres in this Town. That's what the report says. And then (f you take land less than I-acre, it's 48.3 percent." Response: Land that is less in area than the minimum lot size of each zoning district is included in the Build-out, and is combined with land that is less than 2-times the minimum lot size, since the minimum lot area would preclude conforming subdivision of the land. These figures appear as "Vacant Non-Subdividable" parcels; one unit per parcel is added to the development potential number in order to account for substandard and non-subdividable vacant lots. The significance of vacant non-subdividable lots can be determined for each zoning district or the Towo as a whole from the data included in the Build-out analysis. Figures I and 2 show existing vacant. non-conforming parcels and vacant, non-conforming parcels that would be created by a 5-acre upzoning. Also refer to Section 10.21 of the FGEIS tbr additional intbrmation on non- conforming and non-subdividable lots. Since these lots already exist (are not in need of subdivision approvals) they have the potential to be built upon, assuming all other applicable permits can be obtained leg. health department (water supply and septic), Tmstees and New York State Department ot' Environmental Conservation (wetlands) and Zoning Board (variances). 9.4 Correlate Water Use and Build-Out Analysis Comment B-39: "l['e have a ater problem in this [own whether you people know il or not .q,v a~t{~lht ~' ~ ritic lstn of this repo is l think that somebody ought to make a matrix tablc, v,m have all thc dcaa here, where you have all the water in I'ab[e 2-1 pf the amount c?f water that ~ c have available and tin and cross rR[erence that with the [ol sizes so you know where thc water ts ,~tth respct t to where the lot sizes are. .4nd.you 7l be able to see a ve~3' nice *twt, where thc [wtq,/e, *~hen ;he~' conic · Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS here, if they're going to develop houses and so forth and so on, this is exactly how it's going to occur. People will do this; they will follow the water. So you shouM have a cross reference table bet~veen where the water is and where the lot sizes are as you broke down in ),our Table 3- Response: Water supply for commercial and residential development may come from a private well (if quality is demonstrated to be in conformance with drinking water standards), public water supply or community water supply. Section 2.2 of the DGEIS describes in detail the water resource conditions of the Town of Southold including water supply. Pertinent to the above comment and referenced in Section 2.2 of the DGEIS, Figure B-16 illustrates the areas of the Town of Southold where water supply wells have been impacted by pesticides, and Figure B-17 illustrates the Suffolk County Water Authority existing water mains and proposed water main extension areas. Historical settlement patterns have been such that coastal areas were developed earlier and at higher densities than interior areas of the Town of Southold. As a result, public water supply needs have been greater in these areas where a larger number of smaller lots are present. This is evident in other maps included in the DGEIS which illustrate zoning patterns (Figure B- 5), land use patterns (Figure B-22), and also include tax parcel configuration. As a result, the information requested in this comment is available in the DGEIS. 9.5 Build-Out Scenario under S-Acre Zoning Comments B-48, C-27, D-85 and D-86: These comments request that a Build-out analysis be prepared and analyzed assuming 5~acre upzoning. Response: Section 3.2.2,. Regional Impact Assessment for Proposed Action, provides an analysis of the effect of a density reduction of 60 percent in the A-C and R~80 zoning district, on the Build-out numbers and quantifiable parameters, in order to compare between these two scenarios. The 60 percent density reduction is not a direct reflection of upzoning from 2-acre to 5-acre due to the presence of existing non-subdividable parcels of less then 5 acres in area. In order to achieve a full density reduction of 60 percent on all vacant land including non-subdividable parcels, additional measures would be needed to preserve or reduce development potential on vacant single lots with a size of less than twice the minimum lot size in the zoning district. This could involve acquisition, examination of merger laws, or other restrictions or voluntary measures. Appendix H of this FGEIS includes a RIAM model run, and a Build-Out Analysis Table (5-acre Upzoning of A-C/R-80 Land) which more closely approximates 5-acre upzoning in the A-C and R-80 districts, as compared with an outright 60 percent density reduction which would require additional measures to reduce density on non-subdividable lots. On a Town-wide basis, 80 · Page 0-4 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strateg) Final Generic ElS percent preservation and 60 percent density reduction would result in 2.534 units and 8,872 acres of open space and farmland. 9.6 Build-Out and Costs to Taxpayers Comments B-51, D-2, D-3 and G-41: These comments indicate that upzoning to 5-acres would result in a .greater amount o/ development than would occur i.f the rezoning were not implemented, with associated adverse impacts on taxes and costs of living and community services. Response: The data and analysis included in the DGEIS and Appendix H of this FGEIS do not support thc conclusions included in the comments above. Review of the Full Build-out analys~s (Section 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 of the DGEIS) as compared with 60 percent density reduction and 5-acre upzoning of the A-C and R-80 lands, finds that development would be greater under the Full Build-Out. Reduced density, however it is achieved, will result in a decrease in total tax revenue and in school taxes. The impact on school district tax revenue (approximately 64 percent of total taxes) is greater due to a lower number of school aged children. This will result in a lower school district deficit, and less need to offset the demand for school services with additional tax ratables and/or tax increases. As a result, the cost of living (in terms of taxes} would be reduced as development density decreases. Lower densities also will reduce the demand for community services. As a result, it is expected that a lesser amount of development would occur should the 80/60 target be met. whether through upzoning to 5-acres in the A-C and R-80 zones or through voluntary preservation. 9.7 Additional Modeling of Alternatives Comment B-55: "And **,hat I'd like to see you do is extrapolate and take some data, and do some modeling Jor the alternatives. The conservation subdivision process, we want to see that happen; that 'x very beneficial." Response: The DGEIS, Section 1.3.2 Implementation Tool #10, the Conservation Opportunities Process, is essentially the Conservation Subdivision concept considered by the Blue Ribbon Commission. The proposed action as described in the DGEIS essentially considers the use of a conservation subdivision concept involving preservation of 75-80 percent of the x acant land in the A-C and R- 80 zones, and this is lnodeled and included in Section 3.2. Section 9.6 above includes a similar analysis for subdividable land in the A-C and R-80 zones. Both analyses include a density reduction component, since preservation of 80 percent of the vacant land would require that fewer residential units be constructed. It is acknowledged that the conservation subdivision process has benefits in terms of achieving Town goals. PaRe 0-5 · Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS 9.8 15 percent Slope Area Calculations Comment C-52: "My question on the 15 percent slope is, how do you calculate that acreage on a 15 percent slope? The acreage seems to be very, very low. I've got a 30 acre farm and depending on how it's calculated I probably have to three to four acres on n~v 30 acres. So I think your 15 percent slope there is a little low." Response: For actual yield purposes, slope is determined on a site-by-site basis based on topographic contours included on a subdivision plan pursuant to Town Planning Board application requirements. As a result, areas with slopes in excess of 15 pement are accurately determined for yield purposes in connection with site specific applications. For the purpose of the DGEIS, a regional slope analysis was performed using data available fi.om USGS digital elevation models, with computations performed in a GIS platform. The DGEIS included a slope map, and an area computation derived in GIS from the digital mapping. This is the most accurate information available for the purpose of regional slope analysis. Actual slopes in excess of 15 percent may be more or less than the regional slope area, depending on the site specific conditions noted above. 9.9 Depth to Groundwater and Construction Comment C-53: "The next question [ have is no construction in areas with depth of ground water to less than ten _feet. That's also stated in the summary, Page S8, it's the fifth qf sixth bullet are high groundwater areas of less than ten feet. [ do not see in the analysis of th¢ theoretical build-out potential. I see wetlands, but I don't see anything to deduct properties of groundwater less than ten feet. My question also is: [s who might own these lands? Thank you" Response: Land with a depth of groundwater of less than 10 feet was not included in the land deducted from the Build-out, since there is no legal mechanism for subtracting this fi.om yield or prohibiting use of these lands. In subdivision review, the Planning Board has noted that sanitary, system siting is more difficult in areas with less than 10 feet to groundwater, and as a result, subdivision design must consider this constraint. If lot sizes are sufficient, placement of fill can be used to elevate sanitary system areas to allow for installation of a standard 3-pool leaching system. It is generally not advisable to subdivide land such that 5-pool leaching pool systems are needed to be installed due to shallow groundwater. Further it is noted that such systems require approval of the Suffolk County Board of Review. These issues would generally be addressed during site · Page 9-6 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strateg.~ Final Generic ElS specific subdivision design and review, and can be mitigated through clustering to higher re'cas, or by bringing in fill as noted. For the purpose of regional analysis, eftbrts were made to digitally map areas with groundwater of less than l0 tibet. The DGEIS, Section 1.3.2, Implementation Tool #15. includes a Critical Environmental Lands local law that would identitS.' land with groundwater of less than ltl feet and provide development controls to address these constraints. In terms of ownership, lands with a depth to groundwater of less than 10 feet are owned according to deeds and ownership similar to any privately owned upland areas. Such lands can be privately owned and subject to development consistent with the current land use regulations of the Town of Southold. 9.10 Build-Out Calculations Comment G- 15: This comment presents a detailed methodology whereby the commentator calculated the density, reduction achieved by applying 5-acre zoning to the AC and R-80 districts. This computation was used by the commentator in support of his comments G-8 through G-I 4 Response: The comment is noted, and the commenter is directed to Section 9.5 above, which describes the Build-out analysis methodology for densit3f reduction analysis in the A-C and R-80 zoning district, in consideration of all vacant land and vacant subdividable land. As noted in Section 9.5, 5-acre upzoning is more closely represented by the analysis included m Appendix H of this FGEIS~ 9.11 Build-Out Analysis and Tracking Study Comment D-80: "I have a fen' questions for the moratorium committee. It appears that you are doing a dissen,ice when you do a build-out analysis versus a tracking ana6'six: ~thv.~ lherc 'v detai& o/ the tracking details l would like the details q/'it, not a summary. ,fidl detai[x " Response: The tracking analysis is presented in Section 3.1.3 of the DGEIS. These are all of the details that are available, based on review of the Planning Board files with regard to project histou. The DGE[S includes both a Build-Out Analysis, and an analysis of Land Preservation Et'lbrts and Future Development Trends, in order to present thir and accurate in~brma~ton. Both analyses are described in full, qualified as to applicability where appropriate, and avmlable to readers of the DGEIS. One analysis is not presented "versus" another; all intbrmat~on relevant to the proposed project and potential impacts is presented in objective, complete form to provide decision- · Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS makers with the necessary information to weigh social and economic aspects as wet4 as environmental considerations. 9.12 Build-Out Analysis and Continued Preservation Efforts Comments F-38 and G-45: "While it may be true that revenues in future years are not predictable to the penny, it is a fact that the Town will receive over $3.5 million in CPF funds in 2003 and can project as much or more in the "out "years. That being the case, why does the Build-Out Analysis not allow for an)' future preservation by the Town or Count3,, especially in the AC and R-80 zones?" Response: The Build-out analysis is described in Section 3.1.1 of the DGEIS. The analysis indicates that only lands that are not permanently protected or established in quasi-permanent community facilities (as of August, 2002) are used as a basis for future build out projections. This provides a baseline to determine the potential future development conditions of the Town, barring continued preservation efforts. Presentation in this form also establishes the balance of land to be preserved so conformance to Town preservation goals can be measured, and against which continuing voluntary preservation efforts can be monitored. Land preservation, specifically Purchase of Development Rights, is an existing Town program that will continue, and, in fact, is a mainstay of an overall preservation policy whereby compensation to landowners is provided for. PDR is also critical to the RID which, if adopted, would provide a means fbr compensation of landowners based on a 2-acre yield should the Town enact 5-acre upzoning. The Land Preservation Efforts and Future Development Trends (Section 3.l.3 of the DGEIS) clearly indicates that preservation efforts will continue, recognizing that the 2 percent CPF funding is a key source, but also recognizing that development pressure and preservation efforts in the Town may be subject to other influences. As a result, the Build-out analysis would not be the appropriate place to consider future preservation efforts for the purpose of documenting permanently preserved land. The comment states that "the Town will receive over $3.5 million in CPF funds in 2003 and can project as much or more in the "out "years". Funding for 2003 is acknowledged, and it is hoped that the same or greater level will be received in future years; however, beyond 2003, the actual amount of preservation funds is based on real estate sales and the amount is speculative. Section 7.2 provides a more detailed analysis of "Funding for and Costs of Farmland Presentation Program". Page 9-8 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strateg~ Final Generic EIS 10.0 MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 10.1 Comments in Support of DGEIS Contents and Proposed Action Comments C-57, D-19, D-22, D-75, E-l, F-21, F-22, F-23, F-24, F-26, F-27. F-37, F-44. G-3. G- 6, G-21, G-22, G-24, G-25, G-26, G-43, G-45, G-53. G-55. G-56, G-57, G-61. G-63, G-64. G- 66, G-67, G-84 and G-203: These comments indicate satisfaction with the scope and contents cf the DGEIS. and support.h>~' the goals of the proposed action, including upzoning to 5-acres. Response: Comments acknowledged. 10.2 Site Plan Review Comments B-11 and G-80: "There is discussion as to what farmers arc' going to be able to do oncc the), subdivide their properO' 80-20 percent. Part of that choice is you're going to have to tell. the Ton,n's going to be involved where the greenhouses go and the fences go and where things go that might interJere with the view. It's interesting that the view.from the public that's coming in fronl thc citt' and from Riverhead, from the west or the view.from the local people, which is a d(fferent issne, but who's going to decide; who's going to make these decisions? I don't think that ~' been thought through." Response: The question of who will decide where major structures go will be made, as it always has beeu, by the Planning Board, pursuant to their authority under Section 274 of Town Law, to approve site plans. The Planning Board works with agricultural property owners on the location ot greenhouses and other structures. Importantly, the Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan has recommended the following specific actions: · Reviewing all zoning controls in all districts fronting on the scenic by-ways. If necessa~'. adjustments should be made to assure consistency in allowable setbacks, height, bulk and density provisions. Consistency can also be achieved via the adoption of an overlay ot modified zoning provisions, e.g., a by-ways corridor management district. · Development standards and guidelines that address building siting and architecture. viewsheds, open space, tree preservation and other landscaping. · Develop standards that reduce the number of required curb cuts and encourage thc use of shared driveways, where appropriate. · Require off-street parking areas to be located behind buildings. · Explore the role of the Architectural Review Board. · Designate all Actions within a scenic by-way as a Type I action under SEQR · Implemem a roadway beautification or "adopt-a-road" prograxn, whereb3 civic-minded citizens and businesses can help protect the scenic corridor. Page 10-1 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS · Coordinate agency reviews to assure compliance with scenic by-way goals. A thorough review of the Southold Scenic Corridor Management Plan will reveal that, contrary to the assertion by the author of the comment, the Town has in fact "thought through" the issue of siting aghcultural structures within the scenic by-ways. 10.3 Traffic Comments B-12, E-49, F-30 and G-82: These comments note that traffic in the region is extreme, leading to significant congestion and delays for residential and commercial drivers, and request that additional analysis of this be included in the DGEIS. Response: Census data for Long Island shows population increased over the period from 1970-1998. However, in that same period of time, the number of registered vehicles grew by nearly 60 percent and the vehicle miles traveled on Long Island more than doubled. The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)'s LITP 2000 study projected increased traffic congestion for the future. As was discussed in Section 2.4 of the DGEIS, and Section 3.1.2, new development can be expected to add to existing traffic conditions within Southold. The exact increase cannot be predicted on a population basis due to the trend (noted in the first paragraph of this response) whereby automobile ownership and usage is increasing at a faster rate than the population Implementing any of the 43 individual planning tools, or any combination of these tools described in the "Action" will result in a reduction in vehicle trip generation and subsequent traffic volumes on the Town's roadway network. Consequently, it can be concluded, that the "Action" will not result in adverse traffic conditions and therefore, additional traffic analysis would be unwarranted. Individual project review will occur in connection with specific uses, and appropriate mitigation can be incorporated into these projects. In keeping with industry standards, site specific Traffic Impact Studies include analysis of other projects within an area aw well as a general growth factor. As a result, cumulative mitigation of traffic impacts would be considered at that time. 10.4 Formation of New Villages in Town Comments B-13 and G-83: "Right nor*', I'm invoh,ed, as the papers will tell you and others are involved in the formations of villages in the Town of Southampton. And those villages are being formed because public propero, owners don't trust the Town Board. They.feel they have been lied to, cheated, taken advantage of, and they vote with their veto. They don't leave the communir),, they leave the To*vn. The)'~form their own village. It's not hard. You need five square miles and 500 houses. · Page 10-2 Southoid Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS That alternative must now, I submit, be a part of your examination, ),our review. I'tn not making that up. This happened once already in the Town of Southampton. It is happening whilt, stand here. and l'm involved in a third one there. It is not a big deal. We can either .get annexed or secede: you get your own zoning: you rent your own firemen - not firemen, the pohce and ever)_,thing else. It's not a big deal. That should be addressed because you're supposed to tak¢~ into account in ),our DGEIS the natural consequences or even the unnatural consequences **'hat .you're doing, and what you ?e doing is )'ou 're revving people up to do things that you not want them to do." Response: The author of the comment contends that the DGEIS should take into account "the natural consequences of the action or even the unnatural consequences ot' what you are doing" and as such the creation of new villages should be evaluated. As described in the DGEIS, Section 8.0 altematives need be reasonable and related to the objectives of the project sponsor. No mention of the creation of new villages was ever raised during the course of the entire preparation of the DGEIS, including the public scoping session held on January 29, 2003. Furthermore, no mention of such a concept was found in the review of the planning studies of the past 20 years. Due to the fact that this comment is the only reference to this concept, a response is not warranted. 10.5 Analysis of Interaction Among All 43 Tools Comments B-26, D-55 and D-81: These comments suggest that an ana(vsis of the interaction ~/' the 43 recommended tools be conducted, as well as an analysis qf the potential ef/bcts fi'om implementation qf tools that contradict or otherwise adversel_v interact with each other. Response: The DGEIS presented 43 distinct planning tools, and evaluated each with regard to adverse impacts and mitigation measures. While the presentation in the document breaks apart the action into its 43 separate tools, the overall evaluation conducted in the DGEIS was based upon the cumulative interaction between the tools to the extent possible. Ultimately, the implementation of the action will involve combinations of tools, portions of tools or the modification of tools. The various possible combinations number in the thousands. It is impossible to predetermine how the Lead Agency will elect to implement the action. 10.6 Availability of Public Water and Development Pattern Comments B-37 and F-14: These comments note that availability o. f public water ~/br residential and agricultural use is a determining factor in the distributions of these uses, and that the quality q/groundwaters underlying these uses is impacted t~v these uses. Page 10-3 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Response: The Town of Southold depends exclusively on groundwater for its water supply. This sole source aquifer is part of Groundwater Managemem Zone IV. Section 2.2 of the DGEIS provides an in-depth discussion of this resource. The majority of the Town relies on private wells for their potable water supply. An estimated 35 percent of the Town relies on community wells or the SCWA. It is recognized that the availability of a public water supply, via an interconnection into the SCWA water main network, influences the pace and location of new development. At present, the SCWA owns approximatel3) 232 acres within Southold; on which are located 14 well fields and pumping stations. Three additional fields are under construction. 21 active wells, 3 inactive wells and 7 wells under construction are located within the Town. Additionally, the SCWA owns approximately 79 miles of water mains, with approximately 26 miles planned or under construction. This infrastmcture serves some 5,000 customers in Southold and Greenport. The SCWA completed a 5-year water supply plan for the Town of Southold. As documented in the SCWA's water supply plan, sound water supply planning involves land use and land use practices that affect stormwater runoff, such as agricultural irrigation. These are issues the Town can, and must address. Clearly, if ground water resources are to be prudently protected, a cooperative approach including the Town, the SCWA and the SCDHS is warranted. This approach will assure that an adequate supply of water is directed to the key areas where future growth is envisioned (in and around the existing hamlets), while simultaneously protecting the water resource for future generations. The water main map adopted by the Town in June of 2000 was based on the premise that existing development should be given priority over future development. This map specifies that public water is to be provided to areas of existing development. 10.7 Use of Reverse Osmosis Systems on Impacted Public Wells Comment B-40: "Now, why am I telling you this? Because the thing is that if we're going to build out to some degree, whether it's the 80 percent, 60 percent slash number that we talked about at the Blue Ribbon Commission, the thing is I think you ought to get Steve Jones and the Suffolk County Water Authority who the report refers to is also doing some kind of parallel report I think right now, get him involved so that you can have some idea as to what the cost of putting in an osmosis system is, reverse osmosis system.for a well that is not a good well and to save that well, and you can still use that water. The alternative to that if you're in a vet)' poor area, you must think about modular desalination plants, and these things are not that expensive. But people have to realize if they ?e going to move here, this is the situation that they Ye going to come into if we start this any degree of build-out in this Town." · Page 10-4 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS Response: During the course of the preparation of the DGEIS, Steve Jones and the SCWA were invited to participate in the process. A special meeting was held with Mr. Jones to present various findings of the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy~ including the build-out analysis, and to discuss cooperative approaches to long term planning. The technologies and techniques available to the SCWA to supply water were not discussed. It is assumed that the SCWA is well aware if' the various alternatives available to it, however, these suggestions are being sent to Mr. Jones tbr his use. 10.8 Objection to Use of Photograph of Krupsld Farm in DGEIS Conunents B-42 and G-2: "The Krupski family objects to the use of our picture in the Southold Comprehensivv Implementation Strategy and Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement. This picture represents at, endorsement of a document that seeks to destrqr the rural character and agricultural heritage of Southold Town. This document does not accurate(v portrm~ agricultural, but instead would undermine and eliminate it as it exists today. We, the undersigned, demand that all pictures, images and speck/lc r~ferences to Krupski Pump[a'n Farm and Krupski Farms be immediately removed.from all drqfts, including the DGEIS on the Town's website. In addition, we demand an apology from those responsible ]br using our image, our logo with our name on it without our consent. If you want to know how this proposed document will negatively impact agriculture ask a farmer." Response: The photograph of the Krupski Pumpkin Farm was used to illustrate Tourism in the Town Southold. The photographs iI~ Appendix E were used to illustrate examples of various aspects of the cormmunity character, including: · Agriculture · Open Space · Wetlands · Waterfront · Hamlets · Residential Development · Commercial Fishing · Tourism · Roadways Page 10-5 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS The DGEIS does not endorse or recommend any planning policy. Rather, the document evaluated potential impacts associated with the 43 planning tools established in 20 years of past planning efforts, in the context of current Town goals. The preservation of the Town's rural character and its agricultural heritage, are expressed goals of the Town. The CIS team apologizes for the use of the Krupski image in the DGEIS without the consent of the Krupski family. 10.q Objection to Farmers Bearing Brunt of Preservation Effort Comments B-45, D-17 and D-50: These comments indicate support for farmers and farming in the Town, and request that preservation efforts not be conducted at their expense. Response: One of the primary goals of the Town of Southold is the preservation of agriculture and the Town's agricultural lands. The above comments relate to an interesting paradox. The question at the heart of this issue is why should the farmers be the only ones impacted (via an 5-acrea upzoning) when fanning benefits the community as a whole. Unfortunately, the impact claimed by these commentators is that their opportunity to abandon farming and develop their land to support full yield residential development, may be limited to some extent. When considering fairness, it is important to bear in mind the fact that full-yield, residential development is completely inconsistent with the Town's articulated goals, as well as the expressed position of the majority of the Town's farmers. It has been argued that the Town's PDR program should be more fully relied upon or even accelerated to achieve the Town*s land preservation goals. As noted in the response to comment Section 4.3 {FGEIS) actual land preservation rates are quite variable, and recently submitted optimistic forecasts do not reflect some of the realities of the acquisition process (refer to Appendix F-3 of the DGEIS). Furthermore, as described more fully in Response, Section 3.6, in order to meet the Town's preservation goals, an additional $225 million would be required, and that would result in an increase in Town taxes of 100 pement. This approach would certainly spread the burden of preserving agricultural land among the entire community. However, while the entire community has agreed to absorb a certain cost to preserve the Town's agricultural character and heritage, it is uncertain if the community would be willing to increase its commitment on a scale described above, particularly when there are other methods available to achieve the Town's goals. Page I0-6 Southoid Comprehensive Implementation Strateg~ Final Generic EIS 10.10 Agricultural Preserve as Memorial Comments C-I and G-7: "To the }Vest of us is the Pine Barrons [sic] Preserve, itl Southold /bwn *ye have thc Forl Corchaug Preserve dedicated to tribal history attd nature stu&'. &~ why not have a~ Agricultural Preserve where the Good soils of Southold Town are reserved Jot agricultural usc' and dedicated to the memot3, of the kind qf farming which gave us the rural scenes which wc enjoy. A fitting memorial would be wooded are depicting how the count~3' looked b~/ore the land was clearedJbr farming. Such a memorial ma), be.funded &, donations. Man3' farmers hm,e made long term commitments to farming by forming agricultural districts and by participating in the sale of development rights. Other~vise it takes a bilh'onaire to./arm on billionaire land. If this is ones idea of preserving open space then I have recourse to selling my' estate to the highest bidder and taking the cash (unreadableI. " Response; Comment noted. 10.11 Cottage House Conversions Comment C-I I: "...but I hope you 'ye taken into consideration some pf the events that you're going ta have to make estimates on, like, what's going to happen with all these cottages that were once summer use that are going to be converted into full time residences, that are going to be converted to ful] fami~v residences." Response: The 2000 census reported that 34.1 percent of the Town's housing stock was comprised of "seasonal, recreational or occasional use" homes. Recent data collected tbr the Sustainable East End Development Strategies (SEEDS) project suggest the actual percentage may be significantly higher. While the Town may support more second homes today than years past, these homes are occupied much longer that the traditional Memorial Day to Labor Day summer season. In fact many, if not most of these second homes are occupied for periods throughout the year. These homes are assessed at full value, and pay their proportional share of local taxes. And while these home do create various impacts; they add to the communities traffic problen~s, they utilize water. and generate sewage; they, for the most part, do not generate school aged children that must be educated in the local schools, or require other municipal sen'ices that year-round residents require. However at any point in time the use of these dwelling units could shift from seasonal or second home to year round use. The impact of year round dwellings would be seen in higher school aged population, demand for municipal services throughout the year and greater traftic during the winter months. Page 10-7 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS 10.12 Variances Comment C-12: "Please take into consideration the variance reality. Any of us who grew up in Huntington Town or visited Port Jefferson have seen over the )'ears, you drive b)' a lot. you wouldn't think it was ct lot. It was a slope, it **,as a hill, nothing couM be built on it 20 years later the stilts are still up. and there 'S a house on it. And let's not underestimate just how much our population's going to be affected by those special exceptions, by those variances over the next 50 years and those cottage conversions." Response: In considering the potential impact of variances, it is acknowledged that variances that are granted could potentially increase the number of units over what is projected in a build-out scenario. By the same token, it is possible that not all of the lots predicted in a regional build-out analysis would be approved due to irregularities in configuration of parcels. A regional build-out analysis cannot predict down to the last lot, the number of units possible within a jurisdiction. A build-out analysis is often criticized for over-predicting the amount of possible development, and such comments have been received in connection with the Southold CIS. When considering the density factors used which have a built-in reduction, possible variances, unusual lot configuration, and other factors, on balance, the accuracy of a build-out analysis can in fact be more or less than projected. It must be noted that a build-out analysis is theoretical, and that such analyses are useful as benchmark (particularly as in the case of Southold Town), rather than a goal to be achieved. In the case of Southold Town, full build-out should be avoided by putting in place proper planning and preservation in order to maintain the Town's rural qualities. Villages and hamlets such as Port Jefferson and Huntington ts'pically have smaller allowable lot sizes and represent more concentrated development areas due to settlement patterns, zoning, and area land use. Private land, that is not sufficiently restricted, can be developed and may include hillsides and small parcels. Southold already has a restriction whereby slopes in excess of 15 percent are subtracted from yield, and zoning in the Town for the most part has much larger minimum lot sizes than other hamlets and villages in westem and central Suffolk County. Hamlet development must be carefully controlled in terms of lot size, use, and architecture in order to maintain the historic character of hamlets. In Southold, fortunately hamlets have generally flat topography, and properly designed development can occur at higher densities than in surrounding countryside areas. Single and separate lots that are not subdividable represent a difficult challenge and can often appear out-of-place when developed. These non-conforming parcels, are often exempt from lot size requirements or can obtain variances, since to deny such a variance would essentially confiscate the use of the lot, thus requiring compensation to be made to the landowner. The applicant has the burden of proof to demonstrate that an application meets certain requirements considered by a ZBA typically including hardship, impact on neighborhood character, environmental resources and health, safety and welfare of the community. Variances · Page 10-8 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS should not be readily issued and must meet the minimum requirements noted above for favorable consideration. With respect to cottage conversions, please refer to Section 10.11 above. 10.13 "Suburbanization" of Southold Comments C-13, C-31 and D-l: These comments question the potential impacts on communiO' character, public seca'ice3. population, etc. from development arising .from a 5-acre upzoning, in comparisot~ to development per existing zonings. Response: The DGEIS compared development under 5-acre zoning and development under existing zoning. Sections 3.1 and 3.2 analyze a build-out scenario (existing zoning) as compared with proposed project conditions including density reduction and open space preservation. In addition, Section 9.5 of this FGEIS includes additional information concerning build-out and impact analysis of upzoning. The commenter is referred to those sections fbr additional in~brmation; however, in general the following points are noted: A primary goal of the Town is to maintain community character; upzouing reduces density, provides flexibility for use and assists in preservation rather than over-intensification of use and development, all factors which help to maintain the rural, historic arid natural-resource qualities of the Town's community character. hi terms of public services, lower development densities generate less demand tbr pubhc services; this is particularly evident with respect to school impacts where analysis shows that although less taxes are generated if density is reduced, the lower demand tbr educational services results in a substantially lower school district deficit, thus demonstrating the benefit of density reduction with respect to a public service that comprises 64 percent of taxes collected. · Population estimates were provided in the DGEIS, and logically, population is reduced under a scenario which contemplates 5-acre upzoning. Conditions involving development under existing zoning, development under a density reduction/open space preservation scenario, and development under 5-acre zoning, as welt as a number of alternatives are addressed in the DGEIS and this FGEIS. Page 10-t) Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS 10.14 Exhausting Single and Separate Lots Comment C- 14: "ln five or so years we're going to exhaust our single and separate lots in this Town. Up island, land for major development will be gone. I~'ater is going to be ubiquitous to our Town. Even if we continue our current preservation trend, and I commend everybody involved in it from the Town government to those that work as consultants, and I might add to the taxpayers for fimding the bill, but the fact of the matter is, if we keep preserving at about 250 acres per )'ear, in five years our single and separates are pretty much gone. We spent $40 million in the interim assuming some mix of farm acres and open space acres and we sa.}' we want our money to go to preserve, and we still have over 7.000 acres at risk. Goodness gracious, what is going to happen when those big three collide. Our single and separate lots are gone: water's ubiquitous; the development up island is gone: we cannot fail to underestimate }*,hat is happening and what is going to happen when those events converge." Response: The DGEIS indicated factors which could affect future development trends in Section 3.1.3. Current preservation efforts, as well as water supply, development trends in western towns and the desirability of Southold due to it's unique community character were taken into consideration. This FGEIS provides additional information on the rate of preservation in Section 7.2 of this document. Based on available information, there is justifiable concern that preservation efforts alone may not be sufficient to allow th¢ Town to achieve its stated goals. Programs included in the Southold CIS are directed toward density reduction, open space preservation, and protection of natural and cultural resources, all implementation tools needed to ensure that the Town maintains its vision and conforms to its goals. 10.15 Wineries and Country Inns Comments C-21, C-24, C-47, F-45, F-46, F-53, F-54, F-55, F-56, Fo57, G-52~ G-54, G-59 and G- 138 to G-140: These comments note concerns about the proposed allowance for wineries to include inns and/or food services, which would lead to unwanted competition with hotels and bed-and-breakfast owneFs. Response: This comment is acknowledged. The DGE1S identified Country Inns as a possible tool to allow open space and farmland acreage to be preserved through essentially a development transfer to a revenue generating use that would offset outright purchase of development rights. The revenue generating use was identified as a Country Inn, with acknowledgement that such uses should be of limited size, compatible with farm use, subject to site plan review, reviewed through public hearings and conformance to special exception standards, subject to SEQRA review and carefully monitored to ensure that overall planning goals are adhered to. It is acknowledged that there are detriments as well as benefits associated with this concept, as reflected in the cautious nature of the proposal and the extensive safeguards expected to be necessary, in review of the · Page 10-10 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strateg3' Final Generic EIS type and number of facilities. Although competition between businesses is clearly beyond4he scope of an ElS, socio-economic factors that could result from impact upon the existing hotel. restaurant and bed-and-breakfast industD' should be considered in any move to establish CountrS_. Inns in Southold Town. 10.16 Parks and Hamlets Comment C-22: "First, I'd like to address the item in the document; that apparently it pertains to limiting the park districts in the Town. And I heard about this and ! really couldn't believe it. You kno,~; growing up out here. the park districts **,ere part of growing up out here. And it ~nade every area a part qf the community, and ~f ),ou lived in Cutchogue/New Suffolk Park District, that's where you went to the beach, and that's what you grew up with. And thc park districts 1 thought always did a reD' good job of keeping the areas nice and clean and open and accessible to everyone. And I think it would be a huge mistake to try to homogenize these really local littK park areas into some kind a Town project, and especially where l've seen some oJ the Town projects in the past where some of these park areas turn into Fort Apaches wiih fences and lights, and it's really' not a park at that point. It becomes more like a compound or something. So I'd just like to make that comment about the park." Response: Comment acknowledged. Comment F-58: "Mattituck Creek, there's a proposal for a park, I was just wondering where that might go." Response: There is no proposal for a park on Mattituck Creek. additional waterfront near Horton's Creek. The LWRP recommended acquisition of Comment G-68: "1. DGEIS 1-13 One of the enhancements recommended is the creation oJ a park oz Mattituck. l could not find the rationale for this project. Mattituck has the most parkland in the Town of Southold with 71 acres of park land. Why is it necessary to create another park itt Mattiruck ? " Response: The rationale behind creating more parkland in Mattituck is that future population growth in the western part of Southold will result in greater pressure on existing parkland. Page 10-11 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Fioal Generic ElS Comment G-69: "2. DGEIS 2-57 The second listing of Bailie Beach states that a Mattituck Park District permit is required for parking. Can you change that to a Southold Parking permit is required for parMng. " Response: Comment acknowledged. Comment G-70: "3. DGEIS 2-67 'The Town of Southold is uniquely defined by a series of nine hamlets, including Laurel, Mattituck, Cutchogue, New Suffolk, Peconic, Southold, Greenport, East Marion, and Orient. The hamlets are more fully defined in Section 2.10.3.' I feel there is an omission of the lOth hamlet which is Fishers Island. There is no mention of them in section 2.10.3 either. It is important to include Fishers [sland in the description o~f our I'own in its entirety. The photo section does not include it as well. " Response: Comment acknowledged. Fishers Islaod is acknowledged as the l0th hamlet. The narrative discussion, as well as photo appendix, did not include Fishers Island because no changes are proposed at this time. Comment G-71: "4. 2-68 Mattituclv'Cutchogue Library should be changed to Mattituck/Laurel Libra~. . " Response: Comment acknowledged. Comment G-72: "5. DGE1S 2-68 CouM you rethink the short description of Mattituck hamlet..4s it reads, it does not include Rte. 25, but I think the hamlet has grown to include it as well as the library, churches, shopping center, etc." Response: The description of the hamlet does in fact include NYS Route 25, the library, shopping areas and churches. Refer to the aerial photo hamlet boundary map in Appendix A-8. · Page 10-12 Conunent G-73: "6. DGEIS 2-27 to East Marion." 'Route 25 traverses the banders of Response; Comment acknowledged. Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS ' Please change East Morichex Comment G-74: "7. DGEIS 2-48 Can you check table 2-137 It contains census numbers (?! each hamlet, but lists Fishers Island as having 289 people. The Housing and breeds Assessment./or the lbwn in the Appendix has all information the same except it lists Fishers lshind with 622 peoplc. Il this is correct the numbers ma), have to be changed." Response: The 2000 census recorded the population for Fishers Island as 289. Comment G-75: "8. The Town of Southold Conceptual Vision does not include the 10th hamlet. Fishers island It wouM be more complete to list this hamlet as well since it is part of Southold 7bwn. " Response: Comment ac ~knowledged, see above. Comment G-76: "9. Also. the CCA lumber used in bulkheading and other marine applications ia justifiable concern) are pointed out but there is an omission of all the CCA posts holding up thc grape vines throughout Southold. For balance and_fairness mention of this situation wouM best se~a,e all residents since we see the vineyards everywhere in out' vista." Response: Comment acknowledged. 10.17 Farm Laborer Housing Comments C-49 and C-54: These comments refer to.farm labor housing and its relationship with the NYS A~riculturc and Markets Law, as well as questions regarding its applicabiliQ, to farm famib, housing. Page 10-13 Southold Comprehensive lmplementntion Strategy Final Generic EI$ Response: While farm labor housing is assured under the NYS Agricultural and Markets Law, the characteristics of that housing, e.g. size, bulk, height, number of units, etc., is the responsibility of the Town through local zoning. The Town would continue to regulate housing through it's zoning control. 10.18 Jurisdiction of Board of Trustees Regarding Wetlands Comments B-2 and F-59: These comments note the jurisdiction and participation of the Town Board of Trustees in the SEQRA process for the proposed action. Response: As provided for in Chapter 97 of the Town Code, the Town Board of Trustees has jurisdiction over the issuance of wetlanas permits. Section 1.5 of the DGEIS lists those agencies which have permitting or other discretionary power over future land use decisions that affect the character of the Town. The Trustees are an appropriate governmental body to be included in this list; however, it is noted that the Trustees are recognized in a number of sections of the DGEIS for their important role and jurisdiction. It should be noted that there is no proposed physical alteration of wetlands as part of the Southold CIS, and therefore no permits would be necessary. In addition, the Southold CIS acknowledges that wetlands (as well as wetlands buffers and linkages) are a valuable resource to be protected in order for the Town to conform to stated goals and objectives. Wetlands are acknowledged and described in Section 2.2.2 of Water Resources, and Section 2.3.1 of Ecological Resources; the latter DGEIS section referred to specifically notes the following: Activities located within and adjacent to tidal wetland habitats are regulated by the NYSDEC under Article 25 of the ECL and by the Town Trustees under Chapter 97 of the Town of Southold Town Code. As defined by ECL Article 25-0103, tidal wetlands are "those areas which border on or lie beneath tidal waters, such as, but not limited to, banks, bots, salt marsh, swamps, meadows, fiats or other low lands subject to tidal action, including those areas now or formerly connected to tidal waters...." To summarize from the intent of Article 25 and the Town Code, tidal wetlands are extremely vital and productive and contain intrinsic values with respect to marine food production, wildlife habitat, flood and storm and hurricane control, recreation, cleansing ecosystems, sedimentation control, education and reseamh, and open space and aesthetic appreciation. Section 1.4, Mechanics of Implementation states the following with regard to other agencies and departments and their role in the CIS: Other departments and Boards such as the Town Clerk, ZBA, Town Trustees and the Highway office are also related to land management and may be affected to varying degrees by the efforts of the Town Board through this Comprehensive Implementation Strategy. It is important that planning functions be integrated with these offices and Boards as well. · Page 10-14 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS As a result, the DGEIS recognizes the important role and jurisdiction of the Town Trustees in protecting a major Town environmental resoume. The Trustees have received documentation included in the DGEIS, and are essentially an interested agency with an important function to protect the Town's wetlands resources, a program that is established and continuing and recognized for it's integration with overall comprehensive preservation efforts. The Trustees have no actual approval authority over components of the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy; this authority rests solely with the Town Board. 10.19 Goals and Objectives of the Proposed Action and Implications on Quality. of Life and Governmental Services Comments D-15, D-23, D-24, D-31, D-33 and G-42: These comments question: the desirabiliO, of the Plan's 5-acre zoning proposal in terms oJ?uturc Town character and increased scope and cost of necessary governmental sen'ices; thc controversial nature of 5-acre zoning: and the utilitT, of the DGEIS as a description ~! the Town's goals. Response: It is not the function of the DGEIS to recommend a particular planning tool but rather to analyze potential impacts associated with the implementation tool. This planning tool is fidly evaluated in Section 4.4 of the DGEIS. 10.20 Hamlet Delineations Comment D-29: "You **,ant to send things into the hamlets, 3'et nobody can even tell you m this document, it sav~s the), can't even tell you where the hamlets begin or end. How do you know? How &> you ~to*~ which hamlet you're talking about if you go down to the road and you don't kno*~ whether you're talla'ng about Peconic, or you're talking about Cutchogue, or you're talla'ng about Southold. that's what this document says. And where's the map to define this.for us?" Response: Each hamlet has a clearly evident business district but the post office designation extends over a greater distance. Appendix A-8 of the DGEIS presents the proposed boundaries of each of the hamlet centers. Appendix A-8 also describes the methodology that could be used to define the Hamlet Area Locus Zones where new growth could be accommodated. The Town Board would have to determine the boundaries of the centers after public review and input. Page 10-15 · Southold Comprehensive Implememntion Strategy Final Generic ElS 10.21 Non-Conforming, Undersized Lots Comment D-39: "One thing that I'd like to refer to, the fact that we really don't have undersized and nonconforming lots. They're all legal lots that were made by' legal governments. Somebody had a subdivision and it's legal. We don't really have in Town a lot qfnonconforming, undersized lots. Half acre lots are most necessarily nonconforming. They are legal. The), were founded by government. They were passed with a legal site plan, and those governments were legal. I'd Hke to get through some of the ideas that we've always had in this Town about once we changed to 2-acre zoning, this became nonconforming. We have enough nonconforming." Response: Comment acknowledged. Non-conforming lots is a term typically used for "single and separate" lots, that were created prior to zoning (1957), or lots created prior to a subsequent zoning change. These lots are legal as separate lots, but may require variances or approvals prior to issuance of a building permit. That said, there are some non-conforming lots that were created by deed and were not conforming to zoning at the time they were created. It is acknowledged that upzoning does create additional lots smaller than the minimum zoning requirement. Those lots that were legally established prior to upzoning, then become single and separate lots that are smaller than the new minimum lot size. It is the commentator's opinion that there are enough non-conforming lots, and this is so noted. However, land use decisions should not be made based on the number of non-confomqing lots that exist or would be created. If zoning changes or upzoning are warranted to achieve a more suitable pattern of land use for a large body of subdividable parcels, such land use measures should appropriately be considered. The Build-Out analysis included in the DGEIS found that there are 595 parcels encompassing 994.84 acres that are less than 2-times the zoning lot size of 80,000 square feet in the A-C and R-80 zones, as compared with a total subdividable acreage of 7,862.23 acres. The number of single and separate lots less than 80,000 square feet in size (the minimum zoning lot size) is even less. Therefore, the non-subdividable lots represent 11 percent of all remaining vacant land in the A-C and R-80 zones. Townwide, there are 2,575 vacant, non- subdividable parcels comprising 2,144.61 acres. For all vacant land in the Town, the non- subdividable parcels represent 19 percent of the land area. Additional GIS analysis conducted for this FGEIS finds that there are 2001 lots of less than the minimum zoning lot size in the Town. comprising 1,043.4 acres, as compared with 10,455.86 total acres. As a result, it is noted that there is a much greater area of subdividable land that would result in a reduced density. The impact of such a density reduction is quantified in Section 9.5 of this FGEIS. Page 10-16 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS 10.22 Need to Analyze Grumman Property. Comment D-77: "And, at the same time, you people in this proposal have to consider what's going to go on with that Grumman site. Someone else mentioned that. That site there is ~roing to have more o/ at~ effect on what's going to be in the future in this area. I don't know if you're aware of all the outside companies from Atlantic CiO' and other areas, Las' g'~egas that are looking for that site.for casino gambling. It's ripe. The State's broke and gin's are looking at purchasing sections of that proper~ and putting in billions q[' dollars worth hotels and stuff like that. And that's going to have a tremendous effect on this area. Dan ' t sell it short. It's going to be eight ),ears, nine years that that's going to happen. It's not the Indians. The State does not want to allow the money to be going up to Foxwoods and stuff like that. Thcv want the revenue right here. It's their last resort. The State is broke. So keep that in mind whe. you start looking at that proposal in your master plan; you got to consider to the west q/'lts. " Response: The Gmmman site is in the Town of Riverhead. Southold is unique and while there is influence from western towns as noted in Section 3.1.3 of the DGEIS, Southold must consider tneasures under control of the governmental bodies in the Town, in recognition of local and regional factors. The issue of potential casino/gambling on the Grumman site in Calverton is speculative, and is not an appropriate basis for planning decision at this time for the Town of Southold The Southold CIS and the DGEIS acknowledge that development trends to the west as well as other local factors have and could increase development pressure in the Town of Southold. and that the Town should have proper tools in place to ensure achievement of the Town's goals. 10.23 Need for and Conflicts with Master Plan Comment E- 10: "Page 1-22, 5-acre upzoning. This seems to con.[lict with the farm and ]~rmland protection strategy, the background studies and recommendations of the Town's 1985 Master Plan in that it does not recognize the unique nature of agricultural land and the incompatibilio, q! active farmland with residential uses. Nov*' it's misquoted because now you're savin,e that in thc Master Plan, which is right here (indicating), that that was still the intent, and it 'x not true. The intent. !['you read this Master Plan, they had the same problems making decisions that you have today, is how to protect the farmland b), clustering, t~v TDR, by Couno, programs, by lbwn programs, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So this on Page 1-22 is not true." Response: There are a number of factors that influence farmland preservation as outlined and discussed iii the DGEIS. The 1985 Master Plan was prepared 18 years ago. and conditions were not the same Page 10-17 $outhold Comprel~enslve Implementation Strategy Final Generic then as they are now but many of the issues remained the same. Upzoning was recognized then, and is recognized now, as a means to reduce density, to provide flexibility for clustering, and to establish appropriate land use pattems so that farm uses do not conflict with residential uses. It is maintained that the DGEIS is accurate in synthesizing the recommendations of past studies through the matrix analyses included in Appendix A of that document. Recommendations were reviewed in light of current conditions to identil~ consistency and relevance to current planning efforts. This review was an important component of the DGEIS in order to understand the comprehensive planning history of the Town, as reflected in past studies. The DGEIS further evaluates continued clustering, use of TDR, acquisition programs and the inter-relationship with regard to conformance to the Town's stated goals. Comment E-11: "RO and LB district review on Page 1-25, this gets into more than 5-acre zoning. We were not even close to talMng about the 5-acre zoning. The intent of the comprehensive plan and zoning code was to permit limited - maybe the), 're talking about the Master Plan. I really think they shouM be quoting the Master Plan in any of these cases, when they're referring to something here because the comprehensive plan is this one, and this is not a plan. This is a side study that's in the works. The current code fails to do this. It does not establish appropriate parameters to insure the integrity of the hamlet centers. Further, the concept of the RO district has been undermined by a permissive home occupancy law that allows homeowners in residential districts to enjoy many of the benefits of hosting a business in a residential area with less of the restrictions in an RO district. A permissive home occupancy law, is that the next target without SEQRA? 1 mean, I'm standing here a survivor of the County~Route 48 study. Okay, I read that document cover to cover. It had the same generalities, the same innuendos, the same references to things obscure that you wouldn't even think of and all of a sudden the hammers came down so ever), word in this document should be treated as gospel, because if the Town is going to Jbllow-up on at[~' aspect of this, we 'ye got to know what's coming and you're not telling us." Response: The DGEIS for the Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy clearly states that it is not a Master Plan, but gathers information from the Town's 18-year old Master Plan, as well as other relevant studies, such as the Stewardship Task Force Report and the LWRP, and updates the recommendations in the context of present needs and conformance to the Town's goals. A major component of the Southold CIS is to define and strengthen the Town's hamlet centers, a theme that has been consistent through several decades of planning. The DGEIS indicates the intent with regard to review of the RO and £B districts as noted in the comment on Page 1-25 of Section 1.3.1. The intended review seeks to ensure that business use does not expand into residential areas in such a manner such that land use incompatibilities occur in primarily residential areas. Further, such expansion of business into residential areas would further "blur" the boundaries of hamlet centers and therefore would be contrary to the goal of strengthening hamlet centers. · Page 10-18 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS Reference to the Route 48 study is not pertinent to the DGEIS. The Town Board will complete the EIS process, issue a Statement of Findings {which weighs social, ccononuc and environmental factors), and render decisions consistent with the EIS record, the Findings, and the decision-making process that the Town Board is empowered to pertbrm, all consistent with the State Environmental Quality Review Act as required by law. Comment E- 12: "The LB district was intended to provide another form of transition bet~veen att intensely developed hamlet and general business area and agricultural land. The uses intended jor this district were in keeping with the rural character in terms pi' the level q/' trqtfic attd physical appearance. The current code fails to do this. The LB district was created mainly Jbr the Count), Route 48 businesses. If you looked at the zoning map at the end oJ the Master Platt, voa would find that probably 80 to 90 percent of the LB zones were located on CounO' Route 48_ That **'as so the), couldn't get into the general business community' and there were a lot p/ services, businesses, put out there. So this is a fairly inaccurate statement." Response: As stated in the Zoning Code, the purpose of the LB, Limited Business; district is "to provide an opportunity to accommodate limited business activity along highway corridors, but in areas outside the hamlet central business areas that is consistent with the rural and historic character of surrounding areas and uses." The CR48 Rezoning attempted to honor the original intent of the LB zoning district. It is not the purpose of this DGEIS to revisit a past Town Board action that was subject to a discrete SEORA review at that point in time. Comment E- 14: "Review pf home occupancy restrictions, tI"e spent a little time on that one. The home occupation law said the law should simply permit the running pt a single person business out Pt' a home where there is no retail, wholesale or customer traffic to and from the home. Outside oj the baymen, that is true. It does not allow retail and it does not allow a constant flow customers. As far as hair salons go, doctor's offices, which were already existing bqfore this law, there are cases, but there is not a terrific amount of traffic under most PI' those. They existed before the home occupation law. The home occupation law, we covered the baymen, so the baymen could actually' sell their scallops to somebody or somebody could pick them np at their house, or the)' couM deliver from their house, and the builders and others could work out q! the house, and if there was an), equipment around il was supposed to be screened 1_! that's not being done then that's a code enforcement problem, that's not a problem to change the law over Or are you changing the law or aren't you changing the law? I mean, ali it says here is it '3 a problem, and the problem is whoever wrote this doesn't understand it because it clearh' docsn't allow retail. An example, medical office, tradesmen or contractor uses have resulted in complaints. The nature pi'those complaints I would like to see in this document because i! these Page lO-lO Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS complaints have come in, you don't have to give specific names or anything, but if you have a complaint of a specific nature and the Town enforcement officer, which you hm,e an officer, an enforcement officer, is not enforcing the code, then there's something wrong, but that doesn't mean that you have to or not have to change the codes. There again, we don't know }t,hich way you're going to go on this." Response: The DGEIS discussion of Home Occupancy restrictions refers to the fact that the wording of the current code permits a wide range and intensity of business uses within the residential zones and that this is contradictory to the intent of the RO district and of the hamlet center concept. Code enforcement is a separate issue that was not the subject of the DGEIS. Comment E-30: "RID, sounds like a good thing? The Town must preserve balance, on Page 3-31, balance and growth management for the interest of the overall Town, including landowners and .farm businesses. The To~ can achieve preservation, 80 percent through mandatory clustering on one acre lots in connection with 60 percent densi~ reduction by upzoning )"rom 2 to 5-acre equivalent yields. Such action would bring the Town more in conformance with its comprehensive plan. What comprehensive plan has recommended this? I'm sorry, it 'S back there. Is this the Town Master Plan that is the comprehensive plan? Until that Master Plan is changed, that is the document. So I don 't know what you 're bringing this into conformance with, and if you're saying that it's in conformance with the Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strateg3. ', that 'S one thing, but it's not. But the Master Plan clearly addressed 2-acre zoning, not Response: The comprehensive plan is comprised of the zoning law, the zoning map, the record of decisions, master plans and studies and essentially the direction and vision of the Town over a period of time in the history of Town planning. The Southold CIS considered the full body of planning history in present day context to establish a list of implementation tools that will allow the Town to conform to it's vision and goals. The Master Plan is 18-years old, has been supplemented by more recent studies which contemplated further density reduction measures. Additional information concerning the origin of the implementation tools included in the CIS is contained in Sections 6.3 and 6.8 of this FGEIS. Comment E-31: "Page 3-32: It is important that options be available for land use such that the equity in the land is maintained and the goals of the Town are met. That 'S master planning. Again, that was the Master Plan; that is the Master Plan and until you change it, that's the gospel o~f this town, whether people }*'ant to identify with it or not. I really think it should be reprinted, the background studies, the summar),, and I think it should be distributed to all the Board members and be required reading for ever), member that comes on Board. The Town has a Master Plan, and it 's not being used." · Page 10-20 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS Response; The 1985 Master Plan was not adopted by the Town Board. The Vision set forth in the documents associated with that plan has been refined through subsequent plans and studies that were adopted or accepted by the Town Board. A master plan is a dynamic tool, not a static tool The Town can not ignore the changes in land use patterns, zone changes, subsequent studies. development pressure and trends, new regulations, regional factors, funding, preservation. acquisition, and the continuing, changing environment that confronts Town fathers, planners and citizens. The Southold CIS seeks to establish a solid foundation for current planning dec~sions~ based on planning history, present conditions and future trends. The Master Plan therefore is being used, but is being used in an appropriate context based on other important lhctors and considerations. Comment E-33: "Review zoning map, Page 7, Master Plan again, no significant adverse impacts are expected, Page 3-35. Upon reviewing - given the comprehensive nature, changing in the zoning map will affect individual properties, and will be reviewed for consistency with comprehensive planning efforts and overall needs of the Town. Given the comprehensive nature qf this initiative and the well-grounded support in prior studies as well as analysis contained in this strategy, no significant adverse impacts are expected. That's an unfounded statement. 1 will really like to see that qualified. I mean, how you can say that some of the things that l 'ye mentioned are not going to have an impact on this town as a ,vhole, transfer of development rights, when the Planning Board rejects the first time around, it goes to the Suffolk County Planning Commission. and then it requires a majoriO' plus one to pass it. tfe 're talla'ng way down thc road beJbre TDRs get close because you're so far behind on them. The Town has never attempted a serious TDR program, and yet, you're suggesting that this i&/br the future of the Town. l mean, you're ready to put in 5-acre zoning right now, and then. address affordable housing in three to four ),ears and maybe TDRs in five years, then maybe we 71get something accomplished. But why not put them all together and do it the right way?" Response: The DGEIS did not find significant negative environmental impacts to using the tools mentioned by these comments. Statements in the DGEIS are supported with both quantitative and qualitative analysis contained in that document. In view of the commentator's vague reference to the DGEIS information being unfounded, there is little on which to base further response or analysis beyond what is already contained in the DGEIS. The intent of the Southold CIS is to consider a variety of implementation tools together, and establish a comprehensive planning framework to implement those tools which help the Town to conform to it's goals. It is acknowledged that TDR has not been implemented to date in Southold; however, it remains a viable land use tool to preserve acreage and reduce the financial burden that would ensue from full acquisition of development rights. Suffolk County Department of Health Services has recently provided guidance on TDR that improves the feasibility of this program as compared with past policy. This CIS considers the current TDR Page 10-21 · Soothold Comprehensive Implementation Strateg~ Final Generic EIS guidelines in the context of the Town of Southold and provides useful information for the Town Board to consider in weighing the benefits of this program. Comment E-39: "Community character. Reducing the level and geographic distribution of new residential development in comparison to the .full build-out scenario will have the effect of reducing the potential for adverse impacts to the rural quality and character of the Town by maintaining - so what they're saying is basically buiM up your hamlets. Move everything out of the outside and buiM up your hamlets. But you don't have to go the 5-acre zoning to do that. I mean, that was part of the plan. That's in the Master Plan now to build up the hamlets and several of the HD zones, the oM M zones that }*,ere removed were within those parameters, and so the Town's vision continually changes, but the Master Plan remains the same." Response: The 1987 Master Plan is important as part of the context for the Town's overall comprehensive planning efforts. Subsequent studies have refined ~he Town's vision and goals. The Southold CIS seeks to provide guidance for controlled development of hamlets, and gives meaning to the general goals stated in past studies by providing a framework for delineating hamlet centers and HALO zones, and for strengthening these areas without detrimental effects of over-development. The DGEIS does not imply that 5 acre zoning is the only way to achieve this goal. Comments F-28 and F-36: These comments request that a master plan be prepared in lieu of the proposed action, or that an outside consultant be hired to revise the proposed action and DGEIS while the master plan is updated. Response: As stated in the Summary (S-3 to S-I 1) and Section I (1.1) of the DGEIS the Town already possesses a written body of studies and plans, all of which have been incorporated into the LWRP, and all of which together constitute the Town's Master Plan. There is no need to undertake an updated Master Plan document given the comprehensive nature of the LWRP and the referenced studies. The Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy conforms to the authorization of the Town Board as adopted in the fall of 2002. The Background and History of the conditions leading up to the Moratorium which precipitated the proposed action, are described in Section 1.1.1. The Town Board felt that there was sufficient information available, and directed the preparation of an implementation plan, not another study. The Town Board has assembled a team, not one consultant, in order to prepare the implementation strategy that is currently under consideration. The team consists of consulting planners, consulting attorneys, the Town Planner, Town Attorney and Town Land Preservation Coordinator, with support from Town Planning and GIS staff. This provided the most cost · Page 10-22 $outhold Comprehensive Implementation Strateg~ Final Generic EIS effective way to comply with the Board directive and take advantage of the knowledge mad experience of Town persom~el and consultants selected based on their knowledge of the Town and ability to contribute to the process. The Southold CIS and DGEIS provide an invaluable update of the Town conditions, and there is no basis for revision of the proposed action or the DGEIS. The Town Board will ultimately have to make decisions based on the record of information compiled and prepared as important information to be weighed in the decision process. 10.24 Code Enforcement Comment E-21: "Enforcement, enforcement, enforcement. Good enforcement, would prevent a lot qt'these laws from having to be changed Jbr an)' reason. If there are complaints, the complaints should be documented The documented complaints should be put in this document, so that people can see the reason behind the suggestion that the3' change a home occupation law, that they change an RO zone. Show us where the problems are, don't just allude to them. Show us where the problems are, and they should be documented if the enforcement department is doing their job." Response: Enforcement is important, and is acknowledged in the DGEIS in Table 1 ~ I. where education and enforcement are noted as important components of the Strategy. Entbrcement is ongoing, and occurs based on complaints, known issues, spot checks, and standard municipal enforcement procedures performed to the best of the ability of Town personnel with the resources available. In certain cases, changes in zoning law may be needed to better direct the intent of legislation (as discussed in the CIS) so as to enable more effective enforcement. It is not the purpose of a DGEIS to discuss current violations. 10.25 Water Supply and Consumption Comment E-37: "I'm not going to read all of it. Developing water supply master plan, 1 think ),ou have one. l think you have one, and you have a map that's been passed on by the Town. I think that's what Henry Raynor was addressing today. I think there's a map, and there's meetings and all qf that could be included I Icnow Howard's saying start over again. 1 don't think so, that's not necessary. This stuff could have been incorporated into the document." Response: The requested information was incorporated into the DGEIS. The DGEIS includes a description of Water Resources and a synopsis of the findings of past and recent studies on groundwater protection and water supply management in Section 2.2.1, which includes a figure of the water supply service map in Figure B-17, as agreed upon between the Town of Southotd and the Page 10-~3 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS SCWA. Though this is not a water supply master plan, it is useful information as part of the Southold CIS and as a result was included in the original document. Comment E-38: "Water resources. This is a good one, Page 3-51 as development would occur in areas distant from agricultural use, the potential for impact to irrigation water would be reduced. I think if you digest that one, you realize that something is radically wrong because in the Master Plan study and any study that l've ever seen on consumptive use in housing has been far less than the consumptive use in farmland" Response: The statement from the DGEIS refers primarily to water quality, not water quantity which is more related to the consumptive use issued referred to in the comment. As noted in Section 3.2.3, directing growth toward areas where infrastructure exists, including public water supply based on controlled pumping and distribution systems of the water purveyor, allows agricultural use to continue to make use ofonosite wells for irrigation purposes. 10.26 Conservation Opportunity Subdivision Enhancement Conunents G-88 and G-149: "4. SouthoM Ag Advisor)' Board respect, fully requests the (COP) Conservation Opportunity Subdivision plan be enhanced and codified" Response: This comment is acknowledged. The Conservation Opportunities Planning Process will be enhanced through preparation of local law consistent with the concept outlined in the DGEIS and will be codified upon adoption by the Town Board. 10.27 Rural Incentive District Comments G-130, G-150 and G-158: These comments note questions and concerns in regard to the RID proposed in the DGEIS, its details and its relationship to the version of the RID as proposed by the Blue Ribbon committee. Response: The Blue Ribbon Commission prepared a basic concept for the RID, but the concept was left for further refinement. The DGEIS provides this further refinement of the RID concept, as prepared by special counsel retained as part of the Moratorium planning team and specifically familiar with the planned development district concept used in Southampton in a similar fashion to the proposed RID for Southold. · Page 10-24 Southoid Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS The landowner retains the option to develop at 2-acre zoning if the Town thils to negotiate or to allocate funds for the purchase of development rights during the term of the RID. Only ~' a landowner rejects a reasonable offer at the conclusion of the appraisal process would the zoning revert to the regulations in place at the expiration of the term of the RiD. The DGEIS recommends a number of legislative initiatives to address a broad range of issues. The preparation of all of these local laws was not within the scope of the ElS In addition, xt would be imprudent to include specific legislation on one single recommendation in the DGEIS, but not others, when many of the issues are so closely interrelated. Finally, each piece of legislation will be subject to a public hearing following the GEIS process, with opportunity tbr comment. The statements cited are not conflicting. Rather, they represent different scenarios and the impact of those scenarios on zoning: under one scenario, the landowner is not a willing seller. He refuses to negotiate in the first instance or refuses an offer after the appraisal process is complete. The return of the property to whatever zoning is in place at the time serves as a disincentive :o a landowner who would "park" his land in the RID and retain 2-acre zoning, with no intention of ever selling development rights; in the second scenario, the Town is not a willing buyer, it fails to negotiate in good faith or it fails to allocate monies tbr the purchase of development rights. In this case, the landowner would retain the more favorable zoning, rather than be penalized for the Town's refusal to purchase development rights. 10.28 Town-Wide Vole on Proposed Action Comment G- 154: ".4ctuallj,; I don't believe that the Board consisting of five people should have the authority to make such a decision as this. It should be brought up to a vote in the General Election" Response: Comment acknowledged. 10.29 Openness Comment G-244: · "Openness Despite the reference to an open process with participation _/bom townspeople, the DGE[S process has been notable for the lack o. f that input. In fact, the DGElS process abruptly stopped an open process involving, among others, the Blue Ribbon Commission deliberations. Thc DGEIS process has even stopped development and discussion o~f the Rural Incentive District proposal. Page 10-25 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EI$ The hearings on the DGEIS were overwhelming negative about the report. Besides_the substantive defects raised, this also reflects the fi~ct that stakeholders, including but not limited to landowners, had no input into the process. In addition, neither the Planning Board nor Town Board had more than a passing involvement in the preparation of the report, and it is the Town that is ultimately responsible to comply with SEQRA. · Consensus Durable, progressive planning calls for consensus among groups of people with different objectives. There are steps that improve the climate of consensus and steps that make consensus harder to achieve. Timing the report to coincide with an election cycle increases the polarization and the tendency to identify and more deeply divide winners and losers. Long-range planning should not be hostage to a political campaign." Response: Public input into the Lead Agency's decision-making process is required by law. In accordance with the provisions of 6NYCRR Part 617, duly noticed public hearings were held on June 19th, 23~a, 24th and July 15th as well as during regularly scheduled Town Board meetings on July 8, 2003. During these meetings anyone wishing to be heard was afforded an opportunity. In addition, written comments were accepted until July 28, 2003. This public input formed the basis for this FGEIS. The DGEIS did not stop any other process from occurring. It should be noted that the Blue Ribbon Commission issued its report on July 14, 2002. This report was incorporated in the DGEIS review process. In addition, Section 8.14 of the DGEIS reviewed a modification to the Cooperative Assured Protection Plan (CAP) The RID was specifically discussed in great detail in the DGEIS, its impacts evaluated and alternatives considered. The comment that the DGEIS stopped development and discussion of the RID is incorrect. Given the wide reaching scope of the DGEIS, a remarkably small amount of negative criticism was raised during the public hearings, with the exception of that expressed by the farm community against the 5-acre upzoning tool. Dozens ofplarming tools were not even mentioned during the public hearings. As more fully documented in Section 2.1, the CIS process is proceeding through the SEQRA review in full compliance with the provisions of 6NYCRR Part 617. No substantive defects exist. Finally, as noted above, and because the author of this comment is, in fact, commenting on the record, it is simply incorrect to state that stakeholders and landowners had no input into the process. The process is ongoing, and will not conclude until the Lead Agency adopts Findings. Page 10-26 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS Finally, the Town Board appointed two liaisons to work with the Moratorium Team during the preparation of this DGEIS. These liaisons were invited to attend the Team's working sessions to discuss issues, problems and facts. In addition, the Team met with the entire Town Board on several occasions in order to obtain guidance. These meetings are documented itl the Team's working notes/minutes. The Report was processed and prepared in a timely manner given the resources at the Team's disposal, the level of guidance given and the additional time provided for public input. Page 10-27 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS APPENDICES · Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS FIGURES Town of Southold Vacant Non-conforming Parcels Before Upzoning [] AC []$ [] HB [] LB uo [] R-200 [] R-40 [] R-400 [] R-80 RO ~ RR Totals: 2001 parcels, 1043.4 acres Scale: I inch equals 9000 feet Map Updated: August 2003 Map Prepared by Town of Southold Geographic Information System August 29, 2003 Town of Southold Vacant Non-conforming Parcels After Upzoning ~ AC ~B ~ hb LI )~ uo I~ R-200 ~ r-40 ~ R-400 ~ R.,80 RO --- RR Totals: 2206 parcels, 1584 acres Scale: I inch equals 9000 feet Map Updated: August 2003 Map Prepared by Town of Southo)d Geographic Information System August 29, 2003 · Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS APPENDIX B TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING Town Board June 19, 2003 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK TOWN OF S O UTHO L D PUBLIC HEARING In the Manner of, THE DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT of SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY Board Members Present JOSHUA Y. THOMAS H. WICKHAM, JOHN M. ROMANELLI, WILLIAM D. MOORE, CRAIG A. RICHTER, GREGORY F. YAKABOSKI, ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE, Southoid Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York June 19, 2003 7:30 p.m. HORTON, Supervisor Councilman Councilman Councilman Councilman Town Attorney Town Clerk COURT REPORTING A/~D TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE [631i 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 SUPERVISOR HORTON: Good evening, and welcome to the Public Hearing on the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement. We'll begin the meeting, please rise and join with me in the Pledge of Allegiance. (Whereupon, all rose and joined in the Pledge of Allegiance.) SUPERVISOR HORTON: We will commence this Public Hearing prior to opening it. A brief explanation for you. The first hour will be dedicated to an explanation of what the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement is, and what's included in it and some of the text incorporated within that document. And that will be led by a group of people that are sitting in front of me facing you. I'll actually turn this over to Councilman Wickham to open this Public Hearing. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: This is Co certify that the following resolution, Number 349 of the year 2003 was adopted at the regular meeting of the Southold Town Board on June 3, 2003. Whereas, the Board has assumed lead agency status in the review of the above referenced action and for the purpose of compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act, SEQRA and would be necessary and issue -- COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: I see people making noise. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Can everybody hear me? That's unusual. Let me start again. How's this; is this any better? MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE: Yes. COUNCILMAN WICKH/LM: Whereas, the Town Board has assumed lead agency status in the above-referenced action, the action being the preparation of a GEIS, for the purpose of compliance of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, SEQRA; And whereas, the Board found that a Generic Environmental Impact Statement would be necessary and issued the appropriate determination via a positive declaration to require such document for the proposed action, 2 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 considering that the recommendations may result in potential impacts, which may include cumulative and/or generic impacts; And whereas, the Board is familiar with the scoping processes outlined in SEQRA; And whereas, the Board held a public Scoping meeting on January 29th of this year, Southold Town Hall, hearing room a period of 10 days were provided following the public Scoping meeting to allow for submission of written comments; And whereas the Board accepted the final scope as complete on April 8th; Whereas the Draft GEI$ has been prepared in conformance with the final scope. I think many of you have seen the copy of this draft that's now under consideration. Whereas, the Board has reviewed the document and determined that it conforms to the required content as stated in the final scope and is therefore adequate for public review and comment. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Town Board hereby accepts the Generic Environmental Impact Statement after due deliberation and review of the prepared documentation for the purpose of public and interested agency and party review; And be it further resolved that the Board hereby directs the Town Clerk to file a notice of complete Draft EIS and Notice of Public Hearing in accordance with 5he notice of filing requirements. So, be it further resolved that the Board hereby sets the hearing date for the Draft GEIS at a special Town Board Public Hearing on June 195h at the Southold Town Hall hearing room, at which time the hearing will start with a public information session on the proposed action and the DGEIS documents from 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. followed by an opportunity for the public to comment on this, on the DGEIS beginning at 7:30. Comment period will remain open and the hearing will be continued on June 23rd at 4:30 p.m. and again on June 24th at 7:00 p.m. At least ten days will be provided for written comment after the close of the Public Hearing. 3 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE ~631) 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Be it further resolved that the Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to file the Notice of Public Hearing in at least one local newspaper at least 14 days prior to this Public Hearing. She has done that; in fact, we have filed it with two newspapers. There have been a number of other efforts to publicize this GEIS. It's on the web; is it not? It has also been made available two copies each to all the libraries here in the Town of Southold. There have been other distributions. I know my copy has been photocopied several times for various people; so there's a lot out there. I don't have much written comment yet because this is just the beginning. The only comment I actually have on this so far is a letter to the Board from the Krupski family. I'll just quote from them that, "We object to the use of our picture in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. "This picture represents an endorsement of a document that seeks to destroy the rural quality and agricultural heritage of the town. "This does not accurately portray agriculture, but instead would undermine and eliminate it as it exists today. "We, the undersigned in the family, demand that all pictures, images and specific refere~ces to our pumpkin farm be immediately removed from all drafts." And that's basically the only comment in writing that we have before us tonight. And I think, Mr. Supervisor, we can turn it over to the team to outline to us what's in the document. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Councilman Wickham. As mentioned, Councilman Wickham, in his reading of that formal resolution, that this is the first of nhree public hearings to be held on this document; tonight being the first, the 23rd and 24th, all being here at the Town Hall, as well as there will be a period of ten days for the public to provide written comments to the Southold Town Board on this document. At this point, we're going to 4 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 5 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 spend the next 45 to 60 minutes hearing from, I'll announce from left to right, Melissa Spiro, Chick Voorhis, valerie Scopaz and Patrick Cleary, all of whom were basically made up the moratorium team that did a lot of the research and work that went into this document; and they're going to spend the next hour or so explaining what this document is as a Power Point presentation to accompany it. And I will now turn it over to Chick Voorhis prior to public comment. When we do have public comment, after this portion of the meeting, I do ask, and I will repeat this probably time and time again, that when you approach this Board from the podium at the front of the room, you speak cleary from the microphone so we can keep an accurate public record. State your name and the hamlet in which you live for our public record, as well as, if you could, please, write your name and hamlet on the clipboard that's provided on the podium there. So, Chick, the floor is yours. MR. VOORHIS: Thank you, Supervisor Horton. My name is Charles or Chick Voorhis. I'm a member of the moratorium 5eam and the Town Board has asked us to prepare some information on the work that has taken place to date and to outline the procedures, again, that will be followed during the course of the hearing, after which we will open it for public comments. We're going to go through kind of a who, what, when, how, where, why type of scenario to give you some background, and as part of the how part, we will go through some of the key elements of the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement, emphasizing these with Power Point presentations to assist with understanding. The beginning here, we're going to have Valerie just talk a little bit about the moratorium, some of the background that brought us to this point, and the parameters for that moratorium. MS. SCOPAZ: Thank you Chick, can you all hear me? Yes. Okay. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 As you know, last year I asked for a moratorium and in August of 2002 the Town Board enacted this moratorium. It's Oeen in effect since that period of ti~e. Basically, the moratorium only affects subdivision applications that are of major or minor types of applications. There were some exceptions to the rule. If you had some types of preservation projects you were allowed to go through or line applications or certain types of set offs. The moratorium did not cover commercial site development. It did not cover issuance of building permits. It was simply the applications before the Planning Board for subdivision of land for residential purposes. Chick is going to go and give you more background about wha~ we are going to do here ~onight. MR. VOORHIS: Basically the action that's here before us tonight is known as a Comprehensive Implementation Strategy. And I'll just read from the scope so that it's clear exactly what that action is. "The action involves the evaluation and more appropriate the implementation by the Southold Town Board of the recommended planning and program tools and measures as described in the planning studies undertaken within ~he Town over ~he past 20 years. "The study's plans and recommendations have been reviewed in terms of current needs and Town goals to achieve the Town's vision as articulaned in these 19 plans and studies as reviewed as part of the strategy. "These recommendations were consolidated and summarized to be considered by the Town Board for implementation in the form of amendments to Town procedures, the Town Code and various Town regulations in conformance with the Town's master plan. "As a result, the proposed project involves legislative changes and with no physical activities specifically proposed. "The Town Board intends to COURT REPORTING AND TRanSCRIPTION SERVICE 1631) $7~-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 initially consider all prior recommendations with an emphasis on those that protect farmland and open space, promote affordable housing and preserve natural resources. The Board may prioritize, narrow down or select implementation tools that bes~ achieve the goals of the Town." This section is really brought out -- this section is discussed in great detail. In Section 1 of the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement identifying those tools, the Town's goals and specifically laying out the proposed project that was considered. Now the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement, also known as the DGEIS, is an information gathering document that is intended to clearly describe the project, the existing environmental conditions, the proposed or future environmental conditions or impacms due to the project, and also to examine mitigation of potential impacts and explore alternatives to an proposed action. So that is what we're considering tonight, and that is what is in the various sections of the document. MS. SCOPAZ: Thank you, Chick. The next question that might be in your mind is who is involved in this process. As you see here we have Town Board members. We have Town Board members here; they're the lead agency. We have two councilmen of the Town Board, who are liaisons between the moratorium team and the Town Board, that is Councilman Tom Wickham and Councilman Bill Moore. Throughout the whole process we kept in touch with the Town Board through our liaison councilmen, and also through actual work sessions with the Town Board. Ail the ~embers are here tonight to receive your comments on this draft document. The team itself, we're going to introduce ourselves. We're a mix of people from the legal, planning and environmental professions. Two of ~he members are not here, that's Lisa Kombrick and Jim Gesualdi, both of 7 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 875-8047 1 2 9 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 them are attorneys. Lisa Kombrick is an attorney with extensive experience in Southampton Town. She's now in private practice. She was instrumental ii1 helping Southampton Town implement their version of the proposed rural incentive district. The other person, Jim Gesualdi, is an accredited member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. He's also an attorney at law, and he has a specialty in land use, planning and zoning matters. ~{e is a member of several professional organizations, and he's been recognized by the American Bar Association for his work in this area. I'm going to ask Melissa to give her own bio. MS. SPIRO: Thanks. Melissa Spiro, I'm a planner, have a Master's in planning from the University of Rhode Island. I've been working in the Town of Southald since 1988. I started working here for the Planning Board. My main focus was on the subdivision process and reviewing, and I work very closely with the Peconic Land Trust on a lots of subdivisions. I also worked closely with Valerie Scopaz and the Peconic Land Trust on the 1999 Farmland Inventory and Protecnion Strategy. And in the year 2000, the Town Board created a land preservation department and it was sort of a natural occurrence for me to be transferred over to that department, and I've been head of that department since it was created. Thanks. MR. VOORHIS: Chick Voorhis once again, and my background is varied. I started in environmental science, specifically environmental geology at Southampton College, and later I gained a Master's degree in environmental engineering at Stony Brook University. I nave been employed in government for ten },ears, including the position as Director of Environmental Protection for the Town of Brookhaven overseeing implementation strategies, wetlands programs, wildlife protection, environmental review and project review. I started in consulting practice 8 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE ~631; 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 in 1988 and have had several different firms, most currently the firm of Nelson, Pope and Voorhis. I'm a member of the American InstituSe of Certified Planners, which is a nationwide exam given by the American Planning Association, and I'm also a Certified Environmental Professional. MS. SPIRO: Patrick. MR. CLEARY: My name is Patrick Cleary. I'm a planner. I'm one of the planners on the team. I've been a practicing planner for about 23 years. I am the principal of Cleary Consulting; we're a planning firm located in Northport in Suffolk County. Prior to the inception of the firm in 1990, my experience was in municipal planning and private consulting as well. My undergraduate degree is in environmental science. My Master's degree is in planning from the University of Massachusetts. I also am a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. I am a licensed professional pla~ner in the State of New Jersey. I am a member of American Planning Association, Oberland Institute, American Society of Consulting Planners, and host of other professional organizanions. I'm on the national board of the American Society of Consulting Planners and our firm does work for municipal clients primarily throughout the entire metropolitan region. MS. SCOPAZ: Thank you. For those of you who don't know me, I'm Valerie Scopaz. I'm with t±~e Southold Town Planning Department since 1987. I've been in the field since 1979, prior to working here in Southold, I worked in various planning and zoning positions for the Town of Smithnown Planning and Community Development Department, and prior to that as a consultant for Long Island Regional Planning Board on the Waste Water Managemenn Plan. Other work experiences include research and writing for the Preservanion Foundation in Washington D.C. on vario~s coastal and groundwater resource protection issues, and I'm reviewing enviroi~mennal impact statements for federally funded transportation COURT REPORTING ~D TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE !631) 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 projects at the U.S. Department of Interior in Washington. I've also had the opportunity to travel ~o China as part of a people-no-people international planning delegation and to Scotland as part of the U.S.~-U.K. Countryside Stewardship Exchange. I'm also an accredited member of 5he American Institute of Certified Planners and also a member of the American Planning Association and the New York Planning Federation. Our reason for giving you nhis background is just to let you know who we are and what we do, so you have some idea where we're coming from. I also wane to mention to you -- SUPERVISOR HORTON: Valerie, as a note, we would like to star~ the Public Hearing portion at 7:30 promptly. MS. SCOPAZ: We have, as part of this project, we have pulled in together the work of the Town geographic information system staff, planning staff and other supporE s~aff. There has been an ongoing dialogue between the moratorium team and different department committees within Town Hall. We have met with the representatives of the Planning Board, Zoning Board and the Trustee Board, and we have talked with department heads and members of the highway, engineering, assessors building, building department and code enforcement officers. We have also talked with the Suffolk County Health Services and the Suffolk County Water Authority. This document has been circulated to many other public agencies in part of this review process, so we will be getting input from them as well as from you. This is for the public input, ~here's no final decision being made ~onight. There is no policy decisions being made, no recommendations being made. The next part of the presentation Pat's going 5o go into some of the requirements that we are required to fulfill. MR. CLEARY: That's right. Why nhis forma~ and why this tool and why this convenien~ document. ?he Town Board, serving 10 COURT REPORTING AND TEJ~xISCRIPTION SERVICE /631) 878-8047 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 as the lead agency in considering this group of action is required to address the State Environmental Quality Review Act. It's a law that requires a decision-making body to take a hard look at the environmental -- the potential environmental impacts of an action. And an action doesn't have to only be, as Chick mentioned earlier, the construcnion of a building or the subdivision of a parcel of land, in can be the adoption of rules or regulations. And that's really what we're looking at in this exercise. It's not the physical construction of something, but it's the rules that may in the fu5ure govern construction within the community. This action is called -- is classified as a Type 1 action, which is the highest level .Df sort of scrutiny, regulatory scrutiny that is offered under SEQRA, and as a result of that, the Town Board elected to prepare nhe Generic Environmen%al Impact Stauement as the best way to deal winh that level of review. The document itself is a Generic Environmental Impact Statement, as you heard earlier, and E~at means that the analysis in it is not specific to a particular consZruction protect. It is more generalized, and it addresses the consequences of the choices nhat are involved in uhis action. The project began, as Valerie mentioned, last summer. The Town Board authorized the creation of this moratorium team and this team has been working diligently since that time %0 assemble the manerial that's compiled in the impact statement that you have before you today. The moratorium team began immediately preparing nhe information that wenu into this document in anticipation of the Board's action to require the document. As Mr. Wickham described earlier, the pos. dec., the positive declaration requiring that it be done was adopted in January, public scoping was held in the end of January, where we had nhe opportunity to visit with many of you, final scope was adopted in April, and the documenn itself was accepted in the beginning COURT REPORTING AND TRia~SCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 part of May. Who, what, when, where. Where question: This is a Town-wide evaluation. And that's again a little bit different than the experience many of you might have had with impact statements. Some of the actions we're considering are site-specific but generally most of these reach the four corners ef the community, another reason why we're considering this a generic environmental review. So the where portion of it is the entire Town of Southold. Now the how piece. That's Chick. MR. VOORHIS: We're getting into some of the substance and basically we've been at work llsing state of the art geographic information system technology and software and hardware that the Town has invested in and made a commitment towards over the past year. This has been done with the assistance of John Sepenoski, head of the data processing department and a land preservation committee member. We've also researched planning techniques used on Long Island as well as across t~e country performing that research using web services, using different periodicals and journals, using direct contacts, Valerie has traveled ~o different parts of the country in order to gain information and brought it back here to evaluate it. Environmental impact analysis procedures were conducted consistent with industry practice in the manner that is prescribed by various literature. There was researc~ and fieldwork, actual fieldwork that was taking place during the course of the preparation of this document as well as modeling an analysis of the various facts that were collected. What we've done is created a compilation of the existing Town conditions based on current environmental facts and information, and a complete understanding and synthesis of all of the Town planning studies over the pas~ 20 years has been completed. This is very important no set the background 12 COURT REPORTING AND TPD/qSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to understand the direction of the Town and the context that we're working in. We also have a number of products that come out of this as a result and these are beneficial products that are with the Town forever really and can be built upon and used for Town planning purposes. These include a full update of the GEIS layers and graphic database. There's been a Town wetlands map prepared with field verification and various mapping techniques with aerial photography, checking cf soil types and land topography. Archaeological information has been collected, demographic information which recently became available through the U.S. 2000 Census has been co~isi~ered, and a full build-out analysis has been prepared as part of this. There's been a major effort toward tracking and statistics, so that we could understand the track record of the Town and how different land use ~ecisions have taken place in the past and consideration of planning board techniques, Town Boards policies, purchase of development rights and other aspects that the Town is using currently. There was a very substantial housing needs assessment from 1993 t~at has been updated for the purpose of this study, and housing opportunities and land use techniques have also been outlined. There's been a halnlet boundary designation inethodology created to help strengthen the hamlets and achieve sc~ne of the goals that the Town has Oeen look±ng at for many years. Efforts have been made towards tree preservation and outlining potential local law parameters that will be used in the future if this is one of the techniques that the Town wishes to consider. Also, planned development districts is a very useful technique that has come about in other par~s of Long Island and the Country that is incorporated into this. There has also been an examination of Suffolk County policy on transfer of developmen~ rights, looking at that as a potential ~oel, and many ether benefits that you'll see and reading the document and hear about tonight. 13 COURT REPORTING A_ND TR~JSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 ~low we have prepared and that you might want to get read},, just a couple of quick Power Poinm presentations to give you a more graphic feel for some of the work that's taking place. And while Patrick is setting up, the f,rst one involves the build-out analysis tha~ was painstakingly formed in order to u~dersuand the full theoretical build-ou~ ~f the Town under its current zoning. MR. CLEARY: Thanks, Chick. We want to s~end about five minutes to share with you the methodology that went into our build-out analysis. The build-out analysis was critical to us for a couple of reasons. The first and most the obvious is uhau in produced a window toward the future. It gave us an idea of how the Town might develop u~.Ser existing land use rules and existing zoning conditions. The second thing the build-out analysis did for us was it was a forum for us to sort of organize that data that Chick described no you. I~ was the framework that forced us to integraue with John and ~_he GEIS system, with all the informaticn ~hat exists in ~he community and put iu in~o a useable format. So iu did Ehat for us. ~ut ulEimately, what did the build-ouu ~o, it really tells us how much addimional growth will occur in the community and where. And that's under the existing land use and zoning controls tha~ are in plaice today. So our build-out analysis is an evaluation development potential based on existing zoning in the community today. ~ow that table that was handed out ~o you is a summary ~able of the build out. And what f'm going to do is sort of go through that with you so you have abeuter understanding of the methodology we used to prepare ~at. The build-out analysis was used -- the main tool for the build-out analysis was -- by nhe way, if you don't have a copy, we can certainly make additional copies for you, but i~'s also in the document and the ver~ues where uhe document's available as well. I uhink it's in uhe appendix. Chick, 14 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (6311 878~8047 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 do you know where it's referenced? we'll get that for The build-out analysis, again, the technology we used the GIS method, the technology to help us do these calculations, so effectively, the build-out involves six fundamental steps. We calculaned the land area within each of the zoning districts by parcel. We accounted for all the existing development ~hat's already in place in the community. Then we started to deduct things. We deducted lands that were already protected through the efforts of Melissa and so forth. ~e then deducted lands that probably wouldn'u get buil~ on, environmentally constrained land, wetlands and slopes and beaches and so forth then we added, we did the calculations; we added a yield factor and coverage factor that produced an estimate of future consuruction, and then we did the map. And the format of this, where this all is presented is in ~hat table that you have before you, which is the build-out matrix. What I'm going to do now is quickly go across from left to right and tell you what each of those columns mean. First column, Column 1 is just the zoning districts, and it identifies each of the communitL~'s zoning districts. Column 2 and Column 3 identifies the lot sizes for each of those particular zoning districts, again, the building block of our anal~sis. Number 4, Column 4 presents t~e yield factor. Now the yield factor is a number that we applied to estimate potential growth, a~d the best number we had available to us was Ehe number that the Long Island Regional Planning Board developed some years ago during ti~e 208 study. We evaluated that factor in a number of different ways. In our opinion it sEill remai~s the best yield factor we could appian. We then applied cow, rage factors to calculate non-residential growth, commercial growth, and nhat factor was based on actual approved projects within the Town, back for a number of years. We reviewed every approval and determined how much people were 15 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTIO}~ SERVICE !631) 878 8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 building on particular parcels; than was translated inEo a factor, and that's how we calculatel what would be built, and that was based on let coverage, which is basically the square footage, the footprint as a percentage of the lo5 i~self, as illustrated on that figure in front of you. ConEinuing across t~e table, Land Area by Zoning District, an exercise John helped us with. That calculated the acreage by zoning disErict. Column 7, Acreages of Protected Land. Continuing to move across, Community facilities, it was important for us tc understand what properties and what land would not ge5 devoted to potential new development in the funure, churches and schools, libraries, municipal facilities and so for5h. As you go across we stare to see subtotals, so we can keep the math straight as we run across 5he columns. Columns 10 and 11 are the develope{ nou-subdividable parcels in the Town. Those are the properties that have a use, have e residence, have a commercial structure 5ha~ could no5 be suOdivided no allow add±tional development to occur. We've taken accoun~ of those. We continue with the subtotal; then we continue from the subtotal 50 Column 13, which is the vacan5 non-suOdividable land; the same theory but in this case there are no buildings on that property which could not be further subdivided. SubtoZal again. T~en we go to Column 16, the developeO subdividable, again, these are properties that have a use, have a dwelling, have a colmnercial property that could be subdivided to create an additional yield. Se someone may have a large parcel that could be developed for additional uses. Then we tried to calculate out of that the developed part of the subdividable parcel, and ~he example is in 5he R40 one acre zoning Oistrict, if you had a three acre piece and there was a house on it we would assign one acre ~.~ nhat existing house, leaving two 16 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 acres of potentially buildable land, and that's hcw that mathemauical calculation was done. We then go to a subtotal again, on Column 19; then we move on to the deductions for ~hose environmental constraints that talked about earlier. We deducted from our calculatisn wetlands, properties that would not be devoted to uses because ~hey probably would nou ~[et a permit to build in a wetland. We did non - we calculated from than the portion of ~he wetland parcel uhat might be buil~ now, t~at's £he 90 percen~ wee vacant property. We then went to Column 22, Beaches and Bluffs. Again, we don'u expect te see developmen~ on beaches and bluffs, i5's in our gross land calculatiens, but we had ~o take them cut. Column 23, Slopes. We took 15 percent slopes as a maximum that we 5hought would not De constructed upon, we've got a lot of that in the communiSy, so we deducted steep slopes euE. We 5hen -- 24 is the NeE Subdividahle Areas te Develop. And wha5 that means is 5he Town has over nearly 9,000 acres of develepable land. Now we alse calculated existing development, what's there already; and we used our same technology and methodology' to evaluate that. And uhen Column 26 is the Developmenu Potential. Sounds pretty simple. And whau I'll do now is jusu give you a real quick example, going across and we're going uo ~ake the example of ~he R-80 district. If you follow R-80 across, you'll see these numbers. First, we have the total land by area by zoning, in this case over 7,000 acres. Then we start moving. We deduct protecned lands; we deducu community facilities. We have a subtotal. From that, we deduct developed non-subdividable. We're now aL 14,000 acres. You get a subtotal. We keep going. We deducn vacant, non-subdiviOable, just as I described prior, 17 COURT REPORTING AND TRL~SCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 before. We've got a subtotal. We deduct the developed part of that subdividable property, that's the illustration I showed you earlier. Following along, we have the subtitle, now we're deducting our wetlands. We've got 500 acres of those. Beaches and bluffs in that zeno, 136 acres, take it out. We've geu steep slopes almost 60 acres that conies out. And that equals net subdividable area to develop. Those are the figures we're trying to get to, 2,600 acres. Really cooking to get tnsse numbers. Then we do our calculation, the yield factor I described earlier and we take out those portions of those wet properties that could be built upon, and we have 1,300 units that could be constructed in the R-80 zoning district, and that's following across our example. Se we wanned te Eake that time to describe to you hew the build-out analysis was done. These are the findings, 6,333 dwellings could be constructed in addition to what's there now. An additional two and-a-half million square feet based en these formulas added to ~hat. Add that no what we've got, that's nearly 19,000 dwellings and potentially seven million square feet of commercial space under existing zoning controls, without preservation efforts in place. HR. VOORHIS: And it is important to understand that this is in effect a snapshot. That it's basically Ehe conditions 5haE could exist if no ether techniques were put into place. It limits these areas that are alreat5r protected, but it does no~ consider ~he ongoing programs and purchases of development rights and so forth. In's also important te establish this type ef procedure for repeatabili5y. So 5hat -- if you'll bear with me I'll get into the next presentation -- for repeatability, so that this can be simulated in the future. As changes hake place, you have a methodology, a spreadshee[ and you can go back in and use 18 COURT REPORTING .AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 those techniques again. As I said, it's the theoretical full build out projections. Now, what we're going to be doing is taking those projections and performing impact analyses en them to determine what type of growth could occur and what impacts might occur to various resources and commuuity facilities. As we have been talking about, we've looked at ~he build out potential under DGEIS existing zoning conditions. We've also looked at quantification of some ef the techniques that the Town is considering where there's widespread acceptance, we're looking to preserve 80 percent open space and agricultural areas and reduce density bi' 60 percent in some of the more critical areas of the Town. So this is the purpose of performihg in this exercise te compare those, and we've considered a number of resources in doing that; ef course, potable water, solid waste, traffic, school children, are some of the ~hings that are quantifiable and can be used as part of the simulation. We've analyzed the full impact of this development using a model and called it the "Region Impact Assessment Model." It was prepare~ using Excel spreadshee~ technology. I~'s used for ~he impact assessment ef build-out conditions and also to compare conditions under different scenarios. It's done by determining the impact on Town resources that will occur as a result of the increased number ef units and commercial square footage, as Pa~ has mentioned. We assume that the Town's existing zoning and deveiepmen~ controls remain in effect, and we've buil~ on ~ha~ build ~ut analysis ns perform this impact analysis. There are a number of components to the Regional Impact Assessment Model, and basicall) it's set up in a form where we have a data inpuu sheet that allows us to set our assumptions, use the various multipliers that are accepted in the planning and environmental fields. It prints out for each zoning districm those parameters and resource areas 19 COURT REPORTING AND TRf~qSCRIPTION SERVICE ~631} 878-8047 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 where we're able to quantify the results. There's an imbedded and micro computer model that simulates the concentration of nitrogen in recharge under full development conditions in each zoiling district, and there's a summary sheet that spits out ail Ehe data at the end, so that you can easily use zt for comparison purposes. The resources that are considered we have general use parameters and coverage; we need that for some of the groundwater pollution modeling. There's a water resource analysis component, demographic analysis for population of number of school age children. There's a tax revenue analysis in order to determine the number, the amount of taxes that would rescale from the build out; and that's very important in assessing school district Jmpacts. We've determined the number of school age children; we know how much tax revenue goes into the school district, and we can begin to look at that difference to see if we're in a surplus or deficit situation. There's a solid waste generation analysis and also a transporuation trip generation analysis. We've prepared multipliers based on infermation gained from the Town ~rough the Tax Assessor's office, the Solid Waste effice and reviewed tax bills, used U.S. Census data and training multipliers te se~ up this medel with ~he best infermatien possible. And, again, just a very brief example, we'll go across the AC district. This is wha~ the individual sheet loeks like t~at's in Appendix F-2A, and the build-euE analysis is in the Appendix attached. Loe~ing at it in mere detail, ~here are a number of tables see up that take the numbers available in that zening district and uses tha~ multiplier facEer to determine the number of uses. This is exactly out of ~he build-out analysis. The ceverage is established by assuming certain varias for rooms, recharge, natural areas, landscaped areas and home sites. And ~hat's important for the nltregen budget. 20 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 1631) 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 This water resource analysis looks at the sewage flows for each type of use and projects out the amount of sanitary waste that's generated that's used in the sonar model Eo compute nitrogen and recharge. In the AC district it's 1.78 milligrams per liter as compared to a drinking water standard of 10. So that shows that the Towr, does have low density zoning in those areas and resulting concentrations can develop. The demographic analysis looks at school age children in population. This is what the tax ravenue analysis looks like actually breaking down the tax revenue by each taxing jurisdiction so it could be determined what percentage of your taxes from that development would be received. The left box is the school tax analysis. That basically takes the number of school age children times t~e cost to educate those children and subtracts it from the taxes generated to tl~e school district, and in nhe case of AC, there's about a $6,000,000 deficit that is expected because residential -- single family residential development typically does not cover itself in terms of tax revenue, and you need other tax ranables such as industry and commercial activity in the various areas of the Town, and specifically% in the school districs. A salid waste analysis is applied, just take a number of pounds per person per days times t±~e number of people, and trip generation si[~ilarly is the number of trips per unit during the peak hours based on the number of dwellings. And that allows us no come up with this comparison of scenarios we've performed it for the full build-out condition, and, again, for the 80 percent land preservation and 60 percent density reduction in the AC and R 80 districts. The impact summary is a sheet at the en~ of the model that basically takes all of those zoni~g districts, totals tt~em up for each of the parameters that I just explained, and at t~e bottom gives you t~e final numbers in terms of each of those parameters. Some of the more interesting ones are than nitrogen 21 COURT REPORTING AND TR.~NSCRIPTION SERVICE {631/ 878 8047 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and recharge varies from in the high 1 to 2 parts per million or milligrams per meter range up to 6 er 6, and school district revenue, does end up being somewhat efa deficit, meaning the need te plan, seek State aid and insure that we have a proper mix of different uses in the community. T~ese are fairly intuitive. I'm not going to go through them in detail. But it just basically shows that in full build-out conditions, each of these areas increases in terms of sanitary water usage, trip generation all of those parameters. And basicall}r, in summary, if the Town's relnaining open space were fully developed in conformance with zenirtg, there would be a significant and quantifiable increase in these areas that we talked about. The next part involves an 80-60 analysis, and I'll just quickly scroll through. In considering the legislaEive actions, net all of them are quantifiable, but some are in par~icL~larly the open space ef 80 percent and the density reduction allow us to plug that in to these specific zoning districts to see what the result is. This is the resulting summary sheet that is also in Appendix 2A er a later one, 2B I believe. Axis there's a comparison that basically shows that under the Jensity reduction and open space preservation, Lhere is a $6,000,000 benefin in terms of taxes to the school district; there are ef course less units -- much of this is intuitive -- less people and se forth, Out it gives us sort of a baseline of ~uture projected conditions, and allows us te look at different scenarios and determine the measurable benefits ef those actions. These include a reduction in residential ~tnizs, reduce water use, nitrogen loading and increase preservation ef open space and ecological resources, a decrease in vehicular trips and a decrease in the number of school age children and deficits. And this is just a table that you can't see, bun it compares them in a little bit different fashion mhat, again, emphasizes those points that I discussed. 22 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 We're going to go into the next part. We have about ten minutes left, and we'll gee to the public portion. MR. CLEARY: Two quick final pieces we wanted to share with you that we thought we wanted to talk about. The first is the hamlets. When we wane into this exercise there was a lot of work that had been done and there was a great emphasis placed on the communiuy's i~amlets. And we suarted to work towar~ dealing with that issue, an~ no one could say where the edge of a hamlet was, where was the boundary of a particular hamlet, and we thought that was a bit of a concern, so what we decided to do was rake a detour and really focus a good deal of time on t~e hamlets. And Appendix 8A of the DGEIS presents a methodology of dealing with the hamlets. There's a two pronged approach. The first is we made an effort to create a boundary for each of the community's hamlets, a hard line, a line on the ground where the hamlet s~arts and where it ends. We then looked inside nhat boundary, and a lot of the evaluation to this point has revolved around keeping development away from the agricultz~ral areas and the open space areas and redirecting it into mite hamlets. So once we started to look inside those hamlet boundaries, we realizem there's not a lot of room left to build to redirect anything inZo the hamlems, so we were left with a Sit oI a problem. So that was the second piece of our approach. We tried to define t~e hamlets, and please take the time to look at t~at. And t~en we tried ~o develop a system that would encourage development in the immediate vicinity of the hamlets. And what we've created is a -- what we're calling a "Halo Zone," which is a floating zone that surrounds uhe hamlet, ~hat affords some addiuional density as an incentive to bring development from uhe outlying open space, agricultural areas, into t~e area immediately adjacent to the hamlets and in the hamlets, if that were possible. So I wanted to take a few minu~es ~o touch on that, as Appendix SA. 23 COURT REPORTING A~D TRA~SCRIPTION SERVICE /631) 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 A final piece that we looked at in this exercise if it's nothing else, it is a reaffirmation of that whole range of facts that govern the Town and apply to the Town and we looked a~ those that apply to housing and population. Housing is such a critical issue in a community, we wanted to make sure we had the facts right. We looked at population, and I am just going to 5ell you uhings you may already know, but some of it's kind of interesting. The 2000 population -- and this information was collected from the 2000 Census and a series of other demographic organizations and some of it was collected internally. The 2000 Census pegged the population in the commLulity at 20,599. By 2002, LIPA had esuimated its population had increased to 21,000; based on our work with the build-out analysis, saturation population and that other table you probably can't see too well, the saturation population, how many people that can fit in ~he community will be over 30,000, about 31,000 people. That's a lot of people. The population ~n the community is not evenly distributed; it's spread out among the hamleus unevenly. Souuhold holds the most wi5h over 5,000 followed by Matti5uck and Cutchogue. The age of you all, something to be aware of. The community is primarily middle a~ed, bur the ~astest growing portion of the community are the 65 and above. It's somethin~ Eo be keenly aware of as we plan for 5he fu5ure of the community. Housing units. There are 13,769 housing units as of the year 2000. Ninety percent of those are single family detached homes. That is a fairly limited range of housing opportunities. If we use our build-out models, 5he red indicates where we are. The yellow is err estzmate of full build-out, how many additional dwellings can be constructed, and we're talking about 6,000 additional dwelling units that could be constructed in the community,, for a total number ef ever 20,000 24 COURT REPORTING AND TR~,~SCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 dwelling units. The housing stock is old; some of you may Enow that by your efforts to maintain your dwellings. Well-maintained but old. Twenty-five percent of the buildings in Town were built prior to 1939. Occupancy date, however, is quine interesting; most people, that second bar !indicating), have occupied their dwellings within the last 10 years. Only 16 percent of the people in the community have lived in their home for over 30 years. It's kind of an interesting fact. The National Housing Opinion Survey that was done in the late '90s revealed some interesting statistics. Most people have a favorable opinion of their home; most people have a favorable opinion of their neighborhood. I don't know about their neighbors but their neighborhood. We looked at a whole range of additional demographic factors, households and group quaruers, special needs populations where grandparents were the primary caregiver in the community. But the one that Oecame most important to us was the elderly population, and this was a description of the elderly population by hamlet. That large bar shows Scu~hold accommodates most people that fall into t~at category in the community. We looked at employment, 16,682 people are in the work force in the community right now. Thirty-seven percent are in 5he professions, 26 percenE are in sales or office work, and interestingly, only 1.9 percent of the Town's work force are employed in agricultural or in the traditional maritime industry. I~'s an interesting fact. Incomes, the median household income in the year 2000 was nearly $50,000. The median family income was about $61,000. We are grea5er than the State average; we are substantially lower than the County average, only ]~iverhead is lower than Southold in nerms of median incomes. That's that table that describes that right there (indicating!. The income distribution, wages make up most of your iucome, but that purple 25 COURT REPORTING ~{D TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1S 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 slice, retirement income is a growing slice of the pie. Cost of housing, the 2000 Census indicated that the median value of a home in the community was $218,000. We had some questions about that, so we looked at the sale of every home in the community for t~e past three years, over 900 sales, accounting for over $336 million. In fact, the actual sales price for homes was $390,000, that was the average sale price. Quite an issue. That's a description of the sale prices, and it's interestingly distributed by communities. As you can see Fisher's Island, most of the more expensive homes were in Fisher's Island. Finally, to conclude en this piece, housing costs, the monthly housing ccsEs as recorded in the 2000 CeRsus. The average was ever $1,400 for individual mortgage payments, 41 percent of the people in the community devoted more than a quarter of their income te their monthly mortgage payment. C, ver 23 percent devoted over 35 percent of their monthls' income to meeting their mortgage payment. It was even worse for renters, 54 percent, over 25 percent of their monthly inc©me, a fully 41 percent ef people who rent homes in the community pa1, ever 35 percen~ ef their monthly income to pay for their rent. Se we wanted te touch base quickly. It's a very desirable community. It remains so. The populauien continues to increase. Housing opportunities are at this point limited, and the housing costs are rising rapid£y. It's an issue of supply and demand. Se we wanted te share that with you as well. HR. VOORHIS: We're just going to quickly go through -- SUPERVISOR HORTON: Much left? MR. VOORHIS: I'm sorry, ge ahead. much left? rules, ,~UPERVImOR HORTON: Do you have [,'IR. VOORHIS: Very briefly, ground procedures and so forth. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Okay, continue 26 COURT REPORTING AND TRAi>ISCRIPTION SERVICE (631; 878-8047 2 8 10 13 17 17 2O 22 23 24 25 with than. HR. VOORHIS: And basically, as you know, we're here to receive your input t~is evening, that's the purpose of this hearing, that's the purpose of the circulation of the document throughout the community. And the DGEIS has been compared to the Scope and accepted by this Board, but it's just a draft document. It really dcesn't become fiaal until we have the comments throughout the comment period, and these are addressed satisfactorily. Ne decisions have been made at all en this project, and the purpose of this hearing is te make sure that we've gathered the information, that we have assessed the impacts and that we are essentially putting them forward into the decision-making process. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Chick, if you don'5 mind, I'm going to actually intervene at this point. We have been an hour into this hearing, and over 5he course of that time, more and more people are arriving. I have people down both wings, both hallways of Town Hall, and in the interest of having this as a truly open meeting and one in which everyone can get a seat and have the opportunity to participate in this meeting, please understand this and uake t~is lightly and work with me, bu~ I'm going to recess and reconvene the meeting this evening at Southold High School in the Southold High School auditorium. I understand t~at may be a bit of disruption to this meeting, but, again, in all fairness to everybody who's here tonight, standing all the way down the hallway, both sides of the building, I think it's a prudent move to do. So, at this point, we're going to recess, and we'll give people some time to get there. We'll reconvene at 8:00, commencing the meeting at 8:00 sharply. At the Southold High School in nhe auditorium. HR. VAN BOURGONDIEN: Josh, do'you think in than half-hour you can get Louisa Evans and Bill Moore here? 'Phis is one of the most important things that is taking place in Southold, an~ two Board members are missing. I'm not a happy camper. 27 COURT REPORTING ~/{D TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE ~631) 878-8047 1 2 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SUPERVISOR HORTON: Mr. Van Bourgondien, thank Vou. Eight o'clock and please do attend. We'll be reconvening a~ Sounhold High School auditorium at 8:00. ~Whereupon, at 7:30 p.m. the Public Hearing was adjourned to recommence at 8:00 p.m. at the Southold High School auditorium located at 420 Oaklawn Avenue in Southold, New York.) SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you for your patience in working with us to reconvene this public hearing on the Southold Town Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement. ~4osU of you, I believe, were at Town Hall with us as the, according to our consultants and planners, gave a Power Point presentation and some brief explanation as ~o what this document is. At this point, I'm going to open the floor to the general public to address the Town Board on t~is document itself, specific comments on uhis document. I will ask, we have a number of people here ~onight, we'll have uo do our best to limit our commenus to about five minutes, if we can, in the interest of everybody who's here who would like to share. As we mentioned, commencing of this Public Hearing, that we will have two other public meetings, public hearings on this document, June 23rd and June 24th, and that the place was initially a~ Town Hall, and I'm going to have to do some more fancy footwork to see if this is going to continue to be our place of meeting for t~ese public hearings. So at this point, what I'll do is I'll open the floor to the public and ~sk you to give a show of hands, and, if when you do address the Town Board, it's very important in keeping an accurate public record than you snare your name and place of residence clearly in the microphone located here in t~e oenter aisle of uhe auditorium, your name and place of residence, please. And at that point there's also a sheet if you wouldn't mind just jotting your name and the hamlet in which you reside on that s~eeu. So I will open the floor to the 28 COURT REPORTING ~P~ND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 public for comment on the DGEIS. Mr. Krupski. MR. KRUPSKI: Good evening. Albert Krupski, Jr., East Cutchogue. I'd like to address the Board and the Team tonight, not as a member of the farming community, I'll save that for a separate night. [ don't want ~o confuse ~wo different issues. I'd like to address the Bcard and the Team as a Town Trustee and Presiden~ of the Town Trustees. This year, for the past few years, I've been on uhe Board. I was first elected in 1985. There are currently two Board members here uonight, Hiss Foster and Peggy Dickerson. We ~ad our last Board meeting last night at Town Hall, and I'm here really not to comlnent on the draft because we have had a hard time get~ing copies. And that's -- my comment tonight is that last Friday we had to really beg for a copy. Thank goodness Betty Neville, who always comes through, came through with a copy. I reviewed it somewhat over the weekend, certainly not completely. I gave it to Jim Cain; he reviewed it somewhat. He gave it uo Peggy and iu hasn't quite made it around ~he Board, and it hasn't been reviewed at all by our attorney either, who I t~eard, about three hours ago, did get a cop~,. I think when you spend $200,000 on someuhing that's supposed to be importanE for ~he Town, it would be important if it were coordinated with all concerned agencies. For those of you who don't know, the Town Trustees have jurisdiction over the wetlands and underwater land in Sout~old Town. Our jurisdiction goes back to 1676 Governor Andrews of New York issued a Colonial patent, and it gave Ehe Town the ownership of the underwater land among other things. The Town still owns us. We alsc, have jurisdiction under Chapter 97 of all activity within one hundred feet of ~hose wetlands. Now ~he only thing I noticed in my short and brief and incomplete review ,of the document is that it said that the Town 29 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631} 878~8047 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Planning Board issues freshwater wetland permits, and I just want to make that clear that I do know how many wetlands permits the Town Board of Trustees issued this year and last year and for the last 18 years. Ail the of them. An~, so I want to request more time for our Board 5o give this document a thorough review, so than we can make comments on what's actually in it, and not speculate as to which direction it's going or whatever, 'cause that's not fair to ute document or ute people who worked on So, I don'n know how much time would be necessary. Next Monday seems like a stretch, considering that I believe not all Board members here have a copy. I do not have one. I haven't had one for a few days, and I would like to give it a fair review. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Mr. Krupski. Mr. Esseks. MR. ESSEKS: Good evening. My name is Bill Esseks. I'm an attorney. I practice in Riverhead and I believe I'm knowledgeable about the SBQRA process. I appear here representing many farm families. I'm going to have to put them in writing, including Dr. Damianos and various property owners. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Speak into the mike, please. MR. ESSEKS: I apologize. My name is Bill Esseks. I'm a lawyer. I represent a lot of farm families I'm here to speak with regards to the Drafu Generic Environmental Impact Statemenu. But I'm also speaking with regard to what I perceive to be the purpose of the process and Ehe alternatives especially the so called 80-60 alternative, and I wanu to preface what · said have to sa}', and I hope it could be more than five minutes because I represent more than one party - I want read from Armstronq versus the United Suates, and this is something Ehat everybody should take into account when uhey read the draft. That is, "That the Fifth Amendment guarantees COURT REPORTING AND TRAi~SCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that private property shall not be taken for private use without just compensation" -- that means money - "was designed to bar government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, ii1 all fairness and justice, should be born by the public at whole." In many ways, that's whan we're talking about here tonight, and that's what's being discussed in the Draft Environmental Impact Stanement. I'm upse~ ~hat you don't have a map up showing all the green and where all the houses are and where all the farms are and where the AC district is and where the R-80 district is. That map, showing in colors how the Town is laid out, where the housing is, where the open space is and where the farmers are, tells a story much larger than all the words that I ca~ sa}, or all uhe consultants can say or you can say. The 80 60 proposal, that is, for those who haven't read this or heard abouu it, would mean that today on 100 acres, a farmer could have today about 47 lots; two-acre zoned, 50 percent open space, 47 lots on 100 acres. Under the proposal, it's going to go ~e five acres instead of two acres and you're going ~e have 16 te 17 lots en 20 percen~ of the property, and 80 percent will be open. And if someone wants to turn their 100 acres or 200 acres into a subdivision, you're going mo have to. put an agricultural easement on 80 percent. And beyond tNat, there is the perceptioh or the specific statement that a purpose for doing this is to preserve the public view across this farm shed. In effect, a view easement is being demanded of the person who owns the open space, ~he farmland or the R~80, in exchange for using thaz property. where a Town ~oard if it says that we're going public use for neighbors itinerants in senzing up are saying that you, the of this vacanz property, now zoned R-80 And I submiE that it does this ~- where to take inno account or zravelers or our land plan, who owners these large tracts, er AC, are new going te have to 31 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 give up part of their property, their right to use their property, an,9 to allow a view across it; that is something tt~e public should pay for as oppose~ to the farmer giving up. And that is a challenge than I hope doesn't go any further than the SEQRA process. IX the Town Board is bound and determined to acquire easements over 80 percent of these properties, there are different ways to go about it. The easiest way is to pa}' for it; to negotiate it. That is the traditional way where people acquire these things. I do not see an examination of that in the EIS. Another way ts do .it is to condemn it. If a property owner is builhe~ded and says I won't sell, you have a righ~ to condemn it. You'd have that power. Then a court fixes the just compensation. I don't see an examination of that, a review of ~hat. I think that's missing from the SEQRA process. Another thing you can do is you ask te set up an Improvement District. You have improvement districts for otter purpsses, highways, water, lighting, park. In those districts, each person in their district, in their tax bill has an extra line that sovers tha~ improvemenn. You could have an improvement district for acquisition of easements, £hey'd be view easements. If that is such a valuable proper~y right, valuable public amenity that you're going ~o force somebody to give i~ up, consider, besides negotiation and co~demnatien, consider repaying theln through an improvement district. However, all I see in the DGEIS is the aEtempE under the police power te ~ake it away without cempe~isation and without providing a remedy whereby you can get money for it. There is a brief - I think, I may finO it -- Oh, here it is the TDR idea. The TDR law tha~ has been upheld so far, so far I should say, it required the State and County to put up I think i~'s the sum of 125 or $130 million in the bank. I do net believe ~haE you should co~e up with a TDR program or an involuntary TDR program without having a huge bank account. 32 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631} 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I also heard earlier this evening some concerns about TDRs, where you would put them in the downtown areas that are already built up. But a TDR, unless it's evaluated based upon where it's coming from instead of all being treated the same regardless of their location, I believe is unconstitutional. To have a piece of the land on 59th Street and Park Avenue treated the same way as a piece of property in Queens or the Bronx can't be proper. They have different values, and I don't see any discussion about than at all. I'd like to discuss some of the issues that I think are specifically not covered in the DGEIS, the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement. The first is lack of consideration of the condemnation alternative, lack of consideration of the purchase alternative, lack of consideration of the improvement district alternative, lack of consideration of the effect of this requirement, 80-60, upon the existing -- I understand very successful -- sale and developmen~ rights program. Than program is working well. I'm told by my clients nhat that is the subject of thousands of acres over the years being re~ired volunmarily at negotiated prices. Now, what's going to happen to that if you're going to take thousands of acres involuntarily, or say if you want to develop your property, if you want te subdivide it the way everybody else does, you're going to have te give up 80 percent. What's that going to de to the voluntary program? I don't see that being discussed. There is another issue being discussed that's allied to the ones I just touched on, a~d that is the transfer of value. And I hope, Mr. Supervisor, a~ the next hearing, you'll have a large map with all ~he colors on it, so that the people can look at it and people can point te it. Because if you look at that map, you can see tha~ certain properties would be very heavily benefitted by this involuntarily. Sa as the farmer's value goes 33 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 down, he is restricted to only 20 percent of his property. And if that view easement is as valuable as 5hey seem to be saying in their Environmental Impact Statement, that right to a view, and nhat perpetual right to the view easement is going to result in other properties going up in value. Now, have we studied than? Have you snudied that? And what is going to happen to nhe taxation? The Town's naxes remain relanively constant going up, and, nhe farmers and 5he open space parcels are paying a percentage, ~rou're going to take nhat down with the 80-20, and you're going to give a reported right to other people and their naxes are going to go up. Do nhey know than? Have you told the public nhat you're going to enhance the value of their property; and, nhereby, nhe assessor is going to be able no increase the value of nheir property for uax purposes? Have you measured that? Should you measure that? And if you failed to measure that, are you no5 violating your duties as the lead agency in this proposed rezoning? What is the effect of this going to have on the funure of farming? The farming on the south £ork is not doing as well as it should, and I spend a lot of time there so I don't want ~o start a fight with nhem. But from my knowledge, the farming is doing reasonably well here in the future, and what are you going to do to uhat? I mention that because if I have a commercial building, I can practice my business in that commercial building, make a living there, the commercial business and my land and building are going 5© go up in value with the passage of time. I'm getting a double reward. I'm making money and my equity's increasing. Yau're telling 5he farmer 5hat you are the only person in ~h~s town who has a business where you can Ery no make a living, bun we're going to make your equity go down. Has than been decided? Has nhat been discussed? Has 5han been analyzed? Is than fair? i'm not sure that we'd deal with fairness in than part of my discussion, but 34 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 just in the process, has that process been analyzed? Some people say that after they adjust that hopefully after a dip, you'll ssart to go up. But if everybody else is going up like Ehis (indicating}, and 5he farmer is going up like this lindicasing), you have chosen that person, that entity, that person, that lousiness, to be treated differently than anyone else and that's net fair. IEhink it may not be legal, but it's certainly not fair. There is discussion as te what farmer's are going to De able ~o de once they subdivide their property 80-20 percent. Part of that choice is you're going to have 5e tell, the Town's going te be involved where the greenhouses go and the fences ge and where things go tha5 might interfere with the view. It's interesting that the view from the public that's coming in from the city and from Riverhead, from the west or the view from the local people, which is a different issue, but who's going to decide; who's going to make these decisions? I don't think that's been thought through. When I was here in January, the Supervisor of East Hampton came in and spoke very eloquently. He said, you know what you're doing even thinking about this? You people knew about the trade parade. I see in the DGEIS that there's a question abeu5 traffic. Your traffic is going Ee increase. As you raise the value ef the houses, as you increase style, if you can reduce it eno~gh -- bi' doing this, in spite of the rezoning, is going to reduce, quite dramatically, the number of housing units that can be available. As you do that, you drive up the value remaining houses, supply and demand. I heard that mentioned by a consul5ant earlier 5his evening. When you reduce that supply, demand doesn't go down, the demand ac[ually goes up because the place is a more desirable place to live, and the cost of housing goes up; as 5he cost of housing goes up, you drive out your middle class. You go talk to 5he supervisors in 35 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878 8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 East Hampton, Southampton, you'll find out that everybody who works -- virtually everybody who works in the schools or the town halls or for any utility, or for any people who do the work, the plumbers. Rich people can't do a datum thing. It has to be the people who come from somewhere else that come in here, clog up the roads. I don't think that's been thought about. A perfect example, and you should put it in },our Impact Statement, you should analyze it, is go find out where the school teachers are, where they live. The}, san't live in the Hamp~ons. They can't even get te work. Like tomorrow, I'm going to ge te my Watermill office. I'm going te leave at 5:30 to get there; it I leave any later, I'll be with all the plumbers and electricians in bumper te bumper traffic. I don't see that being analyzed in },our Impact Statement and you should do it. Now, the next to the last thing is something that )ou should consider, and to the extent that I can, I try to insisE that you put it in your Impact Statement. Right new, I'm involved, as the papers will tell you and others are involved in the formations ef villages in the Town of Southampton. And those villages are being formed because public property owners don't trust the Town Board. They feel they have been lied to, cheated, taken advantage of, and they vote with their veto. They don't leave the community, they leave the town. They form their own villa7e. It's not hard. You need five square miles and 500 houses. That alternative mus~ now, I submit, be a part of your examination, },our review. I'm net making that up. This happened once already in the Town of Southampton. It is happening while we stand here, and I'm involved in a third one there. It is not a big deal. We can either get annexed or secede; you get your own zoning; you rent your own firemen -- no~ firemen, the pe£ice and everything else. It's not a big deal. That should be addressed because you're supposed to take into account in 5,our DGEIS tko natural consequences er even 36 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 1631) 878-8047 37 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the unnatural consequences of what you're doing, and what you're doing is you're revving people up to ie things that you may not want them te do. Finally, I said in January and I say new, notwithstanding what anyone else says, if you don't de an economic analyze, you're going ~e make in much easier for me to bring a lawsuit to set aside DGEIS. If your consultants tel£ you you don't have to do it, more power to you. I shouldn't complain, I'm net going to spend more time on it, but you're foolish not to do the economic analysis. I hope to come back and argue with you some more. I hope that you'll have some maps up se we can point out who ge~s ~he benefits of this change ef zoning and who gets hur~. I hope y©ur consultants will agree with seine of what I say, and change, put in ~he supplement, ~ake into account my suggestions. And I thank ysu very much for your attention. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Hr. Esseks. Sir, in the blue shirt, Mr. Weir. And I guess at this point it's probably righ~ for me te say that limiting our comlnents to five minutes is not practical, and this is a weighty document, so I will afford the public, each and every person, as much time as they need to address the Town Board. HR. WEIR: Steve Weir. I'm not a lawyer se it pr.~bably won't take me more than five minutes. Greetings, my name is Stephen Weir. I live in Riverhead. I'm the Vice-Presiden~ [or First Pioneer Farm Credit. I'm in charge of well over S100 million in loans te Long Island's agriculture. A good portion of those loans are outstanding to Southold's farmers and are secured by Southold's farmland. In February 2003, ~he Suffolk County Farmland Protection Board and Agricultural Economic Committee, of which I am a member of, i~ested an expert dinner speaker series in Polish Hall in Riverhead. The first speaker was Nathan Rudgers, the Commissioner COURT REPORTING ~I~D TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of Agricultural for New York State. He spoke on transit agricultural and farmland nse, nationally, statewide and on Long Island. One amazing fact stood out to me: Over the past ten years, millions of acres of faruiiand have been lost in New York State. Lost not to development, but to what the commissioner calls fallow uses. The reasons given all pointed to a lack of an economically viable farm industry in the affected areas. Farming disappeared; so did the farmland and so did the open space. It appears that you can't have farmland without an economically viable farm industry. So at Farm Credit, we were very surprised to see no economic or financial anal?sis on Sou~hold's agricultural industries and its farmland in the DGEIS. I would have thought Ehat that needs to be done. The lack of nhau analysis is of great concern to our industry and ~ere's why: The DGEIS is proposing significant changes to Southold's agricultural industries, including a limiuation on the number and density of development units allcwed on farmland. These proposed initiatives offer changes to the economic equilibrium which exisE today in Southold's agricultural indusEries. Zoning changes of upzoned land are likely to decrease the value of farmland and farmer's equity. The impact on farmland values resulting from the 80 percent open space requirement in Southold is unknown. This report did not present an analysis of the impact on farmland values. In aOdition, this report didn't present an analysis on the impact that lowered farmland values would nave on Southold's agricultural industries. From our experience, the impact of lower farmland values can be significant and here's why: Farmer's use land to produce farm products that are solo for profit. Farmers will keep farming if they can reasonably exEecu Ehat profits will continue in fuuure years. Unforuunately, farm profits are predictable and generally low. So the farmers rely on their real estate assets for financial 38 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (6311 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 !1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 security in oil years. Farmers rely on land as a source of financial sesurity that they expect will appreciate in value over time. If a farmer's perspective of future appreciation changes, their financial security is diminished. Facing low profits, lower expected real estate appreciation, farmers will be more likely ~o give up farming. Real estate is a cornerstone of agricultural enterprises; reducing real estate values i~i~errupts business structure and permanently endangers the health of agricultural in many ways. First, lowered land values reduce farlner's equity. Equity of a borrower is a key component in making a loan decision. The higher the equity the more likely loan approval can be granted. Second, lower equity also reduces a farmland owz~er's ability to survive the bad years. Agricultural has historically been plagued by periodic and unpredictable years of poor earnings and losses; this year is setting up to be just one of those years. In order to survive those bad years farmers use their land to cover those losses either by pledging real esuaEe for loans or in Long Island selling off development rights. Third, lowered land values reduce the amount of csllateral that farmers have available to pledge. Southold's farming is a capital inter, sire business with huge financial requirements. Debt has long been a necessary component of running a farm business. In our agricultural economy, reduced land values will reduce farmers' ability uo borrow from Farm Credit eno from otter lenders. Fourth, decreasing land values motivate farmers to sell real estate. Farmers will want to preserve their equity to selling real estate now no avoid further losses down ~he road. This is especially true if lowered land values result from conditions that a farmer cannot c:Dntrol, such as regulation and public policy. The great news is that Southold is blessed with great farmers, great natural 39 COURT REPORTING AlqD TPJ~NSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 resources, access to great markets, access to capital and an established infrastruc5ure. It is our opinion uhat this plan will interrupt th=t. By how much? In reading this report, we can only gL~ess. Guessing in a business as serious as farming is a risk most of us can't afford to take. Since farmland protection is a staned goal of this report, we can't understand why you didn't consider the economic impacn on farmland and the farming industry in Sounhold. Thank you. MR. VAN BOURGONDIEN: Good e,~ening, Ladies and gentlemen. I'm really still upsen %hat Louisa isn't here. Thank you, Bill, 5h±s is a very important issue. At this poin~ I'd like to acknowledge AUDIENCE: Speak up. MR. VAN BOURGONDIEN: My name is Bob Van Bourgondien. I had the pleasure of speaking 5o Mrs. Egan lash night, and I don't know if the moratorium %eam knows anything abouu the dynamics of a farm and a farm family, not only that, I don'5 ~hink they understand the dynamics involved in turning than farm over 50 the next generanion. I am very proud [o be a third generation farmer, an~ it's taken a lot of equity in the business 5o continue. I've seen a lot of equity in the business non there. We would non have been able to conuinue farming withoun it. S,~ nha~ definitely has not been naken into accounZ. There is a secio-economic I know we accounted for; I thought it was 2.4 percent of the populatiz, n, and before we lef5 the enher hall E unters5and we accounted for 1.4 percent. To ,tnderstand how we gon here ~onight, we need ~o go hack in time. Around Harch 2000, a five acre zoning was announced wi5h Ben Ruiowski and a quote that s5ill resonates with ~ne today is, Bob, don't worry, five acre zoning will make it easier to develop your prz. per%y. Haybe he meant that you might wanz ~o deve£ep it if it goes to five acres. Ahl conversations with Scott 40 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Russell, who i~,Eormed me that this was not in the best interest of agriculture. He couldn't understand what the otter side of Town Hall was trying to cio to agriculture. In fact, he spoke on the farmer's behalf on the first informational meeting as Chair of the Agricultural Advisory Committee asking for a list that would affect farmers and landowners. Ge~e Cochran attempted to thwart that list. A £ew other things bothered me along the road. There's a comment at the firs~ informational meeting when Greg Yakaboski said under five acre zoning with a one acre cluster effectively sterilizes four other acres. ~hat fair-minded Southold landowner would~'t cringe over that comment? Wit[~ that said, it's ironic that exactly two yeP~rs ago today, on June 19, 2000, Soutnold farmers had their tractor rally. This was a peaceful display of dissatisfaction with the South+id Town Board's five acre upzoning proposition. On June 28th -- coincidentally is my birthday -- Sen~tor LaValle in the year 2001 sent a letter to Gene Cochran, offered to explore preservation efforts along with Assemblywoman Acampora and the Governor, along with Farm Bureau's Long Island director in conjunction with the Town Board. It's obvious than the Board ueglected to explore this tremendous opportuni~i,'. I can o1~1'? imagine Gene's retort to Senator LaValle: It's my way or the highway. Well, we know what having an attitude does. Obvionsly someone hit the highway. A~ everl' opportunity the agricultural ccmmu~ity has tried to prompt preservation as the Oest and fairest way to preserve Southc, ld. Now, I'm going to fast forward beca~ase there's a lot of people, fair minded pecN. ie cf Southold really cringing - sc: I'm going to fast forward. At a recent meeting that Scott Russell put together with some of farmers and Tim Cauifield of the Peco:~ic Land Trust, we met with Craig Ric[~ner; E~at was about two months ago, so I've stripped a lot of time in between. COURT REPORTING f~D TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047 42 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Among Scott's proposals, he suggested extending the moratorium for another two years to get all the tools in place for preservation. £very farmer is different, all the tools need no put in place for farmers of different types and different farm family situations to ~nake L~se of those tools. The comment, one of the comments that Craig made was they'll lynch me. Hmmm. One only has to wonder -- SOS and extend the moratorium. And I kind of ~:2ubt that the N.F.E.C. has extended the m6raterium under the current rules. Rmmm. makes one wonder. As Chair of the Agricultural Advisory Comminnee, I want all ef agriculture to t~rive and ~'~olve, whether it's sod, horses, grapes, vegetables, nurseries and my competitors, as well as Bob Van Beurgondien, Third Generatic~ Farm Family and centinue to the feurth and Eift~ generation. I object streauously to a lot of the flaws in this document that might make that very difficult fcr my farm family. However, I'm becoming increasingly cc,nvinced the four republican Boart members don't care about 5he Van Bourgondiens or o~her SoutholO families for tha~ matter; otherwise, over the last two years they woui,t be working with us on the other tools. I .also question why there's a proklem with n.~.E having enough money to con5inue preser.~ing what we were preserving. The Oommunity ~reservation Fund goes to the year 2020. We brought in three and-a-half million dollars. Whau are we going to bring in is that tiscussed in the GEIS, what kind of monies we'r= going to bring in for farmland preservation? T~e County accounts for farmland preservation in the N.F.E.C. and gets a little bi~ bilger piece of the pie. I think that ought to ~e and instead of knocking heads, we'd gat a lot further and be a lot fairer no a lo~ of people in 5his Town. I ..~,}n'u gs any further than this. Thank you. HR. SCHRIEVER: My name is William Scnriever and live in Orient. I've been there fer 50 years. I've been living in COURT REPORTING AND TR}2~SCRiPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 California the last 16 years part time, and I moved back her.~. So I'm now 100 percent resident. You know, I've been working in a Town out there, city called Fremont, which is the fourth lar-pest city in the Bay area. It's about ten times: the size of this town and, of course, there's corresponding issues and much more activit5' zt this type, and I've had a lot of experience with these environmental impact staLements, anz~ these opportunities to interact with ~he government. And I can tell you that this is without a doubt the most useful part of the interaction between the public and the government, because for when one of these d._cuments is prepared, the gcvernment has L.D dig back in its files and cough up all this information, which you could never get otheYwise. And they got to tell the truth. And ~h~/ get to give it to you straight. An~ ~'s just a wonderful opportunity tc Eind out what's going on. I learned a lot by reading this, and not se muci~ the text, but in the various attachments ~o ~his thing there were a lot of useful infor~ation. So it's a very useful thing. But the other thing that's se nice at, out it is when you make a comment, or you ask a question, they have to answer it. I mean, they're . biigated to answer every question you ask, eno that's something. You never get that 5ppor~unity at any ether time. Se take advantage ef it. If you ask a question, they have to give you an answer in writing and iE 5¥ill be published. So this is },our time to shine. I ]use want to -- I haven't written my comti~_~lU_ ©ut. I've been on this thing; I'ln bicker:' eyed. I've c~ene nothing but ellis for ten d:~,s, and I can't say ~hat I have read it all, b~Nz I have struggled with trying to understan~ [k. And in writing up my com~nent, I came to an interesting conclusion that I just ge~ to share with you, and that is that in attempting to preserve the farmland, which is the chi!,' pare of this thing that I'm really interested in, there is an interesting paradox, and ~h.xt is, as I interpret it, and 43 COURT REPORTING AND TRY2qSCRiPYIC, N SERVICE (631) 878 8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I'm not a lawyer I have great respect for B.11 Esseks, ahi I really appreciated what he said, and I hope he will work on this -- bun what I'm interpreting out of what I'm observing is uhxE the Town could zone all of the farmland, if i~ didn't pick and choose but it just teak all of the farmland, it could zone it to prohibiE residential development, uhe AC zone, which was contemplated and then apparenuly for ?omo reason dropped. Now, uhe way I interpret what I have seen, like in the taking of my wetlands and so forth, wi~enever the government does the same thing ho ,il members of the class, it seems that it'. fair regardless of what the outcome is. iL i,'c,u went from quarter acre to half-acre, to eno acre to two acre, for every eight developmenu rights -- so you lost seven-eighths of wnau you had, nobody ever compensated you for that, and now you' re fighting over khe las~ scraps basically. So, if you simply xene to prohibit residential development Ch rna farmland, and you do it to all members of ~he class, the way I interpret it, it appears ~o me that there's no c~mputation rej,~zred. You didn't compensate all the other u~_mes you took t~e development rmghts. The she eighth that are left, if you take that one msre, but you do it in the same wa,_,, that you .k. all ERe others, I don't see any reason wh~ .'~.u caN't take the las~ eno. In ali th= e~her zoning activities, they take away righ~-: and stuff, and they never c:cmpensaEe you. Bu~ uno interesting thing and the paradox comes ~ rsm uh<_~ fact that if they zoned fcr say five ezra zone, just no use the currenm exampia, if you zone for five acre zoning the same farmland, and then you want to take away the ~±g~ts ~o develop that as residential property, you end up having to buy back all those rzg~ts that you gave the parties in the zoning; in other words, you're gr.~ing them th~ righms that you're going to have to turn Rr~unO and tax the hell out of everybody to io~iv it back. And this is the paradox. The ©nly way to preserve farmland 44 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCNIPTIC, N SERVICE (631} 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is to snarn out b), simply prohibiting the developmenn ol r~iiat farm. That is the only wa,_,' you will e.~z- preserve it. Now, the next question is: Is there a need t~ compeusate the farmer for the ia. ss of those .~levelopment rights? And I'm sure, if you ck in f~irly, I don't think there legally is. I ~l~ink that maybe you may feel some obligati~n~ ~o do it, and apparenzly there is some sort c._ sonsensus that we should do it, bu~ nhe iht=resting thing is nhaz there is a way to do it ~nd non tax anybody, but to, in effect, my payin~ the farmers in development rights, which they canno~ use on their own land, and then ~llowing them ~o sell those developmenu rights to o~her people, who have land on wl~ich nhey can use chem. You can make all the new de~.=lopment that comes into a Town repay the far~,,=~s for the loss of their ~evelopment ri~hus without doing any purchasing of !evelopment rights in the conventional s~nse at all. I ~an chis, as I see in, is an extremely attrns~ive option. I have not wrinten in up ~=~. I'm going mo wrize it up in great detail as fast as I can. I don'z know than I'll have in by the nexc meeting, but it is a ccu?ept which I think shows a lot of promise. B~t you can'c staru by giving the farmers the rz ~ to develop their property, 'cause once y~:.~ ,.~o ~h~, you're giving them a r~ght that yo~'re going to have to buy back, and we can't afford to buy all that land thas's just n,~.u possible. So ~¥e've got to figure ou5 some wai,~ ~o compens~ue nhe farmers by making the people who do ~evelop land pay money to the f~rmers uhaE ~[~ farmers could have gotten if they had deveieped their own land, and i~'s a way that I bel~.~'~e will work. On- of tl~e commen~s in this buried deeply in this iccument, there's a comment tha5 the transfer of development righ5s won't wcrk on farmla~.l because of some heal5h department resK~-ic~ion about nitrogen or scme5hing. Th,~-. said it would work on open space, but it w3~ldn't work on farmland. I dcn'n know any m~re nhan I just read it in the COURT REPORTII,IS A~£, TRANSC~.±PTIO1J SERVICE (631) 878 8047 46 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 book, but it's interesting. If you don't -- if Ehe farmer never has had development rights on his own lan:l, then you're never tr_~nsferring a [evelopmenn right from Ehat land to any ouh.~ land, and, therefore, that niErogen on than land has no bearing on the whole process. Ail you're doing is giving a farmer a ticke~ ~_haE he can cash in to ge5 his compensation, leu're just paying him out of the monies thai are paid you for the right to develop other ~operties. And his own land, there was neve~ any development righ5 on that land; and, therefore, 5here was nothing for the nealnh de[~,,rnmenn purposes. You're never -- yOU' 1~ ~ieTer transferring a development riqn~. You' re simply handing him ~he ticket than he can cash. Se it's a problem only cf a financial transaction r~ther than a Eransfe~ of development rights. Sc. i~'s very importan~ in my opinion, if you wane Eo preserve farmland, you cannot issue d='~elopmenE rights on than land, because it just. it messes up everything you wann to do. '~ ~ can compensate the farmer but you can't do nha~. Th n~],- you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Mr. Schriever. [.Ir. Whi~e. MP. WHITE: Hy name is Michael White. I'm th~ Chair of the Long Island Chapter ef the heague of Conservation Voters. I'm also en th. Stage-wide board of the League. And I ,pprecia~e ~he opportunity to make some corn[Rents nhis evening. T~.~].ng a look at the Draft GEIS and having an ].Nertunity to listen here this evening, one ol nhe inain problems that I have with Ehis docu~m_nn is that I can'~ tell what the action is ~.hat you actually intend te take. Th~ Action is net defined, and therein lies ~]~ problem. The first problem: Whan is everyb 15' expecting to happen as a resul~ of this iEIS? It Yolks ~bouE comprehensive implemen~a~ioh .2trate~ies, planning and pregraming ~oc s, a series of planning measures, an a. -h.nul~etion of plans and COURT REPORTING ~gD TRANSCI~iPTION SERVICE (631) 878-80{7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 interrelated pi inning measures, but simply put, what is i~ going to do? Th. Ae's a list of 43 tools, I uhink they're ~xlled, but the question remains is: Are we goil~ Uo consider doing all 43 tools or are w~- loing ~o consider doing only one of those u~>ls? And whau's lacking is the analysis of ttw ~nterplay between those tools. Whau if you dc. nly de one, would you nell us the o~her 42? ,E it's not clear wha~ you're going no do, th~_n what it appears ~o be is a cover for some stealuh plan or some predetermined ~- ~sure. Th.~ ~ction has to be clearly defined. I'll ~ve yen an example: The five acre zoning ex,~mple, there's been five acre zoning which i; ~learly a tool uo limit ~he density of dev~iopmenu on property. It's certainly not ~ ha answer ~o open space preservation, I ut if ~eu de five acre zoning and yen don't ~l~ress ttle other par~s of the ~ools wherein ~c. reach the obstacle er overcoming the obstacle i.e. to prevent four houses, er the ~ie~rimenEs Ee farming and the farming commun, uy that five acre zoning is going to mean, !~ow can you just do five acre zoning without bing analysis if yen don't do those goals an [ ~he strategies that you in~encled te aO~ress in ttle first place. Ai~'., with respect te farming, the League believ~~ ~ery ~irmly tha~ we're no~ going to have preservation of open space on the easu end c~ Long Island or in Southold without a very ~trong and well-funded farmland preservation F~.rgram as recognized in uhe Draft Generic E~vironmentai Impact Statement. Sc,~holO is made up of not only nhis OeauEifui ~.pen space, but it acknowledges the importance ~>f the agricultural heriuage to this communiny. ~nd what this communiuy and the people of ~ '~.s fi~ming community mean to this Town. TR~ ~arms, the vineyards, the farming commun~kf and uhe people itself, but what's conspic~,~,usly absenu in the Drafu Generic Envircu~nental Impact Statement is choosing any c~,.~ -- five acre zoning without considering ~ n~sfer ef development rights, adequate fundih,i of farmland preservation 47 COURT REPORTING AND TPuXNSC[!PTION SERVICE {631} 878-8047 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 programs, mone- tot purchase of farmland development rz~hts, all those other aspects, so you can't c[erate in a vacuum. If the Draft Generic Ehvironmennal Impact Statement is going to be ,us or 43 actions, or 43 of the actions, you',~{~ got to do an analysis of the interplay of th.~se %2 or 43 tools. Adiitiona±ly, what's conspicuously absent in the c}cument is a discussion of the success of so:n~ cf the present measures that the Town is dah~. I think this Town deserves a lot of cred~ no be recognized for ~ow much open space is ~£ready being protected without necessarily ah ~>ne o£ these ~3 tools ~hat you have in mind, . one .Df them. So I think the document has t rather than consider if we don't do one c.~ ~3 of these and full build-out alternatives, ~ hat's not necessarily going to be the result. Th~ resuin is at least the maintenance of qbe present successful programs that the Town hA~ undertaken. So we congratulate the Town and the Town Board for trying to come ~o grips with these important issues, Out I [ el it's very clear at least wit~ respect t~ ti~e present document that the document doesn't meet the regulatory or substantive issues that the Town Board is trying to enact. Thank you very much. MR. KEIL: My name is Eric Keil, Mattituck resi,~nt. I would also like to call on the Town Bo.-d and the Committee to make a more lengthy ti~u~ three-meeting investigation and review of 'his work. I didn't have the luxury of havm~ ; ten tays to review this document, but ~st in the one day that I did spend on it I ~und a large number of errors, mischaracteriz~%~ons, mistakes and significant errors in the 5mputations relating to the theoretical density reductions based on a five acre zoning iliLsase. If you lcok at Appendix F1 Part 2 it s~a~es that we have B,~00 subdividable acres in the A zone. This comes out to using the formula as ' heeretically 2,078 units. Unfortunately, .~hen you add in the number of vacant units, ' ~u come up with a total of 2,321 possible nnits in the AC district. I COURT REPORTING AND TRANSC[ ]PTION SERVICE (6311 878-8047 49 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 don't know, whxr's unfortunate about this is the statistical analysis that you used to determine the ~ensity. You totaled all the acreage so tha' fou have a fairly significant error to the t~l~e of approximately 145 lots. So that you o'--~'stated the benefits of five acre zoning by ~-t5 in the R 80 zones by almost 40 percent. I ~u~'t kuow if you understand what I'm saying ~z not, but if you - you totaled all the acreage and lumped it together, in your statistical analysis and I don't think you intend to rezone land that's already subdivided, and so that's what I'm talking about. This error also went to your analysis of the R ~0 zone as well, and what the impacts of ~he proposal are, if you extrapolate, the same error was carried in no than zsne as well. That's with less than one day's investigation of this report. I think the more we investigate this the more errors we could find. I know a lot of time's been spent on this, over eight months, and I think that three Public Hearings is no~ enough ~ime to flush out all the prcblems that can be in here. Additionally, I think that we should extend the moratorium and keep the Public Hearing SrDcess public and that the recommendations ~hat come out of this work truly will do wha5 5he community intends them ~o do. I'm not sure that the Town Board or the committee understands what I'm talking about, but I'd be happy to explain further if the poinn wasn't well made. SUPERVISOR HORTON: We'll check. MR. KEIL: I guess that means no. In o~her words, if you look at table density, reductions are calculated, that's where the SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you. MR. MEINEKE: Good evening, my name is Howard Meineke. I'm the President ef the North Fork Environmental Council. Well, there's been a lot of impassioned oraEc, ry here and that's also a tough act to follow, and what always ~ethered COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIkTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 5O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 me with impassiohed oratory is it isn't always necessarily firmly fixed on fact; so it immediately beccmes a battle of show biz presence to make '?our points, as opposed to facE; and that is inevitable at a time like this, but it boti~ers me. Now, Mr. Esseks is an excellent speaker, certainly knows a lot about this issue, but when ~e was talking about zoning, he made it sound, or what I heard was that this upzoning is bound to fail in court. And I don't doubt that there are a variety of very acute reasons and logical ways to make it fail, but there ~re very many examples of upzoning that dil non fail in court, and there are places that preserved ~hemselves successfully in the long run by using upzoning, and we nave yeu have not had explained to us places that preserved themselves over uhe long run without using some mandatory e~Iorts. So I think there was a spin in that and we should realize that upzoning has been approved in many court decisions. [{ow, another thing I thought I heard is traffic. We talked of the trade parade, and somehow when we got to upzoning and reducing buii.i-out, it sounded like we had a bigger trade parade. Well, maybe I misunderstood, he~'s go back at it. If we maintained the two acre zoning, there was something like 5,000 houses if no preservation was inuact. Five thousand houses is a lot .2f traffic. It makes a big change on the whole rural atmosphere of our Towel, so let's nee just focus on open space and farmland because what we have to offer here is a whole magical situation, and traffic and 5he increase of frenzied activiuy and the inability to turn sun of the King Kullen and little aggravatiens like uhat have a lot to do with the quality of life, have a lot to do with that makes ntis place special. Now, ~ore houses make more taxes an~ more taxes is something that the fixed income people here should listen to carefully because it's very important. Some people may move out of here and go to Carolina because COURT REPORTING ~{D TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE !631) 878 8047 51 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 they think they can find a slower pace of life, but a lot of you tha~ like it here may move to Carolina because it's more affordable. If you keep the taxes down you have a chance to do legislation that will give you affordable housing. If you don't keep the taxes down, you ~iight have affordable houses, but if you can't pay 5he taxes, you can't live in the afforO~ble house. At the present rate houses on two acres somewhere ~n the existing housing stock, so the affordable housing argument is something in my v~ew of a paper tiger because you have to do something legislatively to make affordable housing, and if you control taxes and don't allow nhe build out no get out of control, you could have affordable housing. Now, khe reporE, you should read it. I think tha~ there is so much orauory and everyone that sp~eks to t~e report has a side of uhe argument. I didn't hear too many neutral voices ouu there, so there is spin and I think if you're going to make up },our mind and you're going to write letters and speak and possibly ultimately later in the years vote on the issue, go to the library, get the report and read uhe repor~ and make up your own mind, because I don't think when you filter out everything you are hearing tonight you're going uo have a base of fac~s that are going to let you make up }'our mind honesEly. New, uno report did have a section where it looked mt what it called a "No action Alternative." Now, the nc. action alternative is, Let's keep d%ing what whatever we're doing. Let's utilize the voluntary methods. Le5's de what we can. All that stuff that is not mandatory, and the report said Ehat 5he no action alternati"e will not achieve the entire desired goal. And this is your 80 percent, 60 percent, and this is the goal that's been unanimously approved by the Blue Ribbon Commission and is essentially ~he goal of 30 reports that are gathering dusE, reports in the basement ef Town Hall. Reentorcing our ability to Ouy the land, Now, I do a lot a% N.F.E.C., but one of the things I den'% de is hobnob with 5he COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIFriON SERVICE ~631} 878-8047 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 inside track .or have personal phone numbers of people that can get me money for land preservation. But I do come from a small business background, and I do know that when you have red budgets, you're very careful where you spend }'our money, and everybody in the County, eyerv municipality has a very red budget. So if we are going to plan on that the funding for land preservation will pick up, think it ~f will, bu5 I feel as though it's a pipe drealn, that's a judgment call. A lot of things are judgment. It's all in mhe future. You can't ]<now. You can just applf 5'z~r brain to the problem and see if what you think taking dedicated monies and pu5ting them in 5his, I have trouble seeing big money coming to land preservation ou~ of the budge~ crunches that are out there. Now, maybe we should extend the moratorium. I certainly do not press for premature discussions, but I have heard a lot of criticism of the report. It's a detailed report. There's a lot in it. I think i5's very difficul~ to do a document of t~at size error free. I Oen't think anybody could do that. Now, wheti~er we're uncovering errors of such weight that we can't act on it, maybe there's some legal opinions that that is true. I'm not sure that I believe that. i think what with that the potential of water coming, because we all know that there has been an absence of development pressure because the land under the farms -- the water un,er the farms is all polluted, and we know that the builders ~re working their way through mhe separate -- single and separate lots, which don't require it, and there will be very heavy development pressure. There will be the potential of building a lot of hcuses; there will be a pressure ~o get that 6,300 house number, we know that. Bu5 there are a i~_~t ~_,t ~s that feel that traffic and construction right now, this place is losing a let of wha~ it haO, and this place is no~ jus~ for nne people who live here. It's for people frsm up west, any number of people, and here the}' de their farm standing. They come out here anO they ~ake vacations and play COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 1631) 878 8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 golf. This is a naLural resource for the metrepolitan area to the west lhat shouldn't be casually wasted. I leek at it as an enOangered species, and I think we're at risk ef killing elf LhaL endangered species, and I would urge the Beard to consider the moralerium if the work load appears Lhat that's necessary. But I do think that working through iL an~ the no actisn alLernative was clearly vetoed bi' the reporl. The report does speak optimistically of the number of the other upzoning reports. I think the Board should separate out what has to be done to stop the blee~ing, and what has to be done to make the whole, to utilize everything that's in the reporn. And they should start to work on the upzoning alternative, along with whatever parts are necessary to make it all work. Kut I ~hink 5haL thaL's a very big documenL, anO I don'L think the Board is able to put 27 operations all on the front burner and get anyLhzng done. And lhis is a matter of i{ we say we're going lo do that, we will extend the moratorium, and at the end of that moratorium, we'll have a meeting just like today and worry about extending it again. Thank you. Hg. WICKHAM: Good evening, my name is Gall Nickham ef Cutchogue. I do appreciate the extenL of the ameun~ of work thaL went mnte it by ~he planners and everyone else involved. I'd just this evening like to see if I could clarify the full buy-out -- build-out analysis reperL, because that 6,000 figure is Lhe eno that's going to get the press here ant even Mr. Meineke acknowledged thai it is probably an inflated figure that's nee going to happen. I wanLe.~ to clarify over what time frame lhat fnll buy-out was contemplated; was thai as long Rs it reek? MR. VOORHIS: Yes. MS. WICKHAM: I'll assume yes. HR. VOORHIS: Yes. MS. WICKHAH: When you're doing a staE~stical aualysis like that on a 53 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE !631) 878-8047 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 theorenical basis, Vou're making a lee of assumptions, obviously, did you contemplate any specific margin for error in nha~ area? MS. SCOt'AZ: What do you mean by margin of error? MS. WICKHAM: Well, when you do a statistical analysis and you come up with an estimate, generally there's a deviation of the figures from what could, in fact, occur. MS. SCOPAZ: I think the answer to your question, very briefly, what we did in ~he analysis, keep in mind that the purpose of doing ~he build-ou~ is to give you some kind of benchmark, someplace to start your comparison to get your alnerna~ive. You have to snart somewhere. The numbers that we got from the Suffolk County Planning Department seemed to us too high, so we went through the whole exercise of taking ou~ o[ the mix properties ~hat would no~ normally be de'~eioped because they're unbuildable. MS. WICKHAM: Right. And that was part of your analysis in getEing some of the assumptions that you made. But once having reached that number, I guess the answer I'm geEuing is there's no estimate in your report as uo what the margin for error could be, and so in could very conceivably be less in terms of what might acuually happen. I don't know whether in coming up wi~h your assumpEions you gave any reduction for Ehe fact that nou only does ~he Planning Board have area criEeria in subdivisions, but thaE uhere are significanE Health Department consurainEs Ehat ma~' further reduce your density. I didn't see an analysis for that, and I'm not sure that, alEhough I did see you Eos. k out wetlands in terms of coming up with acreage figures, I don't know if you went beyond ~hat and assumed, which I think is a good assumption, that even on an upland parcel there are areas thau are noo close so that you would be further reducing ~he ability to subdivide a propertV. So I do uhink nhere are probably a number of lowering assumptions in that number that need uo be explored, and also, I nhink it's imporEant that the public undersEand that COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE ~631) 878 8047 55 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it does not appear that that figure presumed an~~ additional preservation efforts on a voluntary basis. And so this is the absolute worse case scenario in a perfect developer's world, where nothing bad goes wrong for a subdivision, and that's not the real world when you're subdividing property, so I'd like to explore that more in my next comments. Than~ you. MR. S~UELS: I'm Tommy Samuels, and I live in Cutchogue. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Is that T-,O-[,~-M-Y? MR. SAMUELS: It's ironic that those who are the greatest supporters of five acre zoning, for example Mr. Romanelli, use the no-action scenario as the fact, in my conversations with him. That it's either/or, like what the heck have we been doing all th~se years? The Tcwn's done a remarkable job, the County's done a remarkable job, everything seems to be working, Mr. Wickham informs me that there's actually a ten acre per residence situation. The use of the scare tactics of the no build-out -- of the build out, is reprehensible. That really is not ~oing to happen. But I'd like to address the moral issue. And the moral issue, whether it's a legal issue, for me it's a moral issue, you'-~e asking a small number of residenns of thzs town to bear the burden of the open space for the rest of the Township. Let's just suggest for the moment, I t0ought my house iz~ 1959 for 27,500; it's on the water in Nassau Point. I've been offered $2,000,000 for in. Why don't we have a capizal gains tax for people that sell their hot, scs nhat have made 26 percent a year or whauaver it's been; why ~on't we do that? Why dol:'~ we do that? Because we can't do it. We can't do iu legislatively. But anybody who is in Ehis town for an~~ length of time has prcfited greatly, tremendously, but yet you're asking the farmers, of which there are few, sa~' 1.4, but how many farm families? How many families that were farm families that had zheir property in s©me way decreased in value ove~ the years? How man~~ are there? COURT REPORTING L£4D TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (6311 878 8047 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Apparently 5here's more than you believe there are. Now, I know you, John, and I know you, Craig and I know you, Bill, and you're not mean-spirited, and ~ou're not immoral. I just don't think you see the issue. To Mr. Meineke, I would say it's not going to be Greenwich here. It's not goin} to be Muttontown; the type of community that Southold is whV I'm living here and not in Southampton. It's different. People are conservative; for the most part they're not wealshy. There are exceptions. BuS if you lock at waterfront properSy, where there isn't anvmore, where now it's tear down and build another one, that's where the great increases ha-~e occurred, and they're dragging along the other homes. But the farmers should not bear the burden by themselves, we've got to figure out a way. And there are wavs. No action is no5 going to happen. I have prepared in my liEe~ime, probably four environmental impact statements, and I know what Vou can do with them. It depends oh which direction the person hiring the consultant wants it to take, and I don't blame these people, these consultants at all, because that's [he name of the game; that's the way it works. That's why SEQRA is such a weak situation. It's used in devious ways in both directions. Long story short, there's nobody tha~ I appreciate more in this town than the farmers who have succeedet. They are really good businessmen, it is tough. It is tough. Thzs year is going to be a brute with the wee%her we have had; and to ask them to give up 5i%e appreciation of their real estate values. Is not fair to tilem. It is immral. I hope ';ou extend 5he moratorium. At leas5 until December as Mr. Wickham is suggesting. Give the Town a chance to look at this document, find if there are, in fact, errors. If 5here are errors in there, I'm sure they are inadvertann. I personally feel tha~ it was prepared in 5oo short a time period. I think there was too much to do in COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTIC, N SERVICE 1631) 878-8047 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 there. I remember mi' son chairing the U.S.-U.K. Study. They worked on it for two years, two years. The Town didn't implement an'~ of those recommendations. The hamlet was detined in nhe U.S. U.K. Study. But what happens when you want to Go something within t~e hamlet halo -- which is an awful word for it, [lamlet halo. Try something; try to build somet~ing in the hamlet. There are people in this room who have attempted it. NIHBY rears its head. What you need, get started with a housing authority ~hat has bonding potential; buy some land for some people; people set up a program of buildings and houses, some ~arden apartments [or young people so they can earn so,ne equity and save some equity. Do what Eas~ Hampton did, on resale you only get the rate of inflation. You have no sell it back to ~he housing authority. Give them a break. Start with that. If you want no go upzoning in certain areas, go ahead, Put don't kill the farmers. Do not kill the farmers. They're some of our best people. I went to my ~randson's graduation, sixth grade graduation, and I looked around and I heard the names and there were an awful lot o~ farm kids and ex-farm kits, and t~ey were heauniful kids, some of whom wan~ to live here. Idy granddaughter wants to live here. So let's give the farmers a break. Dcn't act precipitously. You have many events coming up tnan would give you a better feel ~s an actual referendum on ~his entire issue. Some of you on occasion have indicated the willingness to listen. I hope you all do. But the no action scenario just isn't going ~o happen. Thank Vou very much. MR. HUNTIHGTC, N: I ' m Ray Huntington from Cutchogue. I read nhe reporm, no the extent that I bellevue I was abl= to in the time that I [lave had it. I've Oeen looking for some things in parnicular. IE is a comprehensive review. The various Sou~hold -- Southold's various ~inaudiblei . It cohtains man5~ interesting COURT REPORTING AIqD TRANSCRIPTICN SERa'ICE ~631) 878 8047 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 facts about our town, useful facts and the availability of the next on the internee is a very good plus. People ...f gsc. t faith submit that without a GEIS in today's world it is impossible to move forward with the changes that we need. The shame of that is that it's true. Be that as it ~naV though, because what I was really lsoking for in this report was apparently not instructed for by the Town Board, and that was an action plan. Some may say Ehat's the next step, and that's fine, if we had time, but there's a management role to be played here. I've been educated in management. I've enjoyed a full career practicing. As a young engineer I took pride in my drawings. I believe that ~hey were the producE. My boss enlightened me, however. He told me tha~ I was not paid for how pre~tV mV drawings were, rather, that I was paid ~o transfer the ideas in my head to those who were going to produce the product and get the ~esulm. I mhanged my style. Our produce here, the thing we're talking about is the preservation of our lifestyle as well as we can manage to do it. It's a time-limited proOiem that we have stndied for years. The time frame with which within which t~is situation can be addressed is almost at an end. We need an action plan now. I suggest that the Town Board instruct the moratorium team to extract an action plan from the Draft GEIS and do so forthwith. I have taken the first step towards this by red~cing the five inches to one-half inch. I have it right here. It does remain that for the Town Board to devise a st-stem 50 win over these pages and instruct a team to write a set of objectives that can be acuomplished. Then, with the objectives set at hand as an action plan, it remains for t~e Town Board to debate and act. These are the seeps that I know are not foreign 5o you. Those are the things that you do all the time. Bu~ this studs, has COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE i631) 878-8047 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ranged so far and so wide chac it will never be completes the wa5, we're going. I'm going to get a little tutorial. Unlike a goal, which is a hope er an aspiration, an objective is a statement ef work thac is measuraOle ~ith respect to time, resources and result. Ic's completion advances the system cowaris ~he goal. Goals and ebjeccives are different. New that we almost have a GELS, let's work en an action plan in parallel, let's surface those items which seem Es have the most viability that will focus on energies eno we will gec chore mn a shorter period ef time. This is necessary because chore is not much time lorE. One iasc ~hought I would like to offer to the members of u[~e Bcard, and that is to ask yourself on this jab, who is t~e uaskmas~er. Who is the naskmaster on this efform? And, does the maskmaster understand your expectations? I~'s an important quesuion. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: If many more people leave, we're going to have to go back co Town Hall, sir. HR. NICKLES: Goo~ evening, I'm here tonighn John Nic~les, Jr., Southold. I'm also the Presidenn o~ the Southoli Business Alliance. I'm here tonight to present to the planners, consultants, the Town Board and the residents st Southold Town some new ideas from the Southold Business Alliance. In should be considered as comment in ~he DGEIS. A few of the ~ools that were considered in the s~udy are discussed, as well as a few new tools and ideas chat mey not you have been considered. Southold Business Alliance would like Es present to you a way us conurol growth without more restrictP~e zoning. The following, which I'm abou~ to read, is a summary of tha~ plan. They call i~ the F.A.I.R. Growth Managemeh~ Plan for a Rural Sou~hold. Fair is an ac~2nym, stands for "Foster Agri2ulture, Invest~enn in guaranteed preservatio~ and Responsible growth" The F.A.I.R. Growuh Management COURT REPORTING ~{D TR~2{S,2RIPTION SERYICE ,1631} 878-8047 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Plan for Rural Southold e~npl,sys an incentive-based approach that will be driven by the deman~ of the ma~}-en. The more the market demands, the more landowners or developers will try to meet or exceed the long term goals of Southold Town or raising taxes by site plan advocates who will. In means that as demand rises amonw the limited annual supply, the rate of preservation will rise with it. The pride the lo~al qualiuy of life provides. Tills residents of Sauthold Town agricultural economy and the that a rural community legislation recognizes that the best way to achieve preservation is to assure the success of agriculture. The Town finds that ~he ownership, use and value of private property is integral to this stated purpose and therefore resolves the following facts, policies and measures. ~.1) Foster ~i~e lousiness of agricultural in Southold Town. The best way to do this is b!, simply not placing new restrictions or reguiaEi:~ns on their land. Regulating what 15pe 2. f farming is acceptable in Southold Town and using scenic overlay districts to prevent expansions of indoor agriculture, agricultural industries locks out more advanced efficient, environmenually friendly and evolving agricultural technologies. These technologies may very well assure agriculture's success well into the future. {2i Recognize E]ie success of voluntary preservaticn e~forEs and create new incentives for landowners to choose preservation. ~3} Recognize that restrictive zoning and burdensome regulations have impacts upon the business of agriTuiture and on business in general. ,4~ The purchase of the development rights and scenic easements are a guaranteed investment in the preservation of farmland and open spare properties; investment in future efa rural Southold is the only way to guarantee permanent preservetion. ,9) Create inceutives to utilize COURT REPORTING AND TR~,}SCRIPTION SERVICE !631) 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 conservation opportunity subdivisions on all farmland and open space properties guarantee review and approval withir~ one year of application. Development rights, along with the fee simple of the land, remain intact to be sold or gifted ts any public or private land preser,~ation entity. ~61 This ~s a ~ew tool. Responsible growth rate lzmitation. Crea~e legislation that limits the tcr~al number of new house permits to toe issuecl in any given calendar '.,,ear. The responsible growth rate limitation should be derived b~th by the average new house permits over a ten-year real estate markeE cycle to i',e fair to the local building community, and iu should also ~e derived by what the Town af Southold believes is responsible and s~stainable to meeE our long term goals. A balaNse Ihust be found that respects the property ri.~lhts cf undeveloped landowners as well as ~he wanes and needs of the Town. ,7} A new ~ool. Building permit restrictions. Recognize that iu is preferable for new homes to be built on already existing in-fill lots, these are ul~e 1,~ts that are established in the comlnur-~iEy that have been sitting ~he~e. Currentli,' there are approximately 2,000 of %hose existing lots. Create a new policy ~or existing stock for single and separate vacant parcels. The Town reserves a fixed nuu~ber of new house permits, and that's a number EhaE should be determined as effective to make the plan work and that's also fair to property owners, Eot these in fill parrels. This f~xed number ef parcels should be reserved un~l Octcber lsE of each calendar year and then set the policies that ilnplelnent the goals .Df E[~e T{3wn. ,.8} This zs a hew tOO1 Responsible Developmen~ Rate Limitation, create legislation than limits the total number of bnilding lcts ~hat may be creaued in an,_.' given calendar year. This rate ef development should be de~ivec/ ~oth by the st3tistical growth rate .~f the Town, the anticipated growth rate ef ~he Town, as well as what the Town of Sc, utnsld believes is 61 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE ~631) 878 8047 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 responsible and sustainable to meet the long term goals. Once again, a balance must be found that ~espects ~hs prsper~y rights of undeveloped landowners as well as the wants and needs of the cemmuniny. ,9/ Recognize that the subdivision s£ land within er near developed areas is pre£erable to the subdivision of land within er near undeveloped areas. Set policies that implement the goals of the Town. ,10) And ~his is the final tool. It's a new tool. Compe[itive evaluation and selection process. Creation of this process would further provide t~e competitive incentive and framework for site plan applicants ca meet or ,:xceed Southold Town goals. Guidelines for site plan applicants to achieve the long term goals of the Town should be codified and a related scoring system for sine plan applicants should be enumerated. in conclusion, the F.A.I.R. Growth Mauagement Plan allows ti~e landowner to maintain all of ~he ec,~ncmic benefits of ~wo acre zoning wi~h an impetus to achieve five acre density or bet[er b~cause of 5he limited amount of developmen% allowed on a limited basis and t~e compeLztive nature of site plan approval. Any landowner or developer would choose an opnion 5hat seeks a maxim~m economic benefit in ~he shortest a[nounE of 5ime. Once again, if there were strict limitation of 5he number of subdivision lots created or approved annumily, subdivision applicants would not risk being passed over by another who would choose to go the expedited conservation root. Ef we implement annual responsible growsh and developmenn rate limitations, we can guarantee managed growth. Preservation can be achieved and growth can be managed without rezoning land, without %eking individual's land or development activiEies an.l without jeopardizing successful voluntary preservation programs. This plan is Eair. It shows respect for the proper~y rights of every Southold resident, while guaranteeing a manageable rate of growth combined with 62 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 powerful inar_nuives to preserve at a minimum five-acre de~Lsi~y or better, and there are no limins imposed upon volunEarily preservation. Hembers ~f Ehe Town Board issued a challenge Eo the resi~enns of SouEhold Town to find ~ betue~ way to acl~ieve preservation than five acre zoning. I~ Ehis challenge is sincere then Ehe Sou~hold Business Alliance presumes thsu nhe Town board will look upon ~his plan and combinaEion of tools most favorably. The doom sayers keep reminding us uhau developers are comzng; tha~ nhey have no where else Eo go wi~h ukeir Eruckloads o~ money, and iu is a cern~inny ~hat t~ey will try to build sut our Town. They keep uelling us that we're a~ a crossroads, that we have ~o do something ~nd do it ~zefore it's noo la~e. Wiuh nhat iu mind, ~he S~thold Business Alliance ofZers Ehe ~ez~den~s of Southold Town Ehis business program scnceived and designed uo address ~he fears of uhe worst-case scenarios Eh~t may arise wi~h overwhelming demand and r?~pid or disorderly growth. The strenguh of nhis plan is that its success will ~cuu~lly increase as demand insreases. We invite ~hose individuals and groups who thve been in tarot of five ~cre zoning to join us in support of the F.A.I.R. plan, specitically Ehe North Fork Environmental Council, S~ve Open Spaces Now, our Town planners and especially the Southold Town Board. The demand far real estate on the noruh fork and your suTport will guaranuee the suscess of t[iis combination of tools. I ~ave compleue master copies of the plan. This was jus~ a summary tha~ I read te you. And I'll disuribute them te ~he Town Board, tile Planning Board and the media, and I also have a shor~ executive summary of poznts ef the plan. Thank you. .~UPERVISOR HORTON: Any members of the public that would care no address ~he Board on this Public He,ring? HR. HARSCHEAN: I would like to congratulate the people who, not having heard ~he beginning of some of %he people's comments, I would like to cengratulaue the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631} 878 8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 people -- I'd like to thank the people who put this report together. I've worked _~n environmental impact statements during my career as a pr.sfessional engineer, ~nt the engineer before me I congratulate. I =ndorse a lot of your comments. I believe there should be a project manager ~hat .directs the action plan, but the report itself I t[~ink is a good one. It establishes a baseizne for this community, regardless oz some of tile people ac~ing a little bit picayune ~k.l.ut some of the statistics. ~ think the only thing I can be critical about is that some of Yhe people on the Town Board felt that there wasn't an executive su~nmary for Eiiis particular report, and there was. I wenn ~i~rough this report on horseback and some of the comments I would like to make is that I think most of the people in this Town who have not been afforded the opportunity to read ~bis report I think a shorter document could be pu5 together just by Xeroxing certain secEiens of nhis report, which I would like to jusn mention right now. [ think the firs5 22 pages, if I remember correctly, cf the executive summary shc. uld be [nade available ~o people at ~he liOrary, along with at least three or four tables, Tabi= 3 1, 3-2 auJ 3-4, as at least a minimum document than shc.~ld be made available to people au the librau'f so that they can read iE an their leisure. To have a document like this left at the library for onl, one person to nake out an~ one docmnent to stav and for the short period of E~me that people were allowed to examine it, I think was non a very good thing. In fact, the Blue Ribbon Commission, one of its precepts was that it was supposed to have Town Board meetings like this, which it never did. And the thing is, I think this i.~- the thih! t±~at's causing a lot of people ~o maybe come up here and make some statements withoun any knowleCge, and iE's not because they don't have the wish to have the knowledge; I think than we have not done a 64 COURT REPORTING .'AND TRA[k,~RIPTION a~ER.ICE (631) 878-8,947 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 good job eduuating the people of this Town as to what we face. Some of the comments that I'd like to make that I think ellis report serves as a good baseline for is that Table 3-1, which is the full build-out analysis, and whether people are going to quibble about how that was put togethe~ or not, ± isn'~ think this is the night te do something like that, I think we should talk in global uerlns. As you lsok in all the particular areas that have been defined, suci~ as the AC area, R40, R-80, all ~hrough tha~ table, ye~'il find ou~ if you sum up ~he property that's less than two acres, less than t~z.D acres in uiizs Town, starting wi~h R-40 and R-80 and working your way through, you'll come up with a number that's aDout 4839, which is ~..,i~ I came up wmth just through a calculator. The total that I came up wiYh, the total I dmdn't agree with, and I'm not gein~ to worry about quibbling about getting the same total as you did; maybe I was doing this ~ a time o~ night when I shouldn't be dcing it but iE was 7160. So the lot size, less tilan two acres comes out to 67.6 percent. Sc. if you're looking at land that's at risk in this Town, it's not the farm land. It's land that's less titan two acres mn Ehis Town. That's what the report says. And then i~ you take land less than one acre, it's 48.3 percent. And if you take land, aud if you I can't read my ew~l handwriting -- So the Ehii~q ±s what I'm trying to point out here is tha~ the land that ms being developed in this Town ~t a very rapid rate by sp.zt builders and you people who live in places that ~re less than two acres, and I assu~ne most of the peoNie in uhis audience live in places that are less than two acres, you can see it around ~.ou. This is what's happening. ~,nd the reason that they're building in .tess than uws acres is a very good reason, is because, anoeher theme of this report, whicl~ I think is e very geed theme of this report without sta~ing iE as such, is ~hat all you nave te do is sum this report up in certain sectors, ill certain three words: 65 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 1631~ 878 8047 66 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Follow the N ~ter. This is where people live. Follow the wa~er. Th±s is where all ~hese hamie~s hav~ grown up, :~n,i this is what we have right haw, 20,000 [_eople live where the water is. leu'ye already heard that the farmland doesn't nave the water, and any water theft the'.,, d~ have is polluted. Se people, if th.ay' re goin.2 ~o buy pr~,perty on t~e east end, they're geihq to ge where the water is, and Ehey're net ~oing to get themselves into ~ situation where they have to worry about the quality ef ~he wa~er. [[ow I can speak a li~le bit about the quality .;f the wa~er 'cause I happen te be working righu new as a ccnsultant en the power plan~ in Greenpert, uhau's why I was la~e getuing here tonight. ,lust se you people know, we have fired off mhe unit. We've wor~ed thre~ months since Harch ef this year, three months and one da~. We will now have 54 megawatts for the infrastructure ef uhe people ef this Town. so that when the}, s~ar~ lighting up their barbecues and using some of the power, air conditioning, if you remember last sulnmer, you' 11 have b4 megawatts ef power in thzs Town s~' ~rting July 1st, when ~he plant goes cemmer.-ial. I~OW, one a~ ~he sidelines ef developing ~he power in u[~is Town is that we had a prebl=m and we su~ll do, I think to some exr~enE because all the l~wyers haven't gotten ~heir act to,ether, Ei~at we have a water p~cblem with t~le powe]_ ~l~nt. Many of you people were reading some of the reports in the papers. You read abc. un where uhe water quali~y wasn't available from SCWA, which is Suffolk Counuy Water Auuhority -- ~hat's another thing I might wane to sriticize, some si uhe people in nhe report here. When ,'ou have acronyms, I know you've done a very-lood job c,f spelling out wnan the wozd is wheh you have acronyms, Out after you re~d for ahc.~u ten o~ l~ pages, maybe at 2:00 in {~he morning you forge~ wha~ the acronym is, sc in the summary I ~.~ld you us put in uhe lik, rary, make a table st contents for uhe ac~:Dnym so ~.£ somebod.' wanes Es refer back to COURT REPORTING YI~D TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631} 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 wha5 5he acronym meann, zt will be a handy reference for them. Fne point I'm making about the water is 5h~ we are now using gray water at the power plant. For those people wRe don't about knew w!:at gray water is, it's water that is coming from t~e waste treatment plant. I~'s being us=~ at certain times of the year where it can be used and certain times ef 5he year where i5 will net be used is where Suffoh.~ Count,.,, Water Authority wouldn't be able to supply, which is during the summer months when .'our greates~ demand is on their well. We have a water problem in this Town whether you people knew it or not. So another criticism ef r_h±s reporE is I think th~ somebod,- ough~ t.3 ~nake a matrix table, you have ali nhe data [:~re, where you have all nhe water in Table 2-i .~,f 5he amount of water 5hat we have available and try and cross reterence that with the lo5 sizes so you know where nhe water is wi~_h respec5 no w~ere the lot sizes are. And !~'~5~' 11 be able to see a very nice way where the people, when they come here, if the','re going ~o develop houses and so forth and so on, 5his is exactly how it's going 5o occur. People will do this; they will follow r_he wa5er. Sc. you should have a cross reference table benween where the water is and where the lot sizes are as you broke down in your Table 3 1. Now, further on with the water, because 5his came upon late in the design of the power plxnt, you Ifad te put in an R-O system. For },ou people who don't know what t~at means, Ehat means a Reverse Osmosis system, which is a cheaper form ef desalinizati£.n. And ~Terause we're using waste water now, thaE design had te be backed up with a filtration system; se this is part ef the enterprise that we have a5 ~his power plan5. Now, why ~m I ~elling you this? Because the tiling is mhae if we're going to build out to some degree, whether it's 5he 80 persen5, 60 percent slash number that we ~alked about at the Elu~ Ribbon Commission, 67 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631~ 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the thing is I think V~L~ .ought to gee Steve Jones and the Suffolk CSLmty Water Authority who the report refers ta is also doing some kind of parallel report I think right now, get him involved so that .-r.u can have some idea as to what the cost of p~tting in an os~nosis system is, reverse osmosis system for a well that is not a good weli ~nd to save that well, and you can s~ill use that water. The alternative to that l~_ you're in a very poor area, you must think about modular desalination plants, and these things are not that expensive. But ~e~,ple have nc realize if thei,"re going to move here, this is nhe situation that they're going to come into if we start this any degree of build-sun with the remaining property that's in this Town. So I think the water matrix, Steve Jones, input to you as the Town, you people have to approve where he ~uts wells and lines and things of this na~L~re, but I think the public is entitled to khow that water is a critical pro]21em in thiz Fown. I guess maybe I was the only one than spoke about this, but there are ot~er things that are critical in this town, I think they've probably been spoken to already as ~ar as ~raffic and other infrastructure problems. So I apoisgize for being a little bi~ late tcnzght, bu~ ± just wanted to anNonRce to yon that we i~ave a real tremendous success in Greenport ~_onight, and I'~n a tired gu_. and I'm going to go home to bed. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you. [.'IR. MUDD: Steve Mudd from Southold. couple thin~s I would just like no clarify, if I could, please. [.[any discussions about the pluses and minuses and negativities and all the above regarding lantowners that are involved, and people that really don't have anything at stake. And ~ne thing tha~ has been repetitious since the beginning of the discussions, from Dr. Cochran's aOministration, was there was no continuity in feelings about loss of equity. [Iow, Steve Noir has gotten up 68 COURT REPORTING f~2~D TRANSCRIPTION SER%~ICE {631) 8?8-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 tonight, in my opinion I thought he spoke very graciously, put facts on the Eable. Steve Weir has made other presentations to Town Board members at other public hearings. He's been discredited because he's Farm Credit, and he's not a bank. He's not a normal bank, and what I have with me 5onight -- I'm disappointed this hasn't come up before because some of the people have received these lesters before from bank presidents from our normal lending institutions here on 5he north fork. One from the president of Suffolk County Bank, one from the president of Bridgehampton Bank, Steve Weir's letter, which is discredited because he's not a bank, and Nor5h Fork Bank. I believe everybody here is familiar with all three of those lending ins5itutions. I'm not going to sit here and read all three letters, and I made copies for everybody because I think it's way past 5ime and due on this, I don't buy that lost equity crap that I've heard so many people, some of which are sitting here aE the 5able tonight, and I'd like to resolve 5hat issue, and I'd be willing to contest the discussion about it with everybody in regards to what the bank's position is on this loss of equity. I'm going to read one letter. It happens to be from Suffolk Coun5y National. I'm not going to sit here and read all of them. I made copies. I'd like to turn them in for everybody's review. It says: "It has come to my attention once again" - because these banks have been contacted agaiil, some of Ehe letters I have are dated 2001. They didn't get any recognition or acknowledgemenn that there is a loss of equity, so this is anonher one that's dated June 13, 2003, from Suffolk County National Bank, President Kohlmann. "It has come to my attention once again 5hat Southold Town has legislation pending regarding upzoning. In is my belief that uhis upzoning would cause one of the basic principles of our country, uhe righ5 to private ownership of land, to be violated. 69 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE ~631) 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 "For the farmer, his land represents his equity, his legacy, his life, and 5he economic value of that land affects his well-being and possibly the lives of funure generations to come. Typically for a farmer his only wealth is his land; therefore, I believe than nhe upzoning to five acres is unjust to the landowners. Should the zoning proceed as pending, the Southold farmer would non receive fair compensation for his land if he were to sell it .... post five acre zoning change -- "The multiple expressed as quantity times unit value most often does not compute. That is to say, the economics of five acres is not five times the value of one acre but most often less. Iu is my view that, as proposed, this legislation essentially compels the farmer to consider selling his land sooner due to the consideration of reduced value and potential change of zoning again downstream. "Additionally, the landowner/farmer is no5 the only one impacted by the proposal, but rather it will take its toll on the neighboring businesses as well. Farming requires capital with debt and collateral being a viable component. Diminished land value lessens available collateral thereby reducing his ability to borrow. "In closing, as a member of the local business community, I respectively request the authors" -- excuse me ~ "the authors of this legislation to reconsider for the good of the landowners, the people who made Suffolk County and Southold Town what it is today." And I made copies and I'd like to leave them here for some of the Board members. On a similar note I have North Fork Bank, I have Bridgehampton bank as well (handing). I'm confused over a comment that Mr. Meineke made this evening, stating ~hat all 5he building thau is going on now is way too excessive as we speak. And this is prior to even a consideration of the zoning change 5han we're talking about possibly implementing. Coincidentally, I spoke with one of our local asphalt companies a couple 70 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 days ago, and I asked this individual who runs a local company, what is his percentage of work that he's doing in major subdivisions versus single separate lots -- separate single lots that were pre-existing, less than two acre density; he said 99.9, to nothing, there's nothing going on. But on that note, I'm confused over Mr. Meineke's statement about excessive building that's taking place now and the traffic of trades people that's taking place now. It's not on farmland. I don't think anybody's going to dispute that. And it would Oe kind of nice if certain members of certain groups would spend some of their efforts on trying to critique that situation that we have at hand, if they put half that focus on that versus what we're here for this evening, I think we would solve a lot or our issues. I want to 5hank you for your time. I made copies for everybody and thanks. MS. KRUPSKI: My name is Helen A. Krupski. I reside in the Main Road in Peconic. I'm not going to comment too much on this document that we received. Some of us have looked a~ in part, some of us have not looked at all as we haven't had time as yet. But I'm going to speak about this more ena personal nature. There was a letter in the local newspaper and Hr. Wickham read part ef it. would like to read the entire letter in full, in its entirety because I would like it to be part of the public record. I'm a little bit horse tonight; can everybody understand me? SUPERVISOR HORTON: Yes. NS. KRUPSKI: A picture represents a t±~ousand words, and I think that's true. This is the letter. It's an open letter to the Southold Town Board. I'd like to address it to the committee who came up with this $200,000 document that we're all talking about tonight. "The Krupski family objects to the use of our picture in the Southold Co~nprehensive Imple~nentation Strategy and COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878 8047 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement. "This picture represents an endorsemen5 of a document that seeks to destroy the rural character and agricultural heritage of Southold Town. This document does not accurately portray agricultural, but instead would undermine and eliminate it as it exists today. "We, the undersigned, demand that all pictures, images and specific references to Krupski's Pumpkin Farm and Krupski Farms be immediately removed from all drafts, including the DGEIS on the Town's website. "In addition, we demand an apology from those responsible for using our image, our logo wiEb our name on it without our consent. "If you want to know how this proposed document will negatively impact agriculture ask a farmer." Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Mrs. Krupski. Cu~ behalf of the Town Board, we apologize for that being in there, and we'll see that it's removed. Yes, sir. MR. CONWAY: It's going to be a bit of a subjec5 change, even though I do have a personal interest in the zoning changes. M~, name is J.L. Conway. I am one of the Commissioners of the Southold Park District. I would like to comment on some of 5he references in },our study about the parks lccated within nhe Township of Southold. C,n Page 1 42, Item Number 27 under the heading of "Administer Parks of Town-wide Significance," second sentence states: "These partitions are supported by tax levies." We feel it should also note that only the residents of ~he park district pay 5he taxes. On Page 1-~5, Item Number 32, under the heading of "Park Districts/School District Boundaries Conformity," it is recommended 5hat the boundaries be redrawn. Again, we woul~ like to point out that only park district residents pay park district taxes, and ii is their tax dollars only that COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631} 878-8047 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 maintain park district properties. On Page 2-58, under "Park District Beaches," the park's inventory of Sounhold park district is listed, fourth park listed is the Horton Point site; the second states: "The lighthouse sine was converted into a museum maintained by the Southold Historical Society." This is non correct. The lighthouse and the grounds are owned and maintained by the Southold Park District. The ground floor of the lighthouse is on loan to the Southold Historical Society for use as a museum. On Page 3-41, Item Number 27, under "Administer Parks of Town-wide Significance," the first sentence states: "This tool will provide for Town administration of parks having Town-wide significance." What does that mean? SUPERVISOR HORTON: I don't have an answer to that question. MR. CONWAY: Does anybody? I'll leave you a copy of this and we'll send you a letter from the park district so we can have that one response clarified. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Mr. Cestello. HR. COSTELLO: My name is John A. Cestello. I am from Greenpert. I was born in Greenporn, and I know what people are trying to de with the plan for Seutheld. They're trying to keep Southold the wa}' we love it, the way it was, the way it is. And let me thank the farmers, all the farmers for persevering and keeping it as much like it was as it is now. They've sacrificed. Hr. Samuels said that, and by Ged they've done it. They ~ave done the biggest pare in keeping Seuthold ~he way Southold is. The ma-pa dells are gone. 7-Elevens are here. Things are changing. People are coming. People want the farms. They want 5hat type ef life, and, personally, I am for the four, five acre zoning. I am for 25 acre zoning. Find out where the most sensitive environmental lands are; categorize them; evaluate them; save them. We all want nhem. Band Pond, Hallock's Bay, we want the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 seasitive lands to stay. It's not all the farmers. It has nothing to do with farmers. The five acre zoning shouldn't be pertaining to farms. It shoul~ be pertaining to sensitive lands. Do you know who's going to own a 25 acre lot? The wealthy. Who's going to own a ten acre lot? Again, the very well to-do. The five acre lot, again, money is going to own them. We have 5o do and compensate and try to keep the most valuable assets of Southold Town here. It's our view. It's the farm kids. Im's their grandchildren. They're gcing to leave. With 25 acre zoning, ten acre zoning, five acre zoning, they're going to leave. They can't afford to stay. So to compensate for that, you need the two acre, the one acre and you also need the quarter acrs. There is ways te get water. Put the water in. Get the small lots. Hake it so tha~ we, and our children and our grandchildren can s~ay here. without i~, we're all going to lose. You're not going to have Southold. They're struggling to stay here now, and it's not %he farms. It's not the five acres on a particular farm or any farm. Those people that persevere and continue to persevere, I just hope all the farmers, their children will stay farming and their grandchildren will keep farming. Please, do it all. Don't do one portion. Do it all. Go for the 25 acre and the quarter acre. Do it all, please. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Mr. Baiz. MR. BAIZ: Good evening, I'm Chris Baiz of Southold. I just have a few comments. I think the best day in the last five years was a November evening in 1999 when ~nis community pulled together and voted in the community preservation funds for farmland and farming preservation. Since ~hen, elements have Dean tearing us asunder, creating fear, and 74 COURT REPORTING AND TR_ANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631} 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 basically stealing our democracy from us by creating this fear amongst us. I'd like to see this community come back together again. A community that works and earns preservation earns the right to have it. A community that goes in to asking one element of the community to bear all the brunt of preservation while the rest can reap the rewards, whatever those are, increased house values, protected public view sheds, that the farmers have provided in the first place, and kept there, but now taking that privilege that the farmers have given them and declaring it a public right by not allowing farmers to put up fences as needed or hedge rows or hedging as necessary, basically corrupts the process for us and what we do. What I would like to see is a renurn, basically, to our principals of what we have been doing and doing so successfully. This repor5 so eleganuly points out that we have been so successful in AC and R-80 land in terms of the rate of preservation over the last five or six years, that we have been doing it depending upon how you wan5 to count loEs in or out, 18 to 21 acres of preservation for every new building lot created. Now, t~is plan (indicating), you're telling us that you want us to do it only at five acres. IL sounds like this is a development, a builder's plan ~o me and not a farm and farming preserva5ien plan. We have been far more successful doing ~he other. The issue becomes hew fast can we keep the preservation coming. It's my unierstanding there are over 1,500 acres in various stages of coming through the process, for the purpose of coming through the process of development righEs, and I mean, why isn't in Doing finished; why isn't it getting done? I hear various stories happening on various farms where we have been working wi5h the County or we have been working with the Town and nrying to get these done for t~ree to five years, and it's always come up aE the corner - I won'~ say your office -- bun a5 %he Town Hall corner, that's where the problem lies, and I'd like to see these 5hings 75 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047 76 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 get unblocked in Town Hall. The other aspects that I think are important to review is this value of preservation. Some nave argued that it's too expensive for the taxpayer. The value of preservation is such that the local taxpayer on the bonded issues that we've passed since 1983 or '85 is costing us three cents out of every one dollar of preservation value. That's the burden to the local -- direct burden to the local taxpayer, three cents on every dollar of value. Thirty percent comes from contributions vis-a-vis the Peconic Land Trust. Thirty to 40 percent has been coming from the Count}' over the years; and presently now, the remainder is to be coming from the CPF bonding. Now, this three percent bonding -- ~hree cents on every dollar of direct costs to our local taxpayers, has been calculated out recently, everything cumulatively to date, is costing every househsld on average $50 a year. Now, if I said tha~ there are two and a half members in a household, that means that every year it's costing $20 a person for than local bonding. This document costs $10, direct cost for every maa, woman and child in this Town, and it is a development plan. It's not a preservation plan. Our current practices are four times as good as that. Se, let's get back on track from wiiere we were and get this ball rolling se that we can keep acquiring the development rights c~ the farmland and keep the farl~er farming ~hat land with his value in~acn. We den'~ heed a plan such as this. If the community really needs this plan, then, guys, pun it up for a referendum; don't leave the decision up to the six of you, let the Town vote on i~. Because this is probably - if you want ~e make this the issue. This is probably the single most important piece ef whatever you want to call it, all of you just put a name te it. Thank you. This is the single most impornant piece of paper in terms .2f its long term effect that probably ever faced Seuthold in its 350-plus years, okay. COURT REPORTINS AiqD TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE ~631) 878 8047 1 77 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 response response. We're doing a far better job than it costs here to do uhis. If we had the $10 for every man, woman and child that this report had taken care of, we could have afforded a little more development right preservation. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Would anybody else care to address the Town Board? Yes, sir, in the back. MR. COOPER: Doug Cooper from Mattituck. Mr. Baiz stole a lot of my comments. I disagree with him a linnle bit on the cost of this document. I think it's probably $20 per person. MR. BAIZ: By the way, I said direct cosns. MR. COOPER: He's not counting into what our cost our planners, our own Town staff put into in. So the cost is in considerable. One of the questions I have is for the moratorium commiuuee is whan is the build out ~hat you expec~ under five acre zening? Do you have an}, build-eut scenarie? What kind of -- MR. CLEARY: The answer's coming in the FEIS. MR. COOPER: Right now yeu don't ha?e any answers? When yeu did your document dit you have any answers? HR. CLEARY: Yes, we have the build eun scenario. MR. COOPER: But yeu don't -- you can't give them new? HR. CLEARY: The fermat for the respense is the FEIS, that's when you'll get 5he response. MR. COOPER: Of the reports nhat wen5 before this Town, 5he Tewn has done over the last 20 years, how many ef these reports recommended upzeningl HR. CLEARY: right new? HR. COOPER: MR. CLEARY: MR. COC, PER: reports that you people have You're asking for a I'm asking for a I don't recall. From my study of the studied, I don't COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631/ 879-8047 78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 kn~w of any of them that recommended five acre upzoning or any upzoning. Therefore, I'm surprised 5hat you studied these reports and now you automatically want to upzone. The reports did make a lot of other recommendations. I don't see a lot of that in yo~tr reports. On Page 3-28 of the first part of the report, you compare us 5o Napa Valley, you compare us no Maryland and Montgomery. We are no5 those places. Those places are vastly different than wha5 we are. I would like to see a comparison cf ~ place similar 5o us. A place with preservation history and preservation tools nhat we now have. As Mr. Baiz said, I find it amazing nhat the average build-out on the AC and R-80 land is pushing 20 acres, equivalent zoning, and you are pushing a five acre zoning. As Mr. Baiz said, and I tota±ly agree with him, in's a development tool and this is a development plan, pure and simple. You want to build our town out faster and heavier than we're now doing, and the taxes will therefore be much higher nhan what is taking place 5oday. The cost to the taxpayer -- and I've often heard this -- Ehe cost to the taxpayer will be too much. Well, the cost of the taxpayer will be much higher with the five acre zoning build out, I'd like to see a re~rt on that, wha~ that kind of cos5 will be than under the preservation that we are now doing. We are now -- it is now being f~n~ded bi' private sontributions, County and a two percent money. There's very, very little coming out of the local taxpayer's pocket, if any. Thank you. MS. DZUGAS-SMITH: You'll have to excuse my appearance, but I was farming until 8:,~,0. I haven't had ~ime to -- SUPERVI£OR HORTON: Please state your name. MS. DZUGAS-SHITH: Oh, I'm serry I'm Denna Dzugas-Smit±~. I haven't had time to read yeur report, I've been driving a tractor. I can listen te i5 maybe if the cow's net COURT REPORTIN3 .a2JD TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 loose on the North Road. I think the main thing you're leaving out is 5hat quality of life. People cosine out, they lock at the far,n; they look at our cow, our goaIs, they look at 5he open lant, and that's what's drawing them out and what's keeping me here is my open land and my way of life for my kids. And you know what, it scares me when I see a repor~ like this written bt, prcfessional peopl~ that haven't lived on the farm, haven't worked their fingernails down, haven't gotten the dirt everywhere and don't li.~e in a house full of dust and can make decisions like this. You have to realize what you're dealing with. I don't see you knocking on people who have ~randfathered their little lots in a quarter acre, half acre, one acre and saying give up p?ur equity in that lot, you cannot develoL ~t. The farmer has an equity in the s5yle of life they live and in the land they own. You don't have a right to 5rea5 us any different than any oIher citizen in this Town. And I'ii tell you, I get things in the mail all the time from developers up west. They must ge~ our ~.2reage from the County, Hey, we'll buy your lot. For some reason, th=y're confident 5hey'll get it developed into two acres. A~d I, as a resident, don't ha,~e that confidence. What yon'ye got to bring back to ali this, it's very simple, honesty. Get the politics out of it. Get the money ou5 of it. Deal with the people. That's what's getting people out here. rhey like the people elemenI. You have ns stay wiEh the people. SUPERVISC, R HORTON: Anyone else care to address the Town Board? In the back. HR. GERGELA: Geed evening, my native is Joe Gergel~, and I'm the Executive Dizecter ef Long Island Farm Bureau. Many cf you in the room know me, knsw my family. I grew up in Jamespert. I was a potato and vegetable farmer jus5 down the road en Sound A.-enue. But many ef you don'E know that my rsoIs are actually in So~uheld. My father's mother, my grandmother, 79 COURT REPORTING AND TR~{SCRIPTiC, N SERVICE {631! 878-8047 8O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 her family farm is where Steve Seluski's farm is, right across from the Mudds. That was my grandmother, and her maiden name was Zebeski, and I still have her family in the Town of Seutheid. So all in. life growing up I spent a lot ef time not onif in Riverhead but also in Seuthold. In mt, teenage years, I went to your beaches. I know m~ny ef the folks in Town. So I'm somewhat of ~ local boy. The reason that I say this to you is because I represenn, I think, some ef the finest character c.~ people, hard-working and care about their ce~mnunities, and you folks are very lucky to [~'~e them live in your Town in Southold. And i don't think that the farmers ef this To~.~n have been given the respect ~hat they teserve for wha~ ~hey do in their contributions ~o keeping this community ehe way it is. Hany eZ ~hese folks that are working en the farms and vineyards an~ all the various types ef atriculture, it's a business. It's a business. It's an industry. And they de it to make a pro,it. The best way te preserve farmland i. 5 to allow them ~o have tha~ environment bi' which they can be profitable. My faEher told me that 25 years ago when I farmed ~i~h him. The document that you have de~elope~ and there .ere a number of concerns, and I would be ver_' redundant ~o repeat them ail, bu~ some ef them I think are very important things tha~ need further study. Steve Weir made an excellent presentation. One .~f the things tha~ I picked uN was the lack ef glanced over many ef ~he alternatives and things in thee report. The economic analysis, in's glanced over and I was surprised to see tha~ you do mention that there is a 20 te 30 percenE hit en equity if you ge to five acre zoning. That should better the conscience ef people. Second point is the impact on the traditional farmland preservation prograph and what will be the impact on that preg~ln, which has been suc~ressful for more ~han 25 years. One thing Ehat I will tell you is than several of you Board members have worked COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631~ 878-8047 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 damn hard in furthering tha~ program, and I'm going to say it here not only because of Josh, but Bobby Koz in Riverhead and Stentini in Southampton, Jay Schneiderman in East Hampton, the Village Mayors and Supervisors Association have worked damn hard in working wiki% the Farm Bureau and other elec5ed officials seeking the funds for real preservation. It was stated by several people thau that document is a development plan, not a preservation plan. And I agree with that. What I don't understand is why, knowing 5hat there's 1,500 acres ~3efore 5he Town's committee and Suffolk County's committee, why there is no~ more en~phasis by this Board in delnanding in other levels of government that we find some more money. Maybe we can't get it all, but there ~s no effort being done to find the funding tc compensate landowners who voluntarily want 5c preserve land in uhis Towu. You got 1,500 acres before you with no action. You got people doing conservation sub~tivisions before your Planning Board, your Plenning Department and the Town Attorney's office that are sinning there non being acted on. COUNCILHAN ROMANELLI: Joe, tell the truth here, please. I can't stand hearing li~-s any longer. There is net 1,500 acres in fronE of us. Ne one has walked away from our land preservation committee because ne funding has been there. MR. GERGELA: They have seen su[~ervisors, and the Board is not responding tc them. COUNCILHAN ROMANELLI: Anyone that comes before the Farm Preservation Board has no[ been walked away because there's been no money. So talk the %ruEh if you're going to stand here and talk. MR. GERGELA: It is not false. Tbe~~ are before the committees, why are they not being acted en if there's such -- COUNCILH.~2[ ROMANELLI: Nothing is non being acted et. Tell the truth, Joe. MR. GERGELA: Why are Ehey not going forward? COURT REPORTING .tCqD TRANSCRIPTIDN SERVICE ,1631) 85'8-8047 82 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 opportunzty SUPERVigC, R HORTON: This is an COUNCIL[I~i{ ROMA!WELLI: Where' s the c~ocumentat ion? MR. GER.3ELA: Here, I have it. I have the data on this program for you. COUNCILMLi'~ ROMANELLI: Bring it SUPERVISOR HORTON: I'd like to lower the tension in the Board. This is an opp.oruunity for the [~ublic to address the Board. The commenns will be incorporated into the minutes and the minumes will be presented to the Board and th= team and our legal de~,artment, and ali ~hat information will be deciphered. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Just put the truth out. SUPERVISOR HORTON: And move forward. And I ask ahat nobody on this Board become hostile toward the public regardless of what they' re trying ~o say. MR. GERGELA: Ail I'm trying to say is we've struggled trying to get certain elements of data ~ca because voluntary preservation is working, and ~haE's not coming out for some reason fairly. There are a number of alternatives in the document, and these are good alternatives. And what I'd like to see you do is extrapolate and take some data, and do some mu~1eling for the alternatives. The co~servation subdivision process, we wane to se= that happen; th~'s very beneficial. The wri~ , transfer development rights, I know that that is a difficult issue in this Town. We've worked on this over the years. We have been trying to do it in Riverhead for many vears. It's finally starting to move forward. We're not quite there yet. It's an ~portant tool. It may be, i~ay not be able ~o be widely used in Souuhold, but I think it's deserving ,Df furnher extrapolating and building upon because in can be a useful tool. What I'm su~gesting is that ~here are alternatives that need further scrutiny to be looked at. As far as tt~e document, and I'm COURT REPORTING AND TRAiqSCRIPTI~N SERVICE {631) 878-8047 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 not a lawyer, so bear with me on this. One of the things that we woult like to see is a set ef conditions in this draft that clearly states tha~ any restrictive zoning, recommendations er ilternatives should be sL~bjecu to further SEQRA review down the road. That way we ~nake sure ~hat whatever actions Lhat you take are based upon certain conditions and thresholds; that you have explored other possibilities at least as far as discussion. One thiuG, and again, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not quite sure if I'm understanding Ehis document, but one thing tha~ I am concerned of for the farm community and all ~he landowners is the right uo protest, and there are provisions in municipal boards, such as thinls for super majority to be able to revoEe, and that's a form of protest. I would lzke to see as pare of this process that that rmght is retained; that the Town is aware of that, and will give the landowners a fair chance at due process and be able to protest if ~ha~ day comes. And, John, all due respect, I wasn't trying te be hostile. I was just making the poin~ that there is an awful lot of landowners who have gone not only to ~he Town, bk~t uhe County as well. COUNCIL[.I~N ROMANELLI: Joe, I wasn't trying to be hostile either. I just would really respecn Ene truth when you speak, and I welcome the dccumentation that you -- MR. GERGELA: I have a data base tha~ will show you uhe numbers. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Please do. MR. GERGELA: And it is a work in progress, with all Oue respect. There are people that have gone forward that may build CO~{CILMAi{ ROMANELLI: Not even close, the numbers aren't even close. MR. GERGELA: Be that as it may, I wasn'u meaning Eo be disrespectful to you. So these are a number of things that I have picked up on that I thin~ were imporuanu and should be considered as part of the SEQRA process. And you know I think that COURT REPORTING AND TRf~SCRIPTION SERVICE ~631) 878-8047 84 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Bill Esseks represented the farmers on it tonight pretty well on the legal stuff. I hope he will continue to do that. We are working with the farm co~munity and one of the things I Rave been t~iking to and have been seeing with Riverhead is can't we work out some things that can better serve the community than bashing heads all the time, and we haven't been aOle to have that kind of a process and maybe that we're all remiss in doing that. But I think that there are a lot of alternatives that need a further exploration before you take drastic action and go forward with an upzone. And I thank you for the time to spea~ to you tonight. MR. ROONEY: Mt, name is John Rooney from the Hamlet of Southold. I just two weeks ago became a member of the board of nhe N.F.E.C., but I hasten to add, especially to the farmers to,night, I am not here as an ideologue. I am new to that board and I am here essentially as a uitizen. I have come to a lot of hearings about the moratorium as a citizen. So I am not speaking as a representative of ~.F.E.C., ant, in fact, I've had discussions with them in terms of the complexities of this, so I am not an ideologue. What is, unfortunately, most impressing me tonigh~ is the number of people, a~t I have included mi'self, who have come up here and have had an awful lot to say while admitting they have read very little of the douument if any. I l_~ve tried to downlsad it at hcme and read what I could, but I'm having a lot of trouble with it because pages disappear and it seems to jump around and not easy. And the gentleman earlier who said that maybe we should have some sort of a summary puu out, I think that should be done. I've gotten the feeling that this wh.}le thing -- I'm having difficulty with tonight that people are being asked to comment on a document that was only very recently released, that was very hard to get ycur hands on and that very few of us have really read in any Oeptn. So how can we COURT REPORTI~[.S A~D TP~XNSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878 8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 comment on it. And my understanding was also that it's not particularly taking a position. I know that the five acre zoning thing is out there, but officially the document is not taking a position, and :,'et we're arguing as th.~u~b this was a hearing on five acre zoning, which it is not. So I'm sitting here hesitant t~ speak because I feel am I really not qualified to say anything intelligent about this. So I have a tremendous respect for the farmers of Southold, believe me. I have an environmental poin5 of view as well, but the point is, let's take our time an~ before we get overly excited with each other, let's a~ lease all be able to read this as thoroughly as possible and maybe we' 1i find that 5here is more ccmmonality. Things like R-I D, for example, very li~51e has been said about that. Even if we wenn to five acre zoning, my understanding is that there are many things that would have t© be done, I believe, not just five acre zcuing, but other things, sophisticated things ih combination with that that would ~educe the lcss of equity of the farmer. I'm not CLUE to bash or make them pa'.' for it. I think in some ways the taxpayer ma)~be should carry a heavier burden. I think there are various ways ~axation should be heavier for people who want to build McHansions. There's :~ lot of things. I ~hink a lot of the farm speakers were right in terms of spreading the expense of all this. My point is, without trying to scund like a Polly Anna, but I think that we really can be a lot more rational in the discussion but the first thing is the ii~orma~ion has to be made more available, mere time has ~o be allowed before we have Ebese hearings, because I think they prematurely come to bea.~-bashing that Mr. Gergela just spoke about, and that's not going to help any one of us. Okay, so please tr'.' no do what you can to get that out 5o us. Thank yOU. MS. NEVILLE: Excuse me, could you s[_.elz your name, please? 85 COURT REPORTIN,i; AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631} 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ROONEY: R-O O-N-E-Y, John Southold. MS. NEVILLE: Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank ~rou, Mr. Would anyOody else care to address the Boar~ this evening? It's only 10:40. we'll leave this Public Hearing open and the next date is June 23rd au 4:30, I beiieve, in the afternoon. It will be held at S,.~tthola Town Hall. Keep it in mind mhat I wmii have an alzernate space available, and if it looks like we're loading up in Town Hall, we will make note of where we're meeting. We appreciate your patience this erecting. We appreciaue your coming down and participating in this process. It's the mEn,lost importance to us as we move forward as a ~oard. Thank you. (Time ended: 10:42 p.m.! C E R T I F I C A T I I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for ti~e State of New York, do hereby certify: THAT the within transcript is a true record of the testimony given. I further certify that I am not related by blood or marriage, nc any of the parties to this action; and THAT I am in no wa~' interested in the outcome of this matter. I[~ WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my han~ this 19Eh day of June, 2003. Florence V. Wiles 86 COURT REPORTIP:3 ANE, TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE [631) 878-8047 and lhe Dephmnent ot I ransportat~on res~.Ien'[ ne sa~d~ ..... SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN HALL 53095 Main Road, Southold, NY ON DGEIS (Draft Generic _Environmental Impact S_tatement) prepared for the proposed Town Comprehensive Implementation Strategy (A Planning Study for Southold Town) PUBLIC INFORMATION SESSION Thursday, June 19, 2003 m 6:30 to 7:30 p.m. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC TO COMMENT Thursday, June 19, 2003 -- 7:30 p.m. Monday, June 23, 2003 -- 4:30 p.m. Tuesday, June 24, 2003 -- 7:00 p.m. (10 days provided for written comment after close of public hearing) D F, F d' it Imp deb, mgs 24. inct err Sou inte LIP U.S 2 spr¢ Ma Cul 1,6' and ma. .cell ' the PUBILC HEARING ON DGEIS OF SCIS ~ ~ Dra~t'~eneric Environmental Impact Sl~tement of $outhold Co,mprebensive Implementation Strategy ~- ..... ~ ~ { ~./v~ ~,.,'//~ ~,..~. ~o~'~ P),~qse legibly nrint all ~nformatioll /~/. c~ ~, ATTENDANCE SHEET JUNE 19, 2003 PUBILC HEARING ON DGEIS OF SCIS Draft Gen~ic Environmental Impact Statem~ut uf Southold Comprehensive Implementation $trateKy Ple~e.lt~iblv orint all ~!~ormafion ATTENDAN~ SHEET JUNE , 2003 PUBILC HEARING ON DGEIS OF SCIS Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement of Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Please legibly print all information Name Street Address/PO ,Box Hamlet OTICE OF CCEPTANCE OF THE DRAFT GENERIC EIS & SCHEDULING OF PUBLIC HEARING Lead Ageno': Contact: Address: Town of Southold To,am Board Hon. Joshua Horton, Supervisor Toxvn Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Date: June 3, 2003 This notice is issued pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act - SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and Chapter 44 of the To,am Code of the Town of Southold. The lead agency has determined that the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) prepared for the proposed To,am Comprehensive Implementation Strategy is complete and adequate for public review and comment. Title of Action: SEQR Status: Description of Action: To`am of Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Type I Action The proposed action involves the evaluation and, where appropriate, imple- mentation by the Southold Town Board of the recommended planning and program tools and measures as described in the planning studies undertaken within the To,am over the past 20 years. The studies, plans and recommendations have been reviewed in terms of current needs and Town goals to achieve the To`ann's vision as articulated in the following plans. · Parks, Recreation & Open Space Survey (1982) · Town Master Plan Update and Background Studies (1984/85) · USFUK Countryside Stewardship Exchange Team (1991) · Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan (1 · Town Affordable Housing policies and program (1993) · Fishers Island GrowthPlan (1987-1994) · Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Study (1994) · Seaview Trails of the North Fork (1995) · Peconic Estuary Program (1995) · Economic Development Plan, Town of Southold (1997) · Community Preservation Project Plan (July, 1998) · Southold Township: 2000 Planning Initiatives · County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study (1999) · Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy (1999) Location: SCTM No.: · I Water Supply Management ~1 Protection Strategy (2000 · Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (2001) · Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (2003) · North Fork TravelNeeds Assessment (2002) · Blue Ribbon Commission for a Rural Southold, Final Report (July 14, 20C · Southold Town Code, Zoning Code and Zoning Map These recommendations are being considered by the Town Board for implementation in the form of amendments to Town procedures, the Town Code and various Town regulations, in conformance with the Town's Comprehensive Planning. As a result, the proposed action involves legislative changes, with no specific physical changes proposed. The Town Board intends to initially consider all prior recommendations with an emphasis on those that protect farmland, and open space, promote affordable housing and preserve natural resources. The Board may prioritize, narrow down or select implementation tools that best achieve the goals of the Town. The basic goals of the above-referenced plans and studies include: · The Town's goal is to preserve land including open space, recreation and working landscapes. · The Town's goal is to preserYe rural, cultural, historic character of the hamlets and surrounding countryside. · The Town's goal is to preserve its natural environment; to prevent furth deterioration of resources and to restore degraded resources back to pristi~ or near pristine quality. · The goal of the Town is to preserve and promote a range of housing and business opportunities that would support a socio-economically diverse community. · The Toxvn's goal is to increase transportation efficiency and to create attractive alternatives to automobile travel, while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of the Town, State, County and local roadways. The Board will solicit inter-agency and public input, and will consider potential impacts under a public forum provided through a Gener/c Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) procedure. The proposed action will provide a means to ensure that the above-listed Town goals will be achieved through a comprehensive, well-established and well-considered land use decision-making framework. The proposed action would apply to the entire Town. All of District 1000 Potential Environme~Impacts: The proposed action involves the evaluation and, where appropriate, implementation of 20 years of planning recommendations in a comprehensive manner and consistent with current Town needs. By virtue of the fact that the initiative is intended to implement the past planning studies of the To'am, it is consistent with the Town Comprehensive Plan which includes the zoning code and building zone map, zoning decisions, goals, legislative actions and the record of decisions that forms the Town's direction in terms of achieving its vision. The action is not expected to cause significant adverse impacts, since it advances the goals of the Town. However, the action is of Tovcn-wide significance, and does involve changes to natural and human resources. In consideration of the factors noted above, the following potential impacts have been identified: The proposed action may result in impacts to the natural and human resources of the Town, individually, cumulatively or synergistically. Zone changes anct/or Torch Code revisions may be necessary to implement recommendations. The action may set a precedent with regard to the growth and character of the Toxvn and/or individual communities. Notice/Action: The Southold Town Board has reviexved the Draft GEIS prepared for the proposed action and, based upon its review of its contents and required contents established in the Final Scope, determined that the document is adequate for public review and comment, and hereby schedules a special public hearing on the Draft GElS for June 19, 2003 at the Southold Town Hall hearing room (53095 Main Road, Southold), at which time the hearing will start with a public information session on the proposed action and DGEIS document from 6:30 to 7:30 p.m., followed by an opportunity for the public to comment on the DGEIS beginning at 7:30 p.m. The comment period will remain open and the hearing will be continued on June 23, 2003 at 4:30 p.m. and June 24, 2003 at 7:00 p.m.. At least 10 days will be provided for written comment after the close of the public hearing. For Further Information Contact: Greg Yakaboski, Esq., Town Attorney Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Telephone: (631) 765-1889 Copies of this Notice Sent to: Town of Southold Supervisor's Office Town Clerk of the Town of Southold Toxx~n of Southold Planning Board Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold Town Trustees Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works Suffolk County Water Authority Suffolk County Planning Commission NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, CormTUssioner, Albany NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Regional Office at Stony Brook NYS Dept. of Transportation NYS Dept. of State US Army Corps of Engineers inc. Village of Greenport Towns of Riverhead, Southampton and Shelter Island Parties of Interest Officially on Record ~vith the Town Clerk (if applicable) STATE OF NEW SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, New York being duly sworn, says that on the 5 day of June ,2003, she affixed a notice of which the annexed printed notice is a tree copy, in a proper and substantial manner, in a most public place in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, to wit: Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York. NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE DRAFT GENERIC EIS & SCHEDULING OF PUBLIC HEARING Southold Town Clerk Sworn before me this 5th day of June ,200~u. (~/ / ~qotary Public LYNDA M. BOHN NOTARY PUBLIC, State of Nm~ Yo~ No, 01BOB020932 Qualified In Suffolk Count/ Term Expires M~ch EIS & SCIIEJ)ULII'(G OF PUBLIC;; BJWUNG Lead Agency. Town. . of Southold 1'own Board . 'U' Contact: Hon. J~ . QIlOn, S~ Address:Town Hall, 'Road 53095 Main . P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dt#e:June 3\ 2003 ! T1riuotice s issued p\lfSllllllt l& 6.NYCRR Pljrt 6F of the imjlIementing re~ns per- taining to ArtiCle 8 (S\llte Envirorimental Quality Review Act - SEQRA) of the Environmental Conserval1on Law and Chapter 44 of the Town Code of the Town of Southold '"" :;,!TIt . J..,r.J.J Fr 1Il_ .,....u..@~... '''-rllJ'';';:':::'~. 'ng page se,rve)ts Dlitural environment; to ......"'....-. pn;'Veiif "fiirtIiet'iJe(l!rionttioil qf resqurces and to resl!>~,degraded ~es back to pnstme or ilear pr,iS6ne quality. "11\e goahlf the Town is to ~e and pro!l1'!~ a range ,!f '!cillsi.nl! and tiuSlness opportuni- ties.t!Ilit would support a socio- ecooolllically diverse communi- ty. . .~ ,Town's goal is to increase fransportation efficiency and to Create attractive alterna- tives to automobile travel, while ~ the scenic and historic attributes. of the Town, State, County and local roadways. 'The Board' will soliCtt inter- ~and~ !ntmt.an:,~ a PJJbIic.~proviuu.r:r througb a Genenc)~nVlroll111elltallnul8Ct Statement . (GElS) proceaure. The prllpOsed action Will provide a means to ensure that the above- listed . TOwn~' oals will be achieved throu a comprehen- sive, well-esta6 ished ana well- considered' land use decision- ~ framework. Location: The . proposed action would apply to the entire Town. $CTM No.: AIl of District 1000 Potential Environmental Impaets: .' The proposed action involves the ev8lualion and, where aJlPl"O- priate, implementation of 20 y'ears . of pfanning recommenda- tions m a comprehensive manner and consistent with current Town needs. By virtoe of the fact that the initiative is 'intended to imPlement .the PaS! planni!,g stuaies of the Town, It IS consIS- tent with the Town Comprehensive Plan which incluae!i the zoning code and building zone ~, zonin& deci- sioilS goa:Js; Ieg.slatiw iiCtions and the record of decisions that furms 'the' Town's direction in tenus of lIchieving its vision. The ac.tion is not expected to cause' . . sigriificant adverse impacls Sifice. it advances the goals of lIIe Towll. However, the action is of Town-wide signifi- cance, and does involve changes to natural and bumari resources. In consideration of lIIe.factors noted . ah'ove, '. lIIe fOllowing P!>tenl1a1lmpacts have been Identified: . . I. :l'Il:~Prowsedaction may result ./Il I!fipabts. 10 lb~ natunil apdhliimin res9\INes of the Thwn, iUdiviilti.l!JlY. Cumulatively or, ~'iJ.'$islicallY.~echanges lU1(j{(}J'IOWPCqjfefllvisinns may be'~',th' itilplement rec- O\Wl)~, .. 2: The' action may set a precedent With regard to the gt!l.W1 wth. .ana. Chllract. . er. Of. . the 'foW!l. and/or individual,commu- rl1lillSi" " . '.' .,.". NO&et.. TheSo1)thold ToWn BOard has ri:viewed the IJrafl GElS pre- pared fur the. prOposed actioO ::.....~updn i~~ew orits 'alUd .~UU... contents ~ 'in'IIIliFillal S~""", detetJnined. ttiat the~rr. Iide\liiiIte for PlIbIlli .review Rnd e.,/WJel't aIid here&r schc$les a ,~ial puh'lic heai'ing on the Driul GElS for June 1 ~, 2003 at t\je .8oU$OI.d Thwn .Hau bearing room (53095 Mam Road, Soulllold),at Which time the h~'wiU start with 8 public ~'~onth~. ~'aetioniindDGEIS4 ~.fn)rn<6:30 ~"1:30J4l1', fbl- \OWett'bYan'~ty'for the til!bliiHo oo.~tbrt1he-DGEIS be.mgitlningIll1: O. 'r. .ltl. Th~com- ment period wiI . reIDaIIl open and tile heariiIgWilllie continUed on JUne 23;'Z003at 4:30 p.m. and June 24, 2003 Ill. 7:00 \l.m. At least 10 dayS will he proVIded fur' written.~ after the close of the public hearing. For Further Inforiilatilln The lead ag'~~s . deter- minedtbat tile . ..,. Generic EiIvironmen.ta1 talImp8cl. . .... 'S1atem.... . ent (DOEIS). prepat!:d. Jor'l1\e Pr0- posed "town OQlllj\rehenswe !mpllll)lel11ation StmilJgy is com- plete l\i1I1 adeqiiilte'rcir public review and comment. TItle of Aciibn:. Town of Soulllold .' .. Comprehensive lmplemeritation StriItegy SEQR status: ''fVpe I Action DeSCription, qfA'itlOn:The pr0- posed action mvolvesllle evalua- tion spd,. where. .apprllpriate, implementation hr' lIie Sonthold 1'own QclanI of tlie =ommend- ed pllll\liing lInd 'progmn, lI)Ols and m~s as descnOed in the planning stodies und~rtaken within t!:ie Town over the past 20 years. The studies, plaDs and recommendations have heen reviewed in ten:nsof current needs and lowll gOOls to achieve the Town's vision as articulated in the fullowing plans. . Par.ks, Recreatinn & Open Space Survey (l9l!2} . Town Maslei PIan Update and Background Studies (1984/85) . US/UK CoUntryside Steward-ship Exchange Team (1991). . Long Island Comprehensive Special GroUUdwater Protection Area Plan (1992) . Town. Affordable Housing policies and program (1993) . Fishers fslaiid Griiwth Plan (1987-1994) . Southola Town Stewardship Task Force S!!!dY. (1994) . Seaview T\'ll1ls of the North Fork (1995) . Peconic Estuary Program (1995) . Economic DeVeIOI?....~ me. .nt Plan. Town ofSoulllold 0,,-,) . Community Preservation Project Plan (July, 1998) . . Southold Township: 2000 Planning Initiatives . County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Stody (1999) . Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy (1999) . Town Wilter Supply Management & Waterilied Protection Strategy (2000) . Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (2001) . Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (2003) , . North. Fork Travel: Needs Assessment (2002) .', < . BIui: RiblxlIlCo\l1l1lission for a RuralSouthold, Final Report (July 14,2002\ . . ' " . c~O'::'~Zo.ld~i/:f~'~~ These reco~e:.&tions are ~~.. ..~.. DSI...:. tlwon.th. ~.Tothwn ~'I.,. . . _', me fI . f' . " ' li .8&..1~ "th"T... "to Qwn t"';"""~~' e ,own COde and various Town regulations, in conformance' with the Town's Co~veJ'lannin" . As. a reslllt, the; .... ," ~'i>'ac(j9n inYolv~s 'fe~= chanlles, with ;,Jlp'" SlI""'. 'fic' I1bYSICaI changes proposed. The Town Board intendS to initially consi4- er all prior recommendations willi an eDlphasis on th~ tbat protect failtUan.~.. and.. open ~pace, promote ,lQiordaQle hoos- mg and. .JltpServe natural re~ The BOard may prior- ~. \l8!7OW dowll or select itilplen1e4tatiQn tOOls that. best 8l'liieve, lIIeis~<1(,tbI:.'l'P.Wn. ;the~g .Qf1b8 ..' f- f;~tP.,......., .)1.11 dM. ~,~s , .....;the T~wn,'Sjl!)l!l.. is .to pre- setve Il!l1'I inCluding pt>en space, recreajioll. and . workjng land- ~ Town's goal is to pre_ serve rural, cultural, historic charncter of the hamlets ahd'Sur- ~ countryside. , . The "'roWn's goal is '1IY pre- Contact: . 'Greg 'Y8bboski;-Esijo,' Town Attomer. Town HaII,5309S Main Road P.O. Bolt 1179 ' Southold, NY 11971 Telephone: (63H 765-1889 . IX 6/5103 (770) ~~A - Tr4JIeler Watchlllllft - Tbursday,.Jun~ ,,",(!O3 ~ ........... from preceding """e serve its natural envir?Dmeot; to -- ~ prevent further detetiombon of resources and to restore degraded resources back to pristine or near pristine quality. . The goal of the Town is to preserve and promote a range of l!!"l8ing and business opportuni- tillS'tJu\i would support a socio- ee"ononiically diverse communi- ty. ....... . ;', lie .Town's goal is to increase transportation efficiency and to create attractive alterna- tives to automobile !mvel, while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of the Town, State, County and IClCaI roadways. The Board will soliCIt inter- agency and public input, and will consider potential impacts under a ublic forum rovided throu enen nvrronmen Statement (GElS) proce ure. The proposed action WiII provide a means to ensure that the ahove- listed Town ~oals will be achieved throu a comprehen- sive, well-esta6 ished ann well- considered land use decision- making frameworl<. Location: The - proposed action would apply to the entire Town. SCTMNo.: All of District 1000 Potential Environmental Impacts: The proposed action involves the evaluation and, where appro- priate, implementation or 20 years of planning recommenda- tions in a comprehensive manner and consistent with current Town needs. By virtue of the fact that the initiative is intended to implement the past planning stuilies of the Town, it IS consis- tent with the Town Program Comprehensive Plan which inelunes the zoning code and building zone map, zoning deci- sions, goals, legIslative actions and the record of decisions that fonns the Town's direction in terms of achieving its vision. The action is not expected to cause. significant adverse impacts, since it advances the goiils of the Town. However, the action is of Town-wide signifi- cance, and does involve changes to natural and human resources. In consideration of the factors noted above, the following potential impacts have been Identified: 1. The proposed action may resnlt in impacts to the natural and human resources of the Town, individually, cumulatively or synergistically. Zone changes and/or Town CoOe revisions may be necessary to implement rec- ommendations. 2. The action may set a precedent with regard to the growth and character of the Town and/or individual commu- nities. Notice/Action: The Southold Town Board has reviewed the Draft GElS pre- pared for the proposed action and, based upon its review of its contents and required contents estaBlished in the Final Scope, determined that the document is adequate forJ'ublic review and comment, an hereby schedules a special public hearing on the Draft GElS for June 19, 2003 at the Southold Town Hall hearing room (53095 Main Road, Southold), at which time the hearing will start with a public information session on the pro- posed action and DGEIS docu- ment from 6:30 to 7:30 p.m., fol- lowed by an opJlortunity for the public to comment on the DGEIS beginning at 7:30p.m. The com- ment period wil remain open and the hearing will be continued on June 23, 2003 at 4:30 p.m. and June 24, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. At least 10 days will be proVIded for written comment after the e10se of the public hearing. For Further Information f. The lead agency has deter- mined that tile Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) prepared for the pro- posed Town Comprehensive Implementation S!mtegy is com- plete and adequate for public reVIew and comment. Title of Action: Town of Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy SEQR Status: 1'vDe I Action Description of Aciion:The pr0- posed action involves the evalua- tion and, where appropriate, unplementabon by the Southold Town Board of tile recommend- ed planning and pro@llD.l tools and measures as desc in the planning smdie." un e en within the Town over the past 20 years. The slodies, plans and recommendations have been reviewed in terms of current needs and Town goals to achieve the Town's vision as articulated in the following plans. . Parks, Recreation & Open Space Survey (1982) . . Town Master Plan Update and Background Studies (1984/85) . USIUK Countryside Steward-ship Exchange Team (1991) . Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan (1992) . Town Affordable Housing policies and program (1993) . Fishers Tsland Growth Plan (1987-1994) . Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Stud:r (1994) . Seaview TmiIs of the North Fork (1995) . Peconic Estuary (1995) . Economic Development Plan, Town of Southold (1997) . Community Preservation Project Plan (July, 1998) . Southold Township: 2000 Planning Initiatives . County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study (1999) . Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy (1999) . Town Wilter Supply Management & Watcrsliea Protection S!mtegy (2000) . Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (200 I ) . Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (2003) . North Fork Travel Needs Assessment (2002) . Blue Ribbon Commission for a Rural Southold, Final Report (July 14,2002) . Southold Town Code, Zoning CoOe and Zoning Map These recommendations are being considered by the Town Boaro for implementation in the form of amendments to Town procedures, the Town Code and various Town regulations, in conformance with the Town's Comprehensive P1anning. As a result, the proposed action involves legIslative changesj with no specific physlea changes proposed. The Town Board intendS to initially consid- er all prior recommendations with an emphasis on those that protect farmland, and open space, promote affordable hous- ing and preserve natural resources. The Board may prior- itize, narrow down or select implementation tools that best acliieve the goals of the. Town. The basic goaIS of tire above-ref- erenced plans and studies include: . The Town's goal is to pre- serve land including ~ space, recreation and workmg land- scapes. . The Town's goal is to pre- serve rural, cultural, historic character of the hamlcts and sur- rounding countryside. . The Town's gual is to pre- Contact: Greg Yakaboski, Esq" Town Attorney Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box II 79 Southold, NY 11971 Telephone: (631) 765-1889 sworn, says _ IX 6/5/03 (770) Advertising Coordinator, of the Traveler Watchman, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published III said Traveler Watchnum once each week for...../.....weeKfi; ~ccessively, 6iom e fing.,,~n the......0.........day of .... .~~;rc.......,2003. .. . /-x.../.~'-:Y~.~. ;;: ,..-- :s S~~~before me this.........day of "Q tJ,....., 2003. -~- - . L . / - .' /;".-,. / C/0, ?' /../ ~>~. 'c"", ..../6~ .Go... /.~ ~~. ?~:;(:. Notary Public Emily Hamill 'OTARY I'liBLlC, State of'cw York No. 01 H.'\5059984 Qualified in Suffolk County Commission expires May 06, 2006 NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF TIlE DRAFT GENERIC EIS & SCHEDULING OF PUBLIC HEARING Lead Agency: Town of Southold Town Board Contact: Hon. Joshua Horton, Supervisor Address: Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box II 79 D Southold, NY 11971 llte:June 3 2oo3~' . This notice is iSSUed pursuant !<> 6 NYC~ Part 617 of the 1ll1plementing regulations per_ tam~ng to Article 8 (Slate EnVironmental Quality Review Act. - SEQRA) of the EnVironmental Conservation Law ,and Chapter 44 of the Town Code of the Town of Southold. 2003 · ]he S~ff,i~IR T~mes · '1~ SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN HALL 53095 Main Road, Southold, NY ON DGEIS (Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement) prepared for [he proposed Town Comprehensive Implementation Strate~ (A Planning Study for Southold Town) Public Information Session Thursday, June 19, 2003 6:30- 7:30 p.m. Opportunity for Public to Comment Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 7:30 p.m. Monday, June 23, 2003 - 4:30 p.m. Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 7:00 p.m. ( I 0 days provided for written comment after close of public hearing) SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN HALL 53095 Main Road, Southold, NY ON DGEIS (~Draft G~eneric E_nvironmental Impact Statement) prepared for the proposed Town Comprehensive Implementation Strategy (A Planning Study for Southold Town) PUBLIC INFORMATION SESSION Thursday, June 19, 2003 -- 6:30 to 7:30 p.m. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC TO COMMENT Thursday, June 19, 2003 -- 7:30 p.m. Monday, June 23, 2003 -- 4:30 p.m. Tuesday, June 24, 2003 -- 7:00 p.m. (10 days provided for written comment after close of public hearing) .. . . TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SEQRA RES()'::lJTI()~ Jung3.; Z!J.l;ll1 SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY ACCEPTANCE OF DRAFT GElS WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southold (the "Board") has assumed lead agency status in review of the above-referenced action and for the purpose of compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Action (SEQRA), as codified in 6 NYCRR Part 617,and WHEREAS, the Board found that a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) would be necessary, and issued the appropriate determination (via a Positive Declaration) to require such document for the proposed action, considering that the recommendations may result in potential impacts which may include cumulative and/or generic impacts, and WHEREAS, the Board is familiar with the scoping process as outlined in SEQRA Part 617.8 (Scoping), and WHEREAS, the Board held a public scoping meeting on January 29, 2003 at the Southold Town Hall meeting room, and a period of 10-days were provided following the public scoping meeting to allow for submission of written comments, and WHEREAS, the Board accepted the Final Scope as complete on April 8, 2003, and WHEREAS, the Draft GElS has been prepared in conformance with the Final Scope, and WHEREAS, the Board has reviewed the document and determined that it conforms to the required contents as stated in the Final Scope and is therefore adequate for public review and comment. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby accepts the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement after due deliberation and review of the prepared documentation, for the purpose of public and interested agency/party review, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Town Board hereby directs the Town Clerk to file a Notice of Complete Draft EIS and Notice of Public Hearing in accordance with the Notice and Filing Requirements of SEQRA and circulate the Draft EIS to public, interested agencies and parties of interest (noted below), in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 617.12, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Town Board hereby sets a hearin for a special Town Board Public Hearing on hearing rOQrti(53095 Main Road, Southold), . , Southold C.ehensive hnplementation Strategy . SEQRA Resolution BElT Ji'UR'JlIJm:RESOLVED, tha1;:theTo~~oari;lof:theTo~l!lf.Sl!luthold hereby directs the Town Clerk to file Notice of the Public Hearing in at least one (I) local newspaper, at least fifteen (15) days prior to the Public Hearing. Town of South old Supervisor's Office Town Clerk of the Town of South old Town of Southold Planning Board Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold Town Trustees Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works Suffolk County Water Authority Suffolk County Planning Commission NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Commissioner, Albany NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Regional Office at Stony Brook NYS Dept. of Transportation NYS Dept. of State US Army Corps of Engineers Inc. Village of Greenport Town of Riverhead . Town of Southampton Town of Shelter Island Parties of Interest Officially on Record with the Town Clerk (if applicable) 2 ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK . REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 349 OF 2003 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON JUNE 3, 2003: WHEREAS, the Town Board ofthe Town of Southold (the "Board") has assumed lead agency status in review of the above-referenced action and for the purpose of compliance with the State Enviroumental Quality Review Action (SEQRA), as codified in 6 NYCRR Part 617, and WHEREAS, the Board found that a Generic Environmentallmpact Statement (GElS) would be necessary, and issued the appropriate determination (via a Positive Declaration) to require such document for the proposed action, considering that the recommendations may result in potential impacts which may include cumulative and/or generic impacts, and WHEREAS, the Board is familiar with the scoping process as outlined in SEQRA Part 617.8 (Scoping), and WHEREAS, the Board held a public scoping meeting on January 29,2003 at the Southold Town Hall meeting room, and a period of 10-days were provided following the public scoping meeting to allow for submission of written comments, and WHEREAS, the Board accepted the Final Scope as complete on April 8, 2003, and WHEREAS, the Draft GElS has been prepared in conformance with the Final Scope, and WHEREAS, the Board has reviewed the document and determined that it conforms to the . . required contents as stated in the Final Scope and is therefore adequate for public review and comment. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby accepts the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement after due deliberation and review of the prepared documentation, for the purpose of public and interested agency/party review, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Town Board hereby directs the Town Clerk to file a Notice of Complete Draft EIS and Notice of Public Hearing in accordance with the Notice and Filing Requirements of SEQRA and circulate the Draft EIS to public, interested agencies and parties of interest (noted below), in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 617.12, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Town Board hereby sets a hearing date for the Draft GElS for a special Town Board Public Hearing on June 19, 2003 at the Southold Town Hall hearinl! room (53095 Main Road, South old), at which time the hearinl! will start with a public information session on the proposed action and DGEIS document from 6:30 to 7:30 p.m., followed bv an opportunity for the public to comment on the DGEIS bel!inninl! at 7:30 p.m. The comment period will remain open and the hearinl! will be continued on June 23,2003 at 4:30 p.m. and June 24, 2003 at 7:00 p.m.. At least 10 days will be provided for written comment after the close of the public hearinl!, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board ofthe Town of Southold hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to file Notice ofthe Public Hearinl! in at least one (1) local newspaper, at least fifteen (14) days prior to the Public Hearinl!. Town of South old Supervisor's Office Town Clerk of the Town of Southold Town of Southold Planning Board Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold Town Trustees Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works Suffolk County Water Authority Suffolk County Planning Commission . . . NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Commissioner, Albany NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Regional Office at Stony Brook NYS Dept. of Transportation NYS Dept. of State US Army Corps of Engineers Inc. Village of Greenport Town of River head Town of Southampton Town of Shelter Island Parties of Interest Officially on Record with the Town Clerk (if applicable) PI~~L 4'.#CI."Q--~L. Elizabeth A. Neville South old Town Clerk