HomeMy WebLinkAboutFDGEIS Public Comments1655 Lighthouse Rd.
Southold, N.Y. 11971
9/19/03
RECEIVED
8EP 2 3 2OO3
To the Southold Town Board,
$oufhold Town Clerk
I would like to go on record in favor of seeing the Town of Southold
adopt 5 acre zoning as soon as possible. I recommend that the Board
takes a vote on this matter as soon s possible.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Harry Katz
Box 285
Silvermere Road
Greenport, N.Y 11944
(516} 477-0011
Fax ~516) 477*0922
RECEIVED
SEP 2 2 2003
Scplembcr 22 ...00.~
Dear I,'(;lilS Planners:
Southold Town Clerk
Regarding VELD' response LO our clueslitms te~ardmg Country Inns, as Esl. cd in the f,l)EIS drafL
under thc heading "10 15 -- Wineries and Country Inns," wc have 1he lbllowing response and lwo
final tpJestiot~s
You acknowledge thai thc creation of Count~. hms will have potential disadvantages and a
ecom~mic impact on the community., 1he specific impacts of which art' not clear at 1his time You
also ackno;dedgc lhat you were not able to answer many (}?otn specific queslions from otn
prc;qous Idler dircclly because much moro study is required.
'bus om final qLleslit.)t;,S which we would like a response lo:
I, Will yon please omit lhe snbjc¢t of (?onnlLw. Inns rrom lhiis doeumenl~ seeing as how the
sul[iec! clearly req~fircs much more stndy?
2. Ami ii m~l, ~hy nell?
l'hank von Ibr ?'~ m- lime in Ibis matter.
Sincerely,
The hlrzen~a Iqmfilv
09..."22/~003
PAGE 02
To: Town Clerk
cc. Supervisor, Town Bd
Moratorium Team
Date: Sept 21 03
Re,: Comments on FEIS reoort
RECEIVED
SEP 2 2 2003
Southold Town Clerk
In previous comsnents on the DGEIS dated Jul 24 I summarized a number of objections to that
report. The overwhelming majority of others' comments to the DGEIS were also highly critical.
The FEIS requires the Town to address those concerns. It is an oppo~unity for the Town to
acknowledge other points of view and at a minimum to outline the pros and cons of those views.
I find that the FEIS does not do that. Rather, the authors use it as another reporting opportunity
to push the same DGEIS agenda one step further. That agenda is the need for immediate more
restrictive zoning. Evidence that other tools can achieve the Town's goals are consistently
dismissed or discounted, in order to make the case for upzoning. I will provide here only two
examples:
· Comments F122 through G240, pp 3-10 through 3-14.
These comments, asked by many people in many ways, ask the Moratorium Team to mn
another build-out analysis reflecting less than full buildout based on continued implememation
of the land preservation program. The FEIS response dodges this request. It tries to justify
the full buildout analysis ("24% less than other reports") which misses the point. It says that
the requested analysis is subject to estimates of furore preservation, but makes no effort to
provide those estimates. Apparently, the FEIS authors feel that they cannot run an analysis
based on projections, though the report doesn't say so.
Then, the FEIS authors use the last four pp of their response to this comment to report
excessive costs of the land preservation program. To do so, they make projections -- the
kind of projection they were unwilling to make re buildout with preservation. The comment
never asked about land preservation costs; the response was uncalled for; and the assumptions
underlying the authors' numbers are not realistic. The authors felt free to report such
projections when they served their purpose, but not in responding to the request before them.
Comment G-13, pp 6-9 to 6-11
This comment asks for a more detailed planning analysis assuming three different sets of
tools. The response uses this commem to zero in on the SCWA Findings Statement and to
summarize it (p 6-11) in five bullets, all of which imply greater development pressure
throughout the Town. The FEIS authors conveniently omitted the overarehing finding of that
0'3."~2..7083 15:25 5iB7845~54 g~CKHAM: P~GE 83
-2-
Findings Statement, which is that the SCWA will observe and be bound by the current water
mains map in the Town of Southold. That finding puts a completely different conclusion to
the SCWA Findings Statement than the one the FEIS authors want to report.
I believe tlais FEIS report has been prep&red in close cooperation with the ruling majority of the
Town Board who want to enact an immediate upzoning. I believe this is a misuse of SEQRA,
which should give a hard look at all available tools. The DGEIS was bad enough; the responses
in the FEIS show that the DGEIS was not inadvertent, but clearly and intentionally biased to
promote one tool above all others -- and to pretend otherwise.
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
$outhold, 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. 580B OF 2003
WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR M[EETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
ON SEPTEMBER 9, 2003:
RESOLVED, that thc Town Board will provide a period of time whereby comments on the
FGEIS will be received by the To~vn Clerk until 4:00 p.m. Mondav~ September 22~ 2003.
Elizabeth A. Neville
Southold Town Clerk
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
M. ARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hail, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (631) 765-6145
Telephone (631) 765-1800
southoldtown.nort hfork.net
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 580A OF 2003
WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
ON SEPTEMBER 9, 2003:
WHEREAS, the Toxvn 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
Enviromnental Quality Reviexv Action (SEQRA), as codified in 6 NYCRR Part 617, and
WHEREAS, the Board found that a Genetic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) 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 xvhich may include cumulative and/or genetic 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
WItEREAS, the Board accepted the Final Scope as complete on April 8, 2003, and
WHEREAS, the Draft GEIS was prepared in conformance xvith the Final Scope, accepted by the
Town Board and public hearings were held on June 19, 2003 (continued to June 23rd, June 24th,
July 8th and July 15th ); followed by a period for receipt of written comments of more than 10-
days following the close of the public hearing, and
WHEREAS, a Final GEIS has been prepared to address issues and comments provided by the
public, and interested and involved agencies on the information presented in the DGEIS, and
VOtEREAS, the Board received and deliberated on a draft manuscript of the Final GEIS, and
reviewed and revised this document to result in a Final GEIS.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby accepts the Final Generic
Environmental Impact Statement (which by reference includes the DGEIS) after due deliberation
and review of the prepared documentation, for the purpose of adoption and circulation of a Final
GEIS as required under SEQRA Part 617,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Town Board hereby directs the Town Clerk to file a Notice
of Complete Final GEIS in accordance with the Notice and Filing Requirements of SEQRA and
circulate the Final GEIS to the public, interested agencies and parties of interest (noted below),
in accordance xvith 6 NYCRR Part 6 7.12.
Notice of the adoption of the FGEIS sent to:
Town of Southold Supervisor's Office
Toxvn 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 o f Greenport
Toxvn of Riverhead
Town of Southampton
To~vn of Shelter Island
Parties of Interest Officially on Record xvith the Toxvn Clerk (applicable)
Elizabeth A. Neville
Southold Town Clerk
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 County., New York
Town Board of the Town of Southold (SEQRA Lead Agency)
Supervisor, Hon. Joshua Horton
Justice Louisa P. Evans
Councihnan Craig Richter
Councilman William D. Moore
Councilman Thomas Wickham
Councilman John M. Romanelli
Prepared t~v:
Town Board qf 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
Moratorium Planning Team
Greg YakaboskL Esq., Town Attorney
Valerie Scopaz, AICP, Town Planner
Melissa Spiro, Land Preservation Coordinator
Charles J. Voorhis, CEP, AICP, Consultant
Patrick Cleary, AICP, PP Consultant
Lisa Kombrink, Esq. Consulting Attorney
James Gesualdi, Esq., AICP, Consulting Attorney
Tou'n of Southold Comprehensive
Implementation Strategy Support Staff'
John Sepenoski, Data Processing/GIS
Mark Ten'y, Sr. Environmental Planner
Carol Kalin, Planning Board Secretary
Barbara Rudder, Administrative Assistant
Melissa Spiro, Land Preservation Coordinator
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
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
Clear), Constdting
529 Asharoken Avenue
Northport, NY l 1768
Contact: Patrick Cleary, AICP, PP
(631) 754-3085
August 2003
Pagei
Southold CompreSsive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
TABLE OFCONTENTS
Volume 1 of 2
COVER SHEET
Page
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii
1.0
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED ACTION
l.l Introduction
1.1.1 Purpose of this Document
1.1.2 Organization of this Document
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-2
2.0
DOCUMENT & PLAN-RELATED COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2.1 Availability/Access to DGEIS, Additional Time Needed to
Reviesv/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 Defined
2.10 Additional Suggestions for Inclusion in Proposed Action
2-1
2-1
2-2
2-2
2-3
2-5
2-6
2-6
2-8
2-9
2-9
3.0 ALTERNATIVES-RELATED COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
Alternative Means of Land Acquisition
FAIR Plan
Alternative Development Rights Proposal
Need for Additional Alternatives
Alternatives
No Action Alternative
Alternative Up-Zoning Proposal
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-I
3-2
3-3
3-10
3-14
4.0
PDR/TDR-RELATED COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
Adequacy of Funding for Land Acquisition and TDR Program
TDR Origin/Destination Analysis
PDR Program Status and Funding
Implications on Land Value from Transferred Development
PDR "Paradox"
TDR and Compensation for Loss of"Rights"
SCDHS Density and TDR
Effectiveness of PDR Program
4-1
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-6
4-7
4-7
4-7
4-8
Page Ii
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
Southold Comprt~llive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic EIS
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
5-1
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 Undefined
6.9 Life After Build-Out is Not Anticipated
6.10 Need an Analysis of all 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 7-1
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
Requests for Tax Information 7-6
Economic and Social Assessment of Town Carrying Capacity 7-7
7.7
7.8
FARML.~ND PRESERVATION-RELATED COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 8-1
8.1 Establishment of View Easements 8-1
8.2 To~vn 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
9.0
Southold Comprll~llive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
8.4 "Preservation" Defined
8.5 Success of Other RID Programs
8.6 Scenic B.,wvays and Farmland Operations Restrictions
8.7 Need a Plan to Maintain Farmland in Agricultural Production
8.8 Long Island Farm Bureau Comments
8.9 Farming on Clustered-Lot Sites
8.10 Tree Preservation
8-2
8-3
8-3
8-4
8-5
8-8
8-8
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 Majority. 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
9-1
9-1
9-1
9-3
9-3
9-4
9-5
9-5
9-6
9-6
9-7
9-7
9-8
10.0 i¥IISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
10.1 Comments in Support of DGEIS Contents and Proposed Action
10.2 Site Plan Review
10.3 Traffic
10.4 Formation of New Villages in Town
10.5 Analysis of Interaction Among All 43 Tools
10.6 Availability of Public Water and Development Pattern
10.7 Use of Reverse Osmosis Systems on Impacted Public Wells
10.8 Objection to Use of Photograph of Krupski Farm in DGEIS
10.9 Objection to Farmers Bearing Brunt of Preservation Effort
10.10 Agricultural Preserve as Memorial
10.11 Cottage House Conversions
10.12 Variances
10.13 "Suburbanization"ofSouthold
10.14 Exhausting Single and Separate Lots
10.15 Wineries and Country Inns
10.16 Parks and Hamlets
10.17 Farm Laborer Housing
10.18 Jurisdiction of Board of Trustees Regarding Wetlands
10.19 Goals and Objectives of the Proposed Action and Implications
on the Quali~' of Life and Governmental Services
10.20 Hamlet Delineations
10.21 Non-Conforming, Undersized Lots
10-1
10-1
10-1
10-2
10-2
10-3
10-3
10-4
10-5
10-6
10-7
10-7
10-8
10-9
10-10
10-10
10-ll
10-13
10-14
10-15
10-15
10-16
Page iv
Southold Comprgive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
10.22 Need to Analyze Grumman Propert3,
10.23 Need for and Conflicts with Master Plan
10.24 Code Enforcement
10.25 Water Supply and Consumption
10.26 Conservation Opportunit3' Subdivision Enhancement
10.27 Rural Incentive District
10.28 Town-Wide Vote on Proposed Action
10.29 Openness
TABLES
Table 1
FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
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
TR.~NSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING, Town Board, June 23, 2003
TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC ltEARING, Town Board, June 24, 2003
TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING, Town Board, July 8, 2003
APPENDIX F
APPENDIX G
G-I
Volume 2 of 2
TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING, Town Board, July 15, 2003
WRITTEN COMMENTS
F.A.I.R. Growth Management Plan for a Rural Southold, Southold Business
Alliance, undated
G-2 Letters from Lending Institutions in Support of Comments fi.om Steve Mudd, June
13-15, 2003
G-3 Letter fi.om Krupski Family, undated
G-4 Letter fi.om Robert W. and Helen W. Keith, June 19, 2003
G-5 Letter fi.om Mary Foster Morgan, June 19, 2003
G-6 Letter from J.L. Conway, Commissioner, Southold Park District, undated
G-7 Letter fi.om George W. Clark, June 21, 2003
G-8 Letter from John C. Tuthill, June 22, 2003
G-9 Comments fi.om William W. Schriever, June 19, 2003
G-10 Comments from Ray Huntington, June 23, 2003
Page v
Southold Compr~lkive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
G-11 letter from Joseph A. Lee~ June 23, 2003
G-12 Letter fi.om Julie Amper, June 23, 2003
G-13 Letter from Leila & Jatnes McKay, June 23, 2003
G-14 Letter from Helen A. McPartland, June 23, 2003
G-15 Letter fi.om 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, Associate
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 l-etter fi.om Richard F. Lark, June 24, 2003
G-20 £etter fi'om Mr. & Mrs. David L. Fisher, June 25, 2003
G-21 e-mail to Town Clerk's Office fi.om Ken Schneider, June 26, 2003
G-22 Letter fi.om Elsie S. Bleimiller, undated
G-23 DGEIS Questions for Follow-Up, Bill Edwards, 7/15/2003
G-24 £etter to Albert Krupski, President, Board of Trustees, from Valefie Scopaz,
Town Planner, June 19, 2003
G-25 £etter from John Bames, 6/30/03
G-26 Letter from Deanna Alpert 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 Cfistina and Joe Como, July 10, 2003
G-33 Letter from Deanna Alpert and Elissa Rosner, June 29, 2003
G-34 e-mail fi.om 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 l 1, 2003
G-40 Letter from Stephen Weir, June 25, 2003
G-41 Fig. Four, Expansion of Metropolitan Coastal Areas, undated
G-42 Letter fi.om Marie A. Domenici, July 15, 2003
G-43 Documents in Support of Comments fi.om George Penny, undated
G-44 e-mail fi.om Doris McGreevey, July 18, 2003
G-45 Letter from William W. Esseks, July 21, 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 Farm Bureau, July
23, 2003
G-49 Letter fi.om Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., July 25, 2003
G-50 Memo from Edward C. Booth~ July 17, 2003
Page
Southold Comprt~li*e Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
G-5 l Letter from The Jurzenia Family, July 25, 2003
G-52 Letter from Ray Huntington, July 25, 2003
G-53 Letter from Abigail A. Wickham, 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 fi'om William W. Schriever, July 25, 2003
G-59 ketter from North Fork Environmental Council, Inc., July 25, 2003
G-60 £etter from Town Planning Board, July 25, 2003
G-61 Memo from Thomas Wickham, July 24, 2003
APPENDIX H
APPENDIX I
RIAM ~][ODEL RUN: 5-ACRE UPZONING
SCDHS LETTER, Division of Environmental Quality, August 5, 2003
Page vii
Southo[d 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 progran~ 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 GElS record; the DGEIS is incorporated by reference such that the
combination of the DGEIS and this document constitutes the complete GEES.
1.1 Introduction
1.1.1 Purpose of this Document
This GElS is submitted in compliance with the roles and regulations for implementation of the
State Enviromnental 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
infornmtion 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 int'onnation
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 gublic comments
provided during the June 19, 2003 Town Board hearing (continued to June 23', Jtme 24~h, July
8 and July 15 ). Atter acceptance oFthe FG[~IS by the lead agency and at least a hnal 10-day
comment period, the Town Board will be responsible for the preparation of a Statement of
Findings, which will fbrm the basis tbr the final decision on thc application. Following this
process, the Town Board will render a decision on the proposed action.
Page 1-1
Southold Compr"e'llensive Implementation Strategy
Final GElS
2.0 DOCUMENT & PLAN-RELATED COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2.1
AvailabiliW/Access to DGEIS, Additional Time Needed to Review/Comment on
DGEIS, Necessity. 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 h~ck of availabilio, of the DGEIS for public review and comment;
inst{fficient time: to Jbrmulate comments amt'br questions, and thus to determine an informed
opinion on the proposed action; a request of the To~vn 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 S£QRA, an EIS must be flied 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 tee 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 DGE[S was filed consistent with the requirements noted above. In
addition, two (2) copies of thc 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 afford 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 af/brd the public more than the time
periods in SEQRA require. SEQ1L{ Part §617.9 (a)(4) indicates that a public hearing on a
DGEIS should be held if there is a sufficient degree of public interest, the hearing must be
advertised in a local newspaper 14 days prior to the hearing, the hearing must be held between 15
and 60 days after filing of notice, and comments will be received by the lead agency for not less
than 30 days after document acceptance of 10 days from the date thc public hearing is closed,
whichever last occurs. For the proposed action, the document was accepted on June 3, 2003~ a
public heating was held on June 19 after filing notice in the two local oewspapers and
advertising on the Town web site at least 14 days phor to the hea,Sng. The hearing was
continued on June 23. Jut~e 24 and July 15: comments were received during the regular Town
Board heating on July 8th, and after closing the hearing on Jul5' 15, comments were accepted by
the lead agency until July 28, 2003. The hearing was continued as a result of public requests for
extension of the comment period, and therefbre the Board was responsive to the public's request.
As a result, the comment period was 55 days, including 4 public bear/ng segments at'l'ording the
Page
3.0
Southold Com[~l/nsi~e Implementation Strateg.~
Final Generic lEIS
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 easements over 80
percent of affected properties could be implemented, such as outright purchase, att Improvement
District, condenmation, purchase p['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 the
expenditure of funds, in one form or another, to pay for the fight to preserve. The environmental
impact of these suggestions are identical to the PDR concept currently in place and ongoing in
the Town of Southold and acknowledged in the DGEIS.
3.2 FAIR Plan
Comments B-33, C-5l, G-I and G-85:
These comments request that the F./t.I.R. Plan proposed by the Southold Business Alliance be
reviewed by the Town Board, as an alternative means of attaining the Town'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 of their property fights
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 of the applicable
land use and zoning regulations, and is not other4,ise impacted by environmental or other
constraints, then approval should be assured, hnposing 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:
... m)' proposal was that you issue development rights Jbr all qf the land that was developable
at that point, and theft when those development rights *~'ere used up. that would bring the process
Page 3- I
Southold Corn Implementation Strateg3
Final Generic ElS
to a halt, and you would have to btt. v those development rights in order to develop on some other
piece of properO'. So it wotdd restrict the total, you could redevelop, but yoa would put a cai; to
the total quantiO' pf developrnent. "
Response:
The concept of fixing portable development fights to the remaining developable land within the
Town is problematic tbr 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 fights inevitably escalate in value, based on nothing more than simple
supply and demand? Is this the most appropriate system in a community where aflbrdable
housing is in such short supply'?
3.4 Need for Additional Alternatives
Comment D-72:
"The Town of Southold was not considering - excuse me - except for the transfer qf 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 ah'eady 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 qf the Town would be crying and screaming to have
an environment impact statement done to see what negative affects more intense uses might have
l~pon the environment.
So, that while we know that the DEC mandates SEQtL4 and requires an environmental impact
statement be done, !f we 're not proposing more density than the current code would allow, what
are the residents of Southold payingfor?
Every one of as ab'eady knows that the prospect pf 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 docs include
mechanisms whereby developinent could be relocated from areas intended tbr 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
dirccted 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 Com0~nsive Implementation Strateg.~
Final Generic EIS
This comment suggests that an alternative to the proposed action should have been an evaluation
of more intensive zoning. In its discussion of alternatives, the SEQRA Handbook states that "It
is important to discuss the reasonable alternatives to the project (or portions thereo0 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 for more intense development, when such an alternative is expressly contraD, to the
Town's clearly articulated goals and would, in the opinion of the author of the comment, result in
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 does
not meet the Town's goal of preserving farmland and open space, existing zoning and land use
controls allow as-of-right development to occur throughout the Town's most important space
and agricuhural areas. Then they go on with it. The Town's goal, if it's going to be changed
should be reestablished. Ire 3,1aster Plan shouM be reestablished. If you're going to take areas
and you 're going to change the concept in here bt, the use qf another zone to do it, the Master
Plan calls for the l~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 fact, certain elements of
the 1989 map and code were found to be achieving ends contrary to those stated itt the 1983
Master Plan.
The goals of the 1983 IVlaster Plan have been further refined through studies and actions
undertaken since then. The 2003 LWRP document reaffirms the 1983 Master Plan goals attd is
designed to function as the Town's Master Plan. Itt April of 2003, the Town Board approved a
Page 3-3
Southold Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
final LWRP document which was submitted to the NYSDOS for federal and state agency review
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 active(t, farmed while others are intensively developed.
The 80-60 reductions wouM be appropriate in certain areas zoned R-40 while they wouM be
inappropriate in others. When did R-40 get into this? This is the only mention of R-40 that l'm
aware of and why did that get into this document? It's another illusion that people don't know.
Now people are going to hear this, the), 're going to see this and the), 're going to sa)', he3', you
know, geez, I thought it was just the two acre guys. Now they're going after the one acre guys."
Response:
The Blue Ribbon Commission,
preservation targets:
in its July 14, 2002 Final Report, stated the following
· The permanent preselwation of at least 80% of unprotected land currently in the Town's
agricultural inventor)', 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 would 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 I 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
R-40 156
LIO 59
Page 3-4
Southold Col~ensive
I HD :47
LI 27
LB 13
B 7
RO 6
RR 27
HB 2
TOTAL 10,325
implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
Comment E-43:
"Page 8-10, 8.6, consider upzoning to a minitnum lot size for yield size larger than five acres.
That may be an area where that fits. You ma), have a sensitive area, you ma), hm,e an area of
environmental concern, but I, you know, just to sa)' that you may use it at some time in the future,
I don't believe it exists in the Town zoning code. If you're going to put it in the Town zoning
code, that documentation, somebody shouM be prepared so that people can see what's coming.
Just mentioning it itl here as a perpetual consideration, somebody ma), - somebody's going to
grab this document m,o years down the road and none of )'ou ma), be here, and sa),, hey, that **,as
in that big planning study they did. Let's pull it off the shelf and throw in ten acre zoning. The)'
have already done the SEQtL4 on it. Consider five acre upzoning q£ a larger 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 enviromnental 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
t¥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 be
implemented. The SEQRA process is only one step in the process. It must be brought through to
its conclusion betbre any decision can be made by the Town Board as to which action or
combination of actions to adopt.
Comment E-44:
"& 14, 8. *. l description q[' alternatives. The alternative involves expanding tile five acre
upzoning to additional lands primarily portions of the R-40 district that have historically and
continue to bc ased for agriculture or as open space. I don't think that anybody kmms that this
is itl there. I don't thi~k that there's pcoplc oat there. I think (]'tltcre's a farmer that has a
Page 3-5
Southold Comp~sive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
parcel that's zoned R-40, thinks that he's sqfe, but according to this document, this could pop up
at any time. And I 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 5-acres. That area would include 156 acres of land presently zoned R-40. This alternative is
evaluated in 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 ,{~ow what that
means? Make the R-40s nonconforming. 1 will bring a map to the next meeting from the Town
Master Plan. And in it, I have highlighted in different colors the different zones that were
rendered nonconforming by the Master Plan. To which I refitse to pass the Master Plan until the
Town put something in the Town code that said that these people could develop according to the
side yards and the setbacks that existed at the time that these lots were 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-conformities 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, l}'e have it. It exists. My notes here
say 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 ever)'
handet, dnst a point in here is that the only n'co' that this can be qfJbrdable housing can be
triggered is in response to an application, and that's true.
Non', (f the Ton'n Board wants to take the ncta'e and designate something ~t'ithia that overlay
zone or anywhere within that overlqv zone an ,qHD zone, ./br God's sake, do it. But eveo' time
somebody comes in with an idea, thc word goes up. that g~o' '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 'x ~'hat q[~brdable hoasing is all about. Smaller land is the on~' n'~O' it works. Either that
or get some rental going but you got to do something. So this whole Page, 8-20 ahs to bc
rewritten in the context qf n'hat exists in the lbnn qf SouthoM because whoever wrote this page
doesn't kaon'. "
Page 3-6
Southold ComP~l~sive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
Response:
Altemative 8.11 suggests that the AHD overlay district or similar zoning device should be
proactively sited within the Town and not employed reactively, as it is today. Further, this
alternative proposes a way of creating a permanent supply of affordable housing as opposed to
creating temporary entry-level housing, which is the issue here.
Comment E-47:
"And the next page, the properO' eligibilic), guidelines will be crafted so that the qffordable
housing overlay zones will be applicable in appropriate portions of the Town such as within the
hamlet centers or within the proposed HALO zones. Such guidelines would prevent
inappropriate rezoning for the location of affordable housing project in an area where context qf
farming would arise. Now that absolutely contradicts what it says on the other page, because
that is what we have, and this is saying }*'hat we should have. We have it it's there."
Response:
The Town has an affordable housing zone that can be selectively located on specific parcels. It
has been applied only at the request of a developer. The DGEIS is discussing formally
identifying sites where affordable housing should be accommodated, and installing the
appropriate zoning immediately, without necessarily waiting for 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 parcels.
Finally, the DGEIS notes that the Town's current AHD district does not create permanent
affordable housing.
Comment E-48:
"Page 8-2l, top qf the page. Consider allowing Jhrm labor housing through incentives. The),
address the need for farm labor housing. There is a need for farm labor housing. 'Cause farm
labor housing is cutting into the legitimate young working class people in this Town. If you let
the farmers do something like they do in Riverhead, you go down and look at Half Hollow
Nurse~', they have got some units out therefor their help, they fit very nicely, back qff the road.
It's a pretO, u'hite building att L-shape, God knows how mar~' nnits are in it. It's a beautifid
thing, but this thing here is allowing.farm labor housing only on .farms through incentives, but it
doesn't mention any incentives. You just left me on that one. I mean, !f you 're going to address
incentives, please put them in."
Response:
The CIS DGEIS is a generic environmental impact statement, designed to evaluate the
enxironmeatal impacts of 43 planning tools. The DGEIS does not propose specific new
ordinance language. If the concept of farm labor housing is tbund to be acceptable and it does
not produce adverse envirotunental impacts, then, pursuant to the filing of Findings. the Town
Board can begin crafting specific zoning language to provide incentives and standards ~br the
creation and location of farm labor housing.
Page 3-7
Southold Com ~iementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
Comment G-87:
"3. Southold To~vn Ag Advisory 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's last 5 year preservation
track record
· A build-out scenario be inclnded that does not include up-zoning, instead uses the
preseta'ation tools available as mentioned in the 2000-2201 Farmland Protection
Strateg3' and the Blue Ribbon Committee Report."
Response:
The Build-out analysis presented in the DGEIS 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 preservation 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 lbrmula.
Comment G-152:
"(8) Additional Tools and Concepts are Neglected.
One of the concepts discussed during the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) was j~br the Town to
monitor preservation and development and adjust its plan accordingly. This is not discnssed in
the DGEIS and the Land Preservation Committee (LPC) requests that it be added to the analysis.
In short, this concept was a 'conditional upzoning ', one where development/prese~q'ation wottld
be measured continttous[y and mitigation measures applied as necessat3, to meet goal driven
objectives. Up-zoning would only be used as a last resort should all other qfJbrts fidl. Given the
recent track record, the LPC believed this concept has merit, will./~r exceed the restdts of 5-acre
zoning and shotdd be given full consideration in the GELS.
Certain other documented action ideas and tools are neglected These include:
· b~stalbnent PDR sales
· Like-Mnd exchanges
Page
Southold Corn Implementation Slrategy
Final Generic ElS
· Establishing a land bank where the Town could parchase farmland _for eventual
resah, to a farmer
· Bonding against future CPFD income
· Points based appraisals
· Building permit quotas
· New lot quotas
· Competitive subdivision ~ite plan processes
.dH can have yeO, positive impact on current land preservation efforts.
· Could not these tools be considered in the GElS and the most protnising tools rio'tho'
defined and evaluated for their impact on build-out and RIAM?"
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 can 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 any
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 seriously
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 planning
principles, and a documented capital improvement program to expand a limited public sen'ice
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 of
building permits issued per year simply to slow down the numbers of new houses built in a ,,,'ear
would not be constitutionally defensible if challenged in court.
"Competitive" subdivisions and site plans is also a concept that may prove problematic. Ifa site
plan o,' subdivision complies with ail of the applicable land use and zoning regulations and
requirements, and is not othem'ise impacted by environn~ental constraints, the project should be
approved. M[aking the process competitive, so tbat one project is 'hnore approvable" than
another, even though both comply with the applicable roles, is essentially unfair, is not supported
Page 3-9
Southold Comp~llsive 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 bomebuyer, thereby inflating housing costs even more.
Comment G- 159:
"4) The Moratorium Committee should consider adding to the alternative section a ~Iodi[~ted
and Updated Version o[' the Southold Town Farm and Farmland Preservation Strateg}: We
were veo' surprised that there was veo, little mention in the DGEIS qf the Fartnland
Preservation Strategy that was unanimous~r 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 qf 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 Strateg),. The Farm and Farmland Preservation Strateg32 has been very effective
because it is based on principles of fairness and respect. It is our opinion that most landowners
and farmers vien' the strategy as a reasonable and practical alternative to traditional
development. A number ~/' the recommendations in that strategy have yet to be implemented.
The strategy could be updated to reflect current community needs and to address current
concerns. It could also include specific recommendations for mandatory preservation of
farmland in traditional development plans (i.e., 60-65 percent clustering provisions) as well as
other new strategies appropriate to the current circumstances."
Response:
The DGEIS documented thc success of the Farm and Farmland Preservation Strategy. Appendix
F-3 presents an accurate accounting of the overall land preservation program fi.om 1997 to the
present. A number of the 43 implementation tools xvould assist in furthering the implementation
of the Farm and Farmland Protection Strateg3,. 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 agricultural 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 preservation 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 A~o .4ction alternative presented and anah'zed in the DGEIS be
reconsidered, to rqflect current land preservation and re/ated qfJbrts.
Response:
The Build-out analysis is a plamfing tool that estimates full development under existing zoning
and land use controls for the purposes of helping set clear preservation and develnpment targets.
The Build-out analysis was based upon existing land use controls and environmental constraints
Page 3-10
Southold Compll Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
that are 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 preservation efforts.
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 formula.
Currently, private land preservation is a voluntary act, thus the pace of preservation varies
considerably. The tracking synopsis of land preservation efforts during the years 1997 to 2002
shows the actual number of acres preserved during this period. It does not explain the
extenuating circumstances that may 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 percent less than the full build-out figure generated by the Suffolk County
Planning Department in 1998, a figure which has been widely accepted and utilized for
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. This
figure is 80 percent of the total subdividahle 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 enviromnentally sensitive lands are also part of the Town's open space.
An alternative aggregate acreage would include the quantity 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 l 1,090 as derived frotn the
Build-out analysis. An even more conservative number of 80 percent preservation 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 presev,'ation efforts are in tact
voluntaD,. While preservation efforts will certainly likely continue, the pool of willing
participants will, to a certain degree, diminish. This is a characteristic of any voluntaD' program.
The author of the comment appears to suggest that a more detailed analysis should be devoted to
these two unpredictable factors. Untbrtunately, it is impossible to definitively quantiS;, future
funding and future preservation rates. Nevertheless, eflbrts will be made to outline funding
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 prese~,ation goat 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 Compt~llsi~e Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
goal of preservation of 80 percent of the total farmland and open space is achieved, large-scale
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, gifts, 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/Agricultural 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 fnr land acquisition, based on
the current rate of 260 acres (average over the past 6 years), then it would take 34 3'ears to
preserve the lower target acreage of farmland and open space. Based on current development
fights values, the cost to purchase 8,872 acres (at $25,000-$30,001)/acre. which is less than actual
cost) would be on the order of $225.000,000.
Page 3-12
Southold Compi~sive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
If preservation efforts other than the 2 percent Land Transfer Tax were to continue for 10 years,
it would amount to $10,000,000 (based upon the lowest development rights values of
$25,000/acre), which is less than 5 percent of the total cost of preservation of 80 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 year, in 10
years, 2,600 acres would be preserved. This would reduce the build out density by 1,040 units.
Subtracting the 2,600 acres from the lower target open space figure of 8,872 (80% of 11,090)
would result in 6,272 acres remaining for preservation. Conversely, a total of 20 percent of the
total of 11,090 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, or
218 acres under the maximum development potential. In either case, it is apparent that the
current rate of presetw'ation is not sufficient to preserve the target goal of 80 percent farmland
and open space. Overlaying this with the Build-out, and assuming that the majority of
preservation occurs in the A-C and R-80 districts, it is determined that an additional 800-900
units would be constructed in the Town as a result of continued development over the 10 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 preseiwation 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 approximately $3
million mmually. 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 for 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
2q b fund generates $3 nfillion annually
$3 nfillion/$80,000 = $37.5 nfillion
Each $150.000 - $ 170.000 constitutes a "point" in Town taxes.
$3 million annually l if paid iii Town taxes) results in a 17.6% - 20.0% increase in Town taxes
each year the bond is being repaid.
Based upon this analysis, it becotnes apparent that relying on $3 million of 2 percent monies
attnually would leverage $37.5 million dollars without impacting the Town's tax rate.
As noted above, the total 80 percent 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 Comp~ ~slse 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 fi.om New York State,
and perhaps another $1,000,000 fi.om 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 pement
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 soumes 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 xvere abandoned, will have little or no effect on the actual business of
agriculture.
The question of fainter'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 fi.om 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 tbr only a portion of the Town's
economy, and employs only 1.9 percent of the Town's worktbrce. While agricultural lands are a
traditional and vital part of the local economy, the3' are also important, because the3' anchor the
Town's rural character and quality of lite.
3.7 Alternative Up-Zoning Proposal
Page 3-14
Southold Comp~sive Implementatlon Strategy
Final Generic ElS
Comment F-25:
"What happens (f n'e upzone all R-80 land to R-200, which is~/ive acres, with the exception of AC
~farmland. Then we put a long-term, temporat3, building moratorium on all.,tC farmland say for
a period offive ),ears. Now, the exemption to that moratorium might be anybody that might want
to get into the farming business. And we couM have a committee qf farmers who }vould take a
look at it, and we could set, oh, !f this land didn't have a house on it, we could say, we would
permit one dwelling per 20 acres, per 25 acres, whatever, you could get a farmer's committee to
decide what wouM be the most appropriate buildings. It conld also establish a grace periodjCbr
.farms that do not have AC designation -- and there are some out there ~- the), could appl), for AC
designation and farms that had AC land that was no longer viable couM app~, to loxe its AC
designation. You would establish a building pool of buildable land that would be basical(¥ our
open space land arrive acre zoning, and that's virtual(v what we have right now.
Now the interesting feature of this of a temporary building moratorium is that farmers can still
negotiate their sale o~f development rights based on t3t'o acres. So the~v don't lose the true equir),
value they're losing, which is -- ask Tom lVickham. He soMa piece of property last spring, or
the spring before that, if it had been vahted attire acres, it wouM have been a hell ora lot less
than what he got. And that's just the realiO, of it. If you're going to have five acre zoning, you're
going to get less value for your development rights sale."
Response:
The author of this comment is suggesting an alternative that involves a five-acre upzoning of the
R-80 lands only. Lands within the AC Zone would be placed under a "long term temporary
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 ora community to adopt a
morator/um is considered an "implied power." By all accounts, a morator/um is considered the
most extreme land use action that a municipality can take because it completely suspends the
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 in length. Moratoria that
extend beyond that period must have a valid reasonable purpose. Moratoriums have been upheld
for periods of up to ttu'ee .,,'ears where the necessity and purpose have been adequately
demonstrated and substantial pro~ess on drafting new plans or solutions have been made. The
concept of a "long tern~ temporary moratorium" would be unprecedented. It is not uncolmnon
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. zoningl would likely prove to be sitmlarly problematic. While a /'armer's
Page 3-1 $
$outl~old C'omp~l~sive Implementalion Strateg)'
Final Generic
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" tails to recognize that the preservation of open space is also a Town goal. A
significant amount of the R-80 land is composed of envirolunentally 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
moratorimn 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
4.0
Southold Comp~ghensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic EIS
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 Transfer of Development
Rights (TDR) program would take development rights away from landowners without
compensation, and that the State and Coun~ are required to provide $125-130 million for 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 pumhase of development rights by
developers for 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
Farn~ Presentation Grants, Federal Natural Resource Conservation Service Grants and the
Suffblk 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 they currently are directing financial resources 1o the
continuation of PDR in keeping with the desires of community officials, State and County
officials and the citizenry, of the Town of Southold.
There is no negative environmental impact associated with this progrmn.
Page 4-1
Soul'hold 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 fi'om which
development rights will be removed, but also to those areas where development rights will be
located, in terms q£social, physical and economic impacts.
Response:
I£ adopted, a TDR program should be designed to be consistent with Town Comprehensive
Planning efforts; 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 fbr 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:
· Proxinfityto hanflet centers;
· Lack of enviro~unental sensitivity;
· Suitable road access;
· Available public water; and
· Ability to handle sewage or access to a sewage treatment plal,l,t (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
enviromnental impacts, land use viability and benefits ora TDR program, noted as follows:
· Incremental 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 developraent tectmiques, where "special public benefits" aot 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 al,id significant, but
there can be no threat to the public heahh or the groundwater from which we obtain our drinking
Page 4-2
I h I
Southo d Compre ensure mplememanon Strateg~
Final Generic ElS
water. The SCDHS has set forth clear and definitive guidelines under which transfers of rights
to receiving areas may take place.
· Receiving parcels should be within areas sel~'iced by public water.
· Receiving parcels should not exceed twice the density allowed under the Suffolk County
Sanitary Code (SCSC) unless an appropriate form of sewage treatment is available,
· Receiving parcels shonld be subject to fefftilized area restrictions, clearing restrictions and
site plan or subdivision review,
· Receiving parcels should be subject to further design standards and/or special exception
criteria as may be determined tkrough further review and analysis; such standards may
include design parameters, development guidelines, buffering, clearing restrictions,
fertilized area restrictions, setbacks, infrastructure installation and measures to improve
cornmmfity compatibility.
The DGEIS noted that the Town could use the HALO concept, which is essentially a new
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 form of smaller homes on smaller lots, or other forms of
attached units, zero lot line units or apm~tment style units) as a result of TDR to hamlet areas
and/or PDD development, there will be a change in demographic and fiscal thctors as follows:
· Smaller homes support smaller households, generate fewer school-aged children, fewer
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 envirolm~ental impact.
4.3 PDR Program Status and Funding
Commeuts B-9, B-18, B-46, B-47, B-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-IT G-20 and G-78:
These comments note that: the existing Purchase qf Development Rights (I>DR) program is
successfid; question whether and wt(v apFlications under review for incht$ion in tiffs program
are reputedO, not being processed exDeditiotts(v; request it~/brmation as to why tl[~zoning to
Page 4-3
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
reduce yield potential in lieu of this existing program has been included in the DGEIS; anti
whether there is an)' assurance .['or landowners that their development rights will be purchased at
a Jair value.
Response:
The recent past history' of the Town's land preservation program indicates that approximately
260 acres per year (on average) were protected fi.om development (1997-2002). During the same
time period for tracking and monitoring as reported in the DGE[S (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 (fi.om 1997-2002) includes land from which
development rights were pumhased, 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 outright (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 ma_',' not be sustainable in the/bce of
these pressures, particularly where the landowners are not fanners or have no interest in farming.
Preservation through PDR or the title purchase requires available funds and u continued
commitment to land preservation by landowners and government alike. At the cmxcnt rate of
preservation, 80 percent of the remaining thnnland and open space in the Town (ubout 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 omnber of available acres in an escalating real estate market with unlmown
Page 4-4
Southold Comprehensi*e Implementation Strategy
Final Generic EIS
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 qf land
following TDR, and impacts to the abili.ty of farmers to continue operations on land.from which
development potential has been transferred. There is also reJbrence 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 enviromnental impacts that
would occur from using any one of the 43 planning and implementation tools identified as the
"Action". Anals~zing 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 prese~,ation goals are achieved on larger pamels through voluntary sale of
development fights and clustering, in order to maintain setbacks and 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 identi~' and maintain important viewsheds.
proactively.
The Town seeks to maintain and support the business of fanning as a means of ensuring
contbrmance with its goal of preserving farmland. The DGEIS assembled infornmtion, studied
potential environmental impacts, obtained public input and will ultimately provide inforn~ation
which the Town Board can use to make decisions.
Page 4-¢*
Southold Com}~l~hensixe Implementation Strategy
Final Generic EIS
4.5 PDR "Paradox"
Comment B-20:
"But the interesting thing and the paradox comes.from the )~act that if they zoned for sa), 5-acre
zone, just to use the current example, if you zone for 5-acre zoning the same farmland, and then
you wat,t to take away the rights to develop that as residential properO,, you end up having to
bev 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 of evet3,body to buy
it back. And this is the paradox. "
Response:
This comment does not recognize that a purchase of development rights program is presently in
operation and 1, 2 and 5-acre zoning will continue to occur. The To~vn has purchased
development rights from property in the 1, 2 and 5-acre zoning districts.
If an upzoning to R-200 (5-acre) should take place on R-40 (l-acre), R-80 and A-C (2-acre)
zoned land, the net effect will be that the number of development rights [assuming one (1)
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 in
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 of
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 for 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 fbr low 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
nnder 2-acre zoning.
4.7 SCDHS DensiD' and TDR
Page 4-7
Southold Comprehensave' Implementation' Strateg~,,
Final Generic ElS
Comments B-23, C-39 and F-5:
These comments note questions with respect to the potential impact on yields frotn application
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 from 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:
"bl)' specific questions regarding the smd. v, I would like to tmdersmnd what makes us d((ferent
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 wouM like to understand (f there is something special
about us and the way we're doing things to see if it's possible that voluntary preso'vation will in
fact sm,e our town and the quailO' 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 eflbrts and development pressures. This intbrmation 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 presetw, ation has been occurring at a rate of
260 acres per 5'ear. 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 Com]~fehensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic EIS
vacant lands. If the remaining 20 percent were developed within the predicted ),ears based on
the current rate of conversion of buildable land (200 to 225 acres per ),ear), those factors
identified in above (which make Southold unique and prone to development pressure) indicate
that the current voluntary preservation programs may not be sufficient to allow the Town of
Southold to achieve the stated farmland and open space preservation goals unless the rate of
preservation is speeded up or the rate of development is slowed dramatically.
4.9 Reimbursements to ProperW Owners
Comments C-44 and C-45:
These comments propose a methodology whereby landowners would be monetarily compensated
./hr the loss qf 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 altemative, which would include
continued PDR, to a 5-acre upzoning, which would still compensate landowners for 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 (at a
minimum to raise funds to acquire those development rights) maintaining farmland, 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 for
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 further 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 tbllows:
Laud Presmwation application received.
· Application reviewed by Land Preservation Depamnent (Department) and scheduled tbr next
Land Preservation Connnittee (Conm~ittee/ meeting. If subdMsion componenl, Planning
Board staff and Planning Board review concept.
· Conunittee reviews application and authorizes appraisal process.
· Appraisal ordered.
Page 4-9
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
· Appraisal reviewed by Department and Committee. Committee votes on proposed offer.
· Purchase negotiated by Comnfittee member or Department or in some cases The Nature
Conservancy or the Peconic Land Tmst.
· Acceptance letter prepared and signed by landowner.
· Department advises Town Board of proposed project.
· Coutract prepared by Town and sent to landowner.
· Landowner signs contract.
· Department schedules Town Board public hearing.
Town Board authorizes purchase and Supervisor signs contract.
· Sup,'ey, title and enviromnental site assessment ordered.
· When survey, title and enviromnental 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 pan of project, subdivision process occum at a pace determined by the landowner. For
example, landowner may wish to start subdivision process prior to determination of preservation
purchase price, or landov, xter may wish to hold the subdivision application until such time that
preservation purchase price has been determined.
3. During existing moratorium, lando'~vner 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
Southol~ Co~ehensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic
AFFORDABLE HOUSING-RELATED COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5.1 Establish Housing AuthoriW
Comment B-31:
"~['hat you need, get started with a housing authori~. ' that has bonding potential; buy some land
for some people; set up a program of buildings and houses, some garden apartments for yottng
people so they can earn some equity and save some equiO,. Do what East Hampton did, on
resale you only get the rate of it~[lation. You have to sell it back to 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-governmental, 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 in
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, Community 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 towuwide affordable
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 strean~, 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
Conmaents C- 17 and C- l 8:
These com~nents rqfer to the conversion of cottage housing (small, second or seasonal homes) to
large )'ear-round d~vellings not seasonal or in character with existing ~eighborhoods, the
potential to address c~[/bcdablc housing, and its impact oft propero' values.
Response:
Cottage housing represents a potentially viable pool of existing dwelling units that, if safe and
code-compliant, may set'ye to meet some portion of the Town's affordable housing needs. As
Page 5-1
Southold Colill~ehensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
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 will promote affordable housing is disingenuous (actually. aflbrdable housing will
result from the Town's flexibility to locate such growth in hamlet areas, where appropriate);
recommends revien, of the Petaluma case, wherein limitations on the number of building permitx
was 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 conceru that upzoning from 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 af~brdability 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 hmnlet 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 presetw'ation 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 aftbrdable 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 ol' affordable housing. The
discussion of development within the hamlets and the proposed HAkO zones are more fully
described in Appendix A-8 of the DGEIS.
Page 5-2
Southold Colll~ehensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic EIS
5.4 Town Provision of Affordable Housing
Comment E-36:
"Okay, affordable housing policy, Number 30. Page 3-42. Due to the demand for housing, the
Town cannot provide sufficient housing - a sufficient housing supply to affect the price qf
housing to such a degree as to make the prices affordable for the target group. That's baloney.
That's absolutely baloney."
Response:
The passage to which the author of the comment refers reflects a discussion of existing
conditions. At present, the demand for housing far exceeds the supply, which is a significant
factor in the extraordinary increase in housing costs in recent years. Even if full build-out were
realized, it is unlikely that the additional supply of dwelling units theoretically conceivable under
full build-out would significantly reduce housing costs. Larger regional economic and market
housing trends are influencing local housing prices. Therefore, it is essential to recognize that
govemment intervention is necessary in order to provide a permanent supply of effective
affordable housing within the Town of Southold.
Page ~-~
6.0
Southold Comp~ensive Implementation Strateg)
Final Geoeric ElS
UPZONING-RELATED COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
6.1 Implications of 5-Acre Clustering and "Sterilization" of Land
Comment B-17:
"There's a comment at the first informational meeting when Greg Yakaboski said under 5-acre
zoning with a one-acre cluster e.[fectively sterilizes four other acres, l[Ttat fair-minded SouthoM
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 in
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 farmed.
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 O,pe q['life, and, personall)., I am .for the 4, 5-acre zoning. I ant ./bt 25-acre
zoning. Find ottt u'here the most sensitive environmental lands are; categorize them; evaluate
them; save them. l[~e all want them. Band [Dam] Pond, Hallock's Ba.l'. we want the sensitive
lands to stay. It's not all the farmers. It has nothing to do with .farntcrs. The 5-acre zoning
shouldn't be pertaining to.[hrms. It should be pertaining to sensitive lands.
Do ),ou know who's going to own a 25-acre lot? The wealthy. II'ho's going to own a te~t-acre
lot? .4gaitt. the vet3' well-to-do. The 5-acre lot, again, money is going to own them.
Page 6-1
Southold Compi~nl[ensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
We have to do and compensate and tO, to keep the most valuable assets of Southold Town here.
It's our view. It's &e.£arm kids. It's their grandchildren. Th0, 're going to leave.
With 25-acre zoning, ten acre zoning, 5-acre zoning, the)' 're going to leave. They can't afford to
stay. So to compensate for that, you need the 2-acre the one-acre and yoa also need the quarter-
acre'.
There is ways to get water. Put the water in. Get the stnall lots."
Response:
Preservation of enviroinnentally 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
aftbrdable 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 5-Acre Upzoning, and Associated Impacts
Comments B-49, C-25, C-30, D-6, D-13, D-30, D-36, D-38, D-43, D-44, E-6, E-15, E-40, G-91
and G-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
Strateg)9 but not intplemented 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 of 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 ti'om 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 establishcd the overall implementation strategy, with solid roots in the Town's long-tenn
comprehensive planning eftbrts, in a tbnn that would culminate in a plan that best achieves the
Town goals and minimizes adverse impacts.
Page 6-2
Southold Comp~q~ensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
6.4 Comparison of Southold Town to Other Localities
Comments B-50, D-51, E-29, F-40, G~47, G-160 and G-242:
These comments question n'hy the Town q£ Sonthold was compared to other localities in the
count~' in regard to land preservation ef/brts, and requestj,tst(fication as to the comparabilio, to
these areas.
Response:
Napa Valley, California several counties in Maryland, and Warwick, 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 in
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 Long 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 parts of the country from consideration, simply because conditions are
not identical to Southold, would have compromised the search for available information
applicable to farmland preservation issues.
6.5 Public Understanding of Upzoning to 5-Acre
Comments C-9, G-19 and G-40:
These comtnents 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 for yield purposes in 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 following
is stated in the DGEIS with regard to clustering:
The Cluster Development provisions contained ill Chapter 100-18l of tile Zoning Code or' the
3[ov.n requires clustering where lots of ten (10) acres or more itl the A-C, R-40, R-80, R-120, R-
200 aud R-400 residential districts are proposed to be subdivided, subject to certain minimum lot
size provisions and subject to a yield map that con/bnns to all requirements of the Zoning Code
aud Subdivision Regulations. Clusteriug is recommended to ensure protectiou of resources.
maxi~nization of contiguous famdand and ensuring compatibility between different land uses.
Page 6-3
·
Soulhold Comp~qiensive 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 affected agriculture? Such as, how many Jhrms },'ere there before
the Town upzoned land; how many farms after upzoning? [[7~at affect on development did the
previous upzoning do? l~3at affect did it have on developments? If/ere there more
developments, less? How mach proper(*, 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 rain, lands 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 farmed at one time, or land that could
easily be fanned 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 setw,ed 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, tallow and support acreage, is located outside the A-C zoning district. As of
August 14, 2003, the towmvide acreage or' farmland totaled 10,325 acres.
The DGEIS, Sectioo 2.6. I, Land Use Patterns, recognizes the importance of, as well as changes
in, the agricultural industry as tbllows:
Southold developed as. and remains today, an agricultural community. 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 Soutbold GIS, 2003).
For geuerations, Southold's sandy but fertile soils were almost exclusively used to produce
potatoes. Duriug the 1970s. a numbcr of factors combined which brought about an end to the era
of these traditional farms:
Page 6-4
Southold Compi'trhensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic EIS
· Bans and limitations on the use of fertilizers and pesticides.
· Increased fuel costs (for farm machined~ as well as petroleum-based fertilizers).
· Increase in land values for conversion to non-agricultural purposes.
· Change in market preferences for agricnlture 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 industry
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 Town's
agricultural industry, led by the creation of a new sector - vineyards. Today, the Town's
agricultural base is divided among the following crops (arranged according to decreasing acreage
devoted to each crop; Town of Southold Farmland Protection Strategy, 1999).
· Vineyards
· Vegetables
· Grain
· Potatoes
· Sod and nurseD'
· 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 lbr continuation of famfing, 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 "Aghcultural District" status, which provides tax relief. At present, there
are 6,581 acres in the Town devoted to Agricultural Districts." For update purposes, there are
approximately &585 acres currently in agricultural districts.
Farmowners also gain benefit of compensation for devebpment rights as an incentive to
continue thnning through the PDR program. As of August of 2003, the Town and County have
purchased development rights to approximately 2.845 acres of thrrnland (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 presetwation and purchases, including tee
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 6-5
Southold Com0~hensi~e Implementation Strategy
Final Generic EIS
PDR essentially reduces density through retirement of development rights in exchange for
monetary compensation to the owner who voluntarily chooses to sell those development fights.
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 fights 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?
}F'hat changes in land use designation on privately owned land that you mentioned are you
talking about? [Vt'Il landowners be not(fied?"
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 Zouing Map (Mattituck Creek, industrial on Route 25 west of Greenport, HD in
Greenport; water dependent uses, AttD- repeal or expand process)
In order to determine where such conflicts are located, the Zoning Map would be reviewed.
Table 3-3 also lists (brier3) the beneficial impact of this tool:
Page 6-6
Southold CompFehensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic EIS
Provides for better land use pattern in sensitive and important areas of Town
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
· Education/Enforcement
· Capital Improvements/Expenditures
· Direct Town Management
· Inter-Agency/Quasi-Agency Initiatives
The reader is directed to Section 1.3.1 and Table 1-I 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 hearing and
notification procedures will be adhered to as required by law.
6.8 Concept of 80 percenff60 percent is Left Undefined
Comments G-9 and G-201:
"Concept of 8O percent/6O perc~nt is left undefined: The concept of "8O percent preservation
and 60 percent density reduction" is not even mentioned in the Sutnmary. It first appears in the
text on page 3-8 and again on page 3-27, which is about two~thirds qf the way through the main
body of the text of the DGEIS document. The first time it is described is on page 8-4 in
connection with one q[' the Alternatives. This description should appear in one of the opening
paragraphs q/'the DGEIS doctmtent and in the Summa~T. The concept of 80 perceut~60 percent
appears to be a code name./bt 5-acre zo~ting. To demonstrate. (/'a parcel of land now subject to
2-acre zoning is up-zoned to 5-acre zoning and clustering is required using l-acre lots there
~couht be 4-acres Iq[? over ofor each 5-acres developed therel~v presera,ing 80 percent. Also the
densiO' of development n'ou[cl be two-fifths as great as under 2-acre zoning thercb)' providing a
densiO, reduction qf threerlifths or 60 percent. But that is not s~t[l~cicnt Jbr a definition. There
should be sample calculation showing how the concept ~t'ould be applied to achieve the results
desired. And once thc implementation of the concept using 5-acre zoning has been clearly'
defined, then the dqfi~ition shotdcl be expanded to include other means qf implementation,
particularl), those based on the purchase or tran4/k'r qf development rights."
Page 6-7
hldC --' I I
Sour o omprehensl,e mp ementahon 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 presetwation and 60 percent density reduction" first appears. The 80 percent/60 percent
concept was recommended by the Final Response of the Blue Ribbon Commission tbr 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 Waterfront 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 Commission 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 for 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 primmy 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.l), and is excerpted as follows:
This tool, coupled with part of Tool #6 (mandatory clustering) ensures confomrance with the
Town goals of 80 perceut land prese~ation, and 60 perceut density reductiou. In geoeral temps, if
density is reduced from a 2-acre to a 5-acre yield, and 80 percent of a giveu parcel remains in
agricultural production, up to 16 homes (rather than 40) could be built on 20 acres ora 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 fam~ use is to be met. h~ other words, under
Article 6 of the Suffulk County Sanitary Code, land that is farmed is not pemfitted to be counted
toward yield, as the application of fertilizer and land use intensity is cousidered to be coincideut
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 farmlaud.
The first three goals of the Town are re-stated below.
· To preserve land including famfland, open space and recreational landscapes
· Tu preserve the rural, cultural and historic character of the hamlets and surrounding
countryside.
· To preserve the Towa's remaining natural enviromnent: to prevent further deterioration of
the Town's natural resources and to restore the Town's degrnded natural resources back to
their previous quality.
Page 6-8
Southold Compre~Olensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
[t is noted that all three goals deal with preserving fam~land, open space and environmental
resources, xvhich help to comprise the rural, cultural and historic character of the hmnlets 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. Ifa 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 analysis of Town build-out
conditions assuming that the proposed action (particularly the 5-acre upzoning) is implemented.
Response:
The DGEIS provides the information 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, for 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 It 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 att analysis of all of the zoning required to i~nplement a zoning plan: Each plan to
presetn'e farmland and open space und to limit residential density affects development
throughout the Town, no(just itl the AC and R-80 zones. If development is pushed back in one
place it will bulge out some~t'here elxe. .(£residential development is prohibited on farmland ttlen
it will occur in some other areas qf the [o~vn. Does a particular plan prepare for this new
development [~l' providing public water and public seu'ers to a limited area? Or does it
accelerate the buiM-oat by adopting 5-acre zoning and canse the development to spread like a
cancer over the remaining vacant land. This D(TEIS should prepare an analysis of'all of the
zoning required to implement at least the .[bllon'ing three plans: (1) The basic 80 percen! 60
percent plan inlplemented with 5-acre zoning of the .,lC and R-80 zones; (2) The plan to contiaue
Page 6-9
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
tvith 2-acre zoning but to preserve .[?trmland and open space by purchasing or transferring
development rights and by the other means suggested in Section 1.0 of the DGEIS; and (3) The
plan to preserve the farmland and to provide open space l~v prohibiting residential development
in the A C zone as proposed in Alternative 8.5. (f other plans are being considered seriously then
th{v should be included as well. Each plan should be defined by its advocates."
Response:
The DGEIS provides the information requested in Commant G-13. It recognizes the
interrelationship of various zoning initiatives and assesses the impact of a variety of scenarios.
The DGE[S complies with SEQRA requirements and analyzes altematives as well. The
commentator is directed to the following sources 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 percent/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 Regional Impact Assessment
Model (RLtdVI) 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 resoumes of the Town.
(2) DGEIS, Section 3.l 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
t~armlai~d preservation in the context 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 elsexvhem 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 neiiher 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, aftbrdable housing and stren~hening of hamlets.
The need t:br sewage treatment is detemfined 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 tbr 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 Count.,,' 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 Jul3 21, 2003. The
Page 6-10
Southold Comp~hensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
statement contains several "findings" that are important with regard to Southold water supply
issues noted as follows:
B.
C.
D.
E.
Sufficient water exists in the Town of Southold to support full build-out of the town.
SCWA can purchase water from the Town of Riverhead Water District without having
significant environmental impacts.
SCWA can develop 2 wells at the Hallockville Musemn Site without significant impact
to the environment.
SCWA finds there are beneficial impacts for maintaining some wells in the Town of
Southold.
Water can be transmitted from the Central Pine Barrens Region to the Town of Southold
without significant environmental impact.
Water supply is necessary, to serve the existing population, and the SCWA is considering 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 Town
should be sen,ed with potable water and SCWA is seeking to address the need to supply 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 farms and
not protect open space or farming; there is a conflict between comments in the DGEIS which
indicate land values would be inereased (so that qffordable housing n'ould not result) and
comments that indicate upzoning wozdd reduce land values, so that farmers would be less able to
borrow suJJicient fitnds on their land value; fears that restrictions ri'ill prevent landowners from
doing what they want with their land (snch as clearing, fencing, etc.); and a suggestion that the
Town look into other cases nationwide where upzoning actually preserved.farmland.
Response:
Based on analysis conducted as part of the DGEIS, it is not expected that 5-acre upzoning would
undermine fainting. The commentator is referred to DGEIS Section 3.2.1 for information
conceming potential impacts of 5-acre upzoning. It is also noted that 5-acre upzoning in
combination with a Rural Incentive Disthct, were designed to provide protection in terms of
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 fanning. A variety of tools, measures and town
commitment are needed to achieve this goal.
The DGEIS recognizes that there currently is a lack of affordable housing in the Town of
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 tbr 2-
acre or 5-acre yield equivalents. Affordable housing which will likely be to the hamlet centers
and surrounding areas must be addressed through a variety of tools and efforts such as those
outlined in DGEIS. Section 1.3.
Page 6-1 1
Southold Comprehens~xe lmplementatmn S ra eg~
Final Generic EIS
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 entbrceable 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 farmland and open space; support for the fam~ing community and the
business of farming must also be integrated within an overall plan for farmland preservation..
6.12 Impact on Farming from Prior Upzonings
Comment D-45:
"I4'7~at evidence do you have that shows the i~npact of the previous change from 1-acre to 2-
acres on farmland? Is it not true that at the time qf that change, many farmers quit~farming?
And I believe that this was addressed during the Blue Ribbon Commission and basically the
response, the ansu'er was ignored, that a lot offarmers did leave in the early 90 's. "
Response:
hffonnation 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 fbr any temporary dip. As noted earlier in Section 6.6, there have been sexreral upzonings in
Southold since zoning was adopted in 1957. The minimum lot sizes have increased from I to 3,
5 and l0 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 thnns have not disappeared. It must be
recognized that global economics and technological advances have had protbund effects on the
business of fanning. The agricultural industry is affected by outside fbrces beyond our control,
in lnuch the same wa5' 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 tanning that contribute to
conversion of t'arm use to non-farm use. Conversion of farrnland has been occurring over all
extended period of time for a variety of reasons including weather,'enviromnental conditions,
Page 6-12
$outhold Comp~hensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic EIS
market conditions, increased fuel costs, limitations on the use of fertilizers and pesticides,
personal/thmily reasons, ownership/investment reasons, and increase in land values for
conversion to non-agricultural purposes. As a result, the conditions which contribute to loss of
farmland are complex and may not be attributable to any one condition.
6.13 Clustering and Land Values
Comment D-52:
"And iff' it did involve clustering how did the clustering work. and how were the values
presem,ed? Consider a 30 acre parcel, which presently would yield 12 or 13 building lots at one
acre each, with the balance being presem,ed land. The buyer of one of these lots is paying for 2-
acres, but has the actual use of one acre. Il'rile this condition has not so far affected the land
values, consider now the impact of 5-acre zoning with clustering in which the purchaser pays for
five acres, but still has the practical use of about one acre. At that point, the buyer's paying
waterfront prices but not getting waterfront.
And 1 can tell you that the itnpact of upzoning u'ith clustering, which is the only way to do it,
potentially has a greater intpact on values than the DGEIS report - hard to sa), that - indicates.
So I ask the authors of the report: Have you researched the impact of upzoning to acres with
clustering on the value qf 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 from 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 typical of a hotnesite 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 setting.
Homesites larger than one-acre, are typically not completely used, or are purchased for other
purposes which may include keeping of horses, 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 fi'om
the reduced density, open space and agricultural use characteristics that dominate the district.
This must be balanced with ensuring that residential areas are uot in conflict with agricultural use
areas, recognizing that A-C is intended to promote active agricultural use. As a result, owners of
A-C disthct land should recognize that agricultural use is a dominant activity in the A-C zone,
and certain measures including clustering arc tools that the Town can use to maiotain agricultural
uses, situate controlled residential use in areas adjacent to public infrastructure (such as roads) 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 m
view of the strong real estate market, and unique characteristics and qualities of Southold Town.,
and did so using available information and l~actoring in local conditions. A minor, temporary
Page 6-13
Southold C [ I t
ompre ens~xe mp emen ataon Strateg)
Final Generic EIS
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 from fam~s, 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 prese~,ation of farm and open
land and 60 percent reduction in dwelling unit density, there are no negative environmental
impacts anticipated.
Page 6-14
7.0
Southo[d Co~ll~rehensive [mplementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
ECONOMICS-RELATED COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
7.1
Complete and Unbiased Socio-Economic Analysis Needed, to include Agricultural
Business, Equity and Property Values
Comments B-14, B-15, B-16, B-30, B-41, B-52, C-8, C-19, C-32, C-33, C-37, D-4, D-9, D-10,
D-I 1, 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, E-5, E-
20, E-28, E~32, F-6, F-7, F-8, F-11, F-16, F-17, F-18, F-19, F-29, F-39, F-41, F-52, G-18, 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 of the proposed action, particularly
an upzoning to 5-acres, on agricuhural and Town-wide socio-economics, equio' and property
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 (SEQRA)'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 Impact 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 project, 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 vet3' basic level, ahnost every action has a point
beyond which it would no longer be economically viable to continue. So it is important to
understand the relationship betwean the cost and extent of project mitigation or preferred
alternatives and the proposed project. 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 (e.g.
only one of the 43 plam~ing tools that make up the action) does not require detailed economic
analysis. The purpose of S EQRA is to assess environmental impacts, not impacts on equity.
Given the sensitivity of this issue, and the Town Boa,'d's concerns, the CIS DGE[S did evaluate
the relative econonfic impact that clustered upzolfing may have on land values generally. The
CIS team explored other areas where upzonings of predominantly agricultural lands occurred in
communities within 100 miles or so fi'om a m~jor metropolitan area, and where population
pressures are intense. :% it turns out, not many examples exist. The examples that were identified
include: Southampton. NY: Baltimore, Talbot and MonlgomeD' Counties. MD: and, Napa
Valley. CA.
Additionally, the CIS team sought out the advice of a number of experts in the field, notably Dr.
Thomas Daniels of St!NY Albany. who was invited to thc To~n for au intensive two-day
worksh~p. These effbt-ts were supplelnented by traditional hteratm'c research conducted through
Page 7- l
Southold Co'l~rehensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic EIS
professional planning, land appraisal and land preservation organizations and a visit to Talbot
County Maryland. While this rather unusual effort does not constitute a traditional economic
analysis, it was an eftbrt aimed at gaining a valid understanding of the fundamental basic issues.
The Town Board has the authority to commission a separate economic analysis. However, the
ultimate benefit of a town-wide economic analysis to evaluate the impact of clustered upzoning
agricultural lands and open space from 2 to 5-acres is limited. It is important to recognize that the
Town's articulated goal is the preservation of 80 percent of the remaining agricultural and open
space lands. This amounts to an estimated 8,800 of the remaining 11,000 acres. The entire debate
concerning farmers' equity relates to the residential subdivision development potential of farms
and open space - which is, by all measures, inconsistent with the Town's preservation goals. In
the context of a SEQR evaluation, it is difficult to reconcile tools and actions that have clear and
undeniable beneficial itnpacts and are entirely consistent with the Town's goals, with concerns
about the extent of possible furore actions (e.g. residential development) that are essentially
inconsistent with those very same goals. The SEQR process is designed to examine potential
environmental impacts. The decision whether to guarantee windfalls (whether to farmers or
building lot owners) at taxpayers expense is a political one that must be decided separately.
Finally, as documented in the CIS DGEIS, if economic trends continue in the real estate market,
negative impacts on farmers' equity are expected to be modest and short term. Also, once
development rights are sold, landowners present and future will not continue to have access to
that value. The realization of the development right value takes place once. The purchase of
development rights program has been in existence since the 1970's has protected 3,158 acres
from development and has not resulted in a loss of farmland to farming, or a demise of the
industry.
7.2 Funding for and Costs of Farndand Preservation Program
Comments B-25, B-53, D-101, F-35. F-42, F-43, F-50, G-49, G-50. G-65 and G-129:
These comments voice support fbr the existing farmland preservation program, suggest sources
of increased funding (inchtding a blanket tax assessment./bt this purpose), request an ana~i,sis of
the appraised value of development rights purchased, and question the potential impact of the
proposed action on.future fiotding.[or that program.
Response:
The DGEIS found that there was no negative enviromnental impact to the Town's land
preservation program. Continued preservation using additional and increased funding from
existing or other sources would be bm~cticial. Past fuuding ~ources were identified in the DGEIS
is Section 3.1.3.
Some future fundiug sources are known. For instance, the CPPP 2 percent fuod will continue to
be a source through the year 2020. although the actual amount that will be available cam~ot be
predicted since it is based on actual sales.
Page 7-2
Southold Co~l~rehensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
The cost of the Fam~land Presep,,ation 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 percent land preservation goal will have a corresponding fiscal impact. As described
more fully in Response, Section 3.6, rel~Ang 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
from relying solely on the voluntary Land Preservation Pmgram 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
Conunent C-20:
"The difference bem,een the two 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 risk~ and the events that have transpired in 20years.
The other plan says, no, taxpayers should pay for all of that. My question is the one I can't get
an answer on, ma)'be the moratorium work group can give me the answer on it, how itt the world
is the plan that has the ~ame densi~., reduction goals, thc same land preservation goals, as the
plan that calls .[br updating our zoning codes somehow more fair to those in need qf affordable
housing, how in the worm is that plan more .fair to average Southold residents, average
taxpayers, to a diverve communiO,, to stable property taxes? Because I can't get an answer on
that, and it just doesn't make sense, atut, 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 enviromnental
impacts. It is not proposing plans. The comments are not accurate.
That said, as noted itl Response, Section 7.2 of the FGEIS, total reliance on the Town's Land
Preservation Program to achieve the 80 percent goal will inevitably rcsalt m measurable
increases itl real [-*roperly taxes within the community. Given tile current fiscal and budgctm3'
circumstances of fedcraI, state and county governn~ents, it may oot be realistic to expect that
these agencies wtll expand their financial commitment and proportional share of land
preserxation dollars and comroit thein to raeet Soutbold needs. Therefore, it must be concluded
that the financial burden of increasing land preservation efforts fast enough to outpace
developmertt pressure,, may fall on residents' shoulders. Between the upzoning concept on one
band. and s~lely l'clyin~ on tile Tox~o's Land Preservation Program on the other, it bas become
Southold ~ Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
clear that the latter would result in an increased financial burdeu throughout the community. The
upzoning coucept has the potential to primarily affect the future real estate sales value of those
who choose to sell their farms or open space lands for 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 from the land in Town
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 in
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 affordable
now.
7.4 Town Tax Abatement Authori~'
Comment C-50:
"There is one vet7, incom'ect aspect to this, and maybe this is near and deal' to m), heart because
it concerns taxes, and I don't want to look like a cheapskate, but there is no basis in New York
State Law Jot the Town to offer tax abatements to people who do things with their properO, like
preservation. I've discussed this with people, Melissa, I know a couple qf times. The fact is that
the Town, any town can't create its own tax exe~nption policy. An.v exemptions that are
available, are already available policies are already there as a matter of Ne*v York State Real
Property lax Lan', and it's not for us, it's not in our jurisdiction to add to that or subtract from
that in a~tv ~vqr. But again, these are things that ~teed to be talked ab(ntt larger more though([hl
setting, I believe."
Response:
Comment acknowledged. Currently there is no basis in New York State law tbr the Town to
offer tax abatemeuts other than those ax ailable under New York State Real Property Tax Law. It
is not known whether future amendments to Ncw York State Real Property Tax Law could be
made to lcgall?, offer such abatement.
Page ?-4
Southold Colll~ehensive 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 fimding)./br landowners to be compensated for the loss in
their yield as a result qf the proposed action, particularly if 5-acre upzoning were implemented.
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 an)' 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 virtual[y aH cases because the cost Qf insta[ling 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 Qf the costs qf
residential development at any particular densio, in any particular area is essential in making
such zoning decisions. This DGEIS should provide a comparison qf the typical costs qf
installing public water and qf installing a private well and water system for a residential lot
based on the width qf the honse lots in a development or some other measure of the densio'. And
similarly this DGEIS should pro~,ide a comparison qf the typical costs of installing a public
sewer and of installing a private cesspool ~vstem for a residential lot. These costs ntc~y d(ffer
sign(ficantly in each area o. f the Tou'n depending on the current availability of public water and
public sewers in that area. Also, there may be local areas where private wells or cesspools are
d~fficult ~f not inlposxible to install because qf ground watcr polhttion or impermeable soils. But
it is these costs that are going to influence the selection ~, the Town Board qf the land to be
zoned.fbr higher-densiO' development. And thut selection i~.fi*r more important lo the mq/ority
el' the citizens than thc selection et the land to be presented because the h(ghcr-dcnsit)'
development L~ n here they n'ill live.~"
Response:
So long as water supply and wastewater disposal meet Suflblk County Department of Health
Scrvices (SCDHS) regulations there ~ill be uo negative cnx ironmental impact, in general tile
more dense the development, the lower the cost per unit. l-he overall planning concept bdfind
transferring development fi'om the agricultural and open space areas of the Town and into tile
I'al/e 7-5
Southold Co~lll~ehensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
hamlets is contingent upon an adequate utility infi'astmcture within the hamlets to absorb
additional growth. Generally, the cost of cotmecting into existing water lines is significantly less
that the cost of drilling new wells. However, expauding the water main network to
accommodate an expanding population would be a financial cost shared by a larger pool of
Water District customers. The logical efficiency and cost effectiveness of supplying water to a
more concentrated population within the hamlets is evident, compared to the cost of distributing
water among a more dispersed population iu 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 of Greenport.
Therefore, individual cesspools, costing approximately $2,500 would be required for new
residential development.
7.7 Requests for Tax Information
Comment G-44:
"1. How man), residential propero, tax paying parcels are there ? And what are the sum of their
payments?
2. How man), commercial properO' tax paying parcels are there? And what are the sum of
their payments ?
3. How many "Other" property tax paying parcels are there? And what are the sum of their
payments?
4. How many acres qf each of the following, A-C, R-80, R-120, R-200 and R-400 which are
presently beingJ&rmed or are open space still have their development rights? You probably
see where I'm going with this. How much will it cost$?"
Response:
Categories of Land Use
Residential 12,799
Conunercial 962
Industrial 7
Amusement 170
Vacm~t 3,069
Number of Parcels
Several studies have shown that agricultural land required less services than residential land. For
every, dollar per acre paid by agricultural land. less than a third is required to provide services.
For ex'ely dollar per acre paid by residential land, one and a third times that alnount is required to
provide services.
Page 7-6
Southold Cdl~llll~ehensive Implementation Stra~eg.~
Final Generic ElS
7.8 Econonfic and Social Assessment of Town Carrying Capaci~'
Comment D-8:
"}[$tat also strikes me as missing and absent in this discussion is a thorough econotnic and
social assessment of the carrying capaci.ty qf our communiO', qf the resources required now and
itl the fitture to sustain an), growth and development and to maintain, what I consider to be our
superior quality of life. The interplay then between population and development has really not
been looked at deeply and thoroughly itt 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 capaci~.' is
evaluated using a planning tool called "build-out." In the same way carrying capaci_tv 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 8(} percent/60
percent target be achieved in the A-C and R-80 zones. This analysis showed that a lower
population increase (11,278 capita) would generate less school aged children {2,700) resulting in
a lower school district deficit than under full build conditions (-$7,490,537).
Southold Co~'~ehensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
8.0 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 as a result
of requirements for preservation/enhancement of vien's across their properties, for the
establishment of viewsheds.
Response:
The Town of Southold has expressed a clear policy with respect to scenic views. This policy is
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
~vhich 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-4t and C-42:
These comntents suggest that the Town rezone .[armland to a zoning categoO' in which
residential development would be prohibited, as awcO, ~f preserving farmland.
Response:
Planning tool #1 described in the DGEIS addresses removing uses other than agriculture fi'om
the AC zoniug 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 betweea farmers aud residential property owners. It would
ensure meeting the target of 80 percent/60 percent and it would reinforce existing development
in and around the hamlet. This tool also would free up land preser,'ation monies for the
acquisition of non-agnicultural land for the purposes of protecting ecologically sensitix e open
space, natural resources, drainage swalcs, historical sites, archcological sites, grouodwater
protectiou and scenic vistas, while allowing farmers to pursue the business of fimning with a
minimum of interference. This tool could also expaad thc t_xqpes of agricultural enterprises that
could be undertaken by farmers as well as allowing them to provide on-site housing for their
labor tbrce.
Page 8 I
Southold Comp'l'~hensive 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 fitture analyses o.f developtnent include the efJbct of continued
private and Town and County land preservation qfforts.
Response:
Past land preservation trends may not continue in the future due to changing realities in the
regional econorny, such as the shrinking supply of land in general on Long Island and the
increased availability of public water. The farmland preservation prograrns 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 var5, 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:
"lVe need to define some terms so we can understand each other.., t[:e need to de. fine
"PRESERVATION".
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 cmnment 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 (Town and County), private open space
(including site plans and subdivisionsL conse~,ation organization open space and covenants,
restrictions and easements.
Pa~e 8-2
Southold Comp~l'~hensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic EIS
8.5 Success of Other RID Programs
Comment C- l 5:
"Councilman i~'ickham tells us that the rural incentive district is going to fix everything, and I
know tn), questions tend to be rhetorical, but I ask this seriousl), and wouM like examples if
they 'ye been found, and if the)' 're in the document, [ apologize, if ),ou could point me to them.
Did you.find one communiO' within 100 miles qf a major ciO, to achieve goals similar to ours that
count on only personal development rights in a rural incentive district; in fact, did you.find any
communiO, that utilized the rural incentive district and PDRs to achieve a goal similar to ours?
Because [ would like to know where they are, because we have not found them. Maybe our
search in some Freudian wa), hash 't been as open as it ought to be."
Response:
Other than the Town of Southampton, the CIS tean~ did not find any other conununities within
close proximity to a major city, 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 percent 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 prese~ed (approximately 1/3 of the Town's land mass.)
8.6 Scenic B~vays and Farmland Operations Restrictions
Comments C~46, C-48 and E-19:
These comments address concerns about additional limitations imposed on farm building
construction and layouts due to restrictions fi'om scenic byways legislation, and whether country
inns, "wineries should be subject to these restrictions.
Response:
The action described in the DGEIS addresses Scenic Byway Overlay Development Controls, as
planning tool #17. This tool includes guidelines for the siting of structures within scenic bs~vay
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 tbr previous
in-depth discussion on this.
Page 8-3
Southold Compre-'~hensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
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 itsel~f is not sufficient to maintain farmland in agricultural
production. Obviously the real estate tax' assessment on the vacant land *~'ill decrease
significantly once residential development is prohibited. Thus the cost qf ownership will be
much lon'er than it is now which will be especially beneficial to the fa~w~ers. But our communio'
is becotning more and more a playground for the rich who ma), 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 o. f a new golf course on farmland is one possible
use we have observed in Riverhead. Also the purchase of farmland by the em,ironmental
organizations to preserve the land as open-space is another possibility. If the presetn'ation qf
farmland in agricultural production is our goal, then the use of the land for other purposes must
be actively discoaraged if it cannot be prohibited. Hopefidly, this goal can be achieved by
adopting additional zoning restrictions and by in'creasing the real estate tax assessment
significantlyJbr uses other than farming. This DGEIS shouM recommend the tools available to
achieve this goal. Also some land previously 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 possibilio' of restoring this former
farmland to agricultural prodaction. Can the zoning ordinance be used to require the
landowner to restore the farmland to agricultural production? tVhat other tools are available to
achieve this goal?"
Response:
Preventing the conversion of fam~land to developed land preserves the ability or opportunity to
farm but does not and catmot guarantee the viability of the farming industry. Maintaining
farmland in agricultural production is a separate issue. Numerous complex and interrelated
factors, including land use and zoning controls, aghcultural market economics, tax policies,
transportation considerations, and availability of farm labor, mnong others, affect the business of
fanning. 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-80 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 fhrm.
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 arcas.
Page 8-4
Southold Compi~ensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
The concept of converting cluster subdivision open space to agricultural use represents an
innovative concept. Further research is being conducted to determine if land used to calculate the
density of a clustered subdivision, and then pemmnently 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 subdivision
opan 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 farmland to
be profitably farmed. The Planning Board employs this same approach with presentation 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 reference to the economic
impact o. f an up-zone. '... not anticipated to be significant. ' 'no significant socio-economic
impacts are expected as a result of this action... ', in addition, identify the supporting
docutnents 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 Section 3.2.1 of the DGEIS.
Explain the gross discrepancy between the DGEIS document and the 2003 Article 8
Environmental Quali~_ Review on issue q['need to access economic impact on the farming
indttstt_~,.
Response:
The CIS DGEIS addresses the economic impact of the Action in complete consistency with the
requirements of SEQRA. No "gross discrepancy" exists, as asserted by the author of the
comment.
The summar), q£ the LEGG MASON document indieates that an exhaustive review q£ the
economic impact of up-zoning farmland was not comtucted bt' the moratorium planning team.
Please revieu' and report on the signitTeance of thi~ documem to the DGEIS.
Page 8-5
Southold Compr~"~ensive 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.
· lVhat is the definition of 'critical environmental areas '?
Response:
A critical environmental area is defined in Section 617.2(i) 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 Routes 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, gMng access
to recreational facilities, rural and urban views, natural features from woodland to meadow to
marshland to seascape, cultural landmarks, working fam~s, and waterfronts, and historic
structures and complexes.
Route 48 is characteristic of the Town's basic agricultural character wide expanses of farm
fields defined by distant tree breaks, punctuated by intermittent views of Long Island Sound
or undeveloped woodlands.
The B3~vay 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 program has a
strong econonfic component in that it seeks to protect the scenic corridor Ibr the economic
benefits that accrue from it, not just the environmental benefits.
Page 8-6
Southold Comp'Y~'hensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic EIS
· g'7~at is the definition of 'projects that remove sign(ficant acreage' (quant(f~' 'significant
acreage '), and what actions would dqfine 'agriculture use '?
Response:
No set threshold defines "significant acreage." Such a judgment is made by the Planning Board
on a case by case basis. Tspically 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 10 acre remains contiguous, 10 acres is the
minimum acreage for entry, in the Agriculture District program.
· How many 'spec!fled number oJ'lots' is needed to exceed conventional subdivisions?
Response:
Subdivisions must be clustered if the acreage im'olved exceeds 10 acres.
· What is the 'minimum thresholdpercentage' qfa significant 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 of vehicles
(usually meaning autos and trucks) generated by a unit of land use. A trip is a one-way
movement fi.om origin to destination. Each trip has two trip ends. Trip generation is always
given for a specific period of time, which is generally a single hour (normally a peak hour) or a
full da5,. The primat3' source for trip generation information if the Institute of Transportation
Engineers Manual qf Trip Generation. Data fi.om 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.
Page 8-7
Southold Com~ensive Implementation Strateg)
Final Generic ElS
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, would impact residential neighbors, and would be too small to
provide sustainable amounts of food for the vicinil)'.
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 econonfical 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 farming. At
present, there are many examples of' partial PDR, coupled with clustering and retention of
farmland.
8.10 Tree Preservation
Comments D-79, D-100, E-18 and G-132 to G-137:
These comments provide spec([ic concerns and questions itl 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 m size, and would exempt farmland. As a result,
inspections of small, developed fa~ properties would not occur.
Page 8-8
9.0
Southold Comp~ensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
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 refer to a number of 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 John Sepenoski was
involved throughout the preparation of the Build-out. The table presented in Appendix F-I 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 Water
Authorities GElS (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 fewer
potential units than other build-out analyses currently in use for 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 a
result, only land which has some level of legal or ensured protection is removed from the land
potentially available tbr development. This is the only true and accurate method to determine
development potential.
While there are limitations and assumptions with any computer generated document; all efforts
were 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
Comlnent B-29:
"...there's no estimate in your report as to what the margin.['or error could be. and so it could
veO' conceivab~3' be less in terms of what might actual(v happen.
Page 9-1
Southold Compr-'~ensive lmpleraentation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
I don't know whether in coming up with your 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 mciv fin'ther reduce your density. I didn't see an
analysis .for that, and l'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 abiliO' to subdivide a propero,.
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 presem'ation efforts on a voluntary basis. And so this is the
absolute worst case scenario in a perfect developer's world, },,here nothing bad goes wrong for a
subdivision, and that's not the real worm when you're subdividing properO,... "
Response:
The Build-Out Analysis took into account every circumstance under which the Planning 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, future
decisions by the Zoning Board of Appeals for land splits that are less than the required minimum
lot size are not accounted lbr. 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,
xvhile 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 for Southold
Town.
Page
Southo d Compre--6'hensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
9.3 MajoriW of Land at Risk is in Lots 2 Acres or Less in Size
Comment B-36:
"Some qf the comments that I'd like to make that I think this 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 together or not, 1 don't think this is the night to do something like that, I
think we should talk in global terms. As you look in all the particular areas that have been
defined, such as the AC area, R-40, R-80, all through that table, you 'll find out ~f you sum ~p the
property that's less than 2-acres, less than 2-acres in this Town, starting with R-40 and R-80 and
working your }*'a), through, you 7l come up with a number that's about 4839, which is what I
came up with just through a calculator. The total that I came up with, the total I didn't agree
with, and I'm not going to wotO' about quibbling about getting the same total as you did: maybe
[ was doing this at a time of night when I shouldn't be doing it - but it was 7610. So the lot size,
less than 2-acres comes 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'x less than 2- acres in this Town. That's what the
report says.
And then ~f you take land less than 1-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 Town 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 for additional intbnnation 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 (e.g. health department
(water supply and septic), Trustees and New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (wetlands) and Zoning Board (variances).
9.4 Correlate Water Use and Build-Out Analysis
Co~nment B-30:
"IVe have a water problem itt this Town whether you people/mow it or not. So another criticism
q['this report is I think that somebody ought to make a matrix table, )'oil have all the data here,
where you have all the water in Table 2-1 of the amount qf water that ~e have available and t~3'
amt cross reft, fence that with the lot sizes so )'ou ki~ow where the ~cater is with respect to where
the lot sizes are. And you 7[ be able to see aver)' nice ri'ay where thc people, nhen thqv come
Page 9-3
Southold Comprehensne [mplementanon Strategy
Final Generic ElS
here, if they're going to develop houses and so forth and so on, this is exactly how it's going to
occur. People ~t'ill do this: the)' will follow the water. So you should have a cross reference
table between where the water is and where the lot sizes are as )'ou broke down in your 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 5-Acre Zoning
Comments B-48, C-27, D-85 and D-86:
These comntents request that a Build-out analysis be prepared and anal)zed assuming 5-acre
upzoning.
Response:
Section 3.2.2, Regional hnpact 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 thc presence of existing non-subdividable parcels of less then 5 acres in area. In order to
achieve a full dansity 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 mn, 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 9-4
Southo d Com~'lrehensive Implementation Slrategy
Final Generic ElS
percent preserv'ation and 60 percent density reduction would result in 2,534 units and 8,872 acres
of open space and thrmland.
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 of
development than would occur if the rezoning were not implemented, with associated adverse
impacts on taxes and costs o. f living and community sero,ices.
Response:
The data and analysis included in the DGEIS and Appendix H of this FGEIS do not support the
conclusions included in the comments above. Review of the Full Build-out analysis (Section
3.1.1 and 3.1.2 of the DGEIS) as compared with 60 pement 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 what I'd like to see you do is extrapolate and take some data, and do some modeling.[or
the alternatives. The conservation subdivision process, we want to see that happen; that's ve~5'
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 vacant land in the A-C and R-
80 zones, and this is modeled 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
fexver residential units be constructed. It is acknowledged that the conservation subdivision
process has benefits in terms of achieving Town goals.
Page 9-5
nu~reh ' t t' S~
Southold C '
ompre ens~se lmplemen a ~on rateg}
Final Generic ElS
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 vet3', ve~), low. I've got a 30 acre farm and depending on how
it's calculated l probabl~v have to three to Jbur acres on my 30 acres. So I think your 15 percent
slope there is a little Iow."
Response:
For actual yield purposes, slope is detemfined on a site-by-site basis based on topographic
contours included on a subdivision plan pursuant to Town Plmming Board application
requirements. As a result, areas with slopes in excess of 15 percent are accurately detemfined for
yield purposes in connection with site specific applications.
For the purpose of the DGEIS, a regional slope analysis was performed using data available from
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 Ground~vater and Construction
Comment C-53:
"The next question I 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 of sixth bullet are high
groundwater areas o_f less than ten .feet. I do not see in the analysis of the theoretical build-out
potential. I see wetlands, but I don't see anything to deduct properties of groundwater less than
ten .feet.
question also is: Is who might own these lands? Thank )'ou"
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 from 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
sanitm3~ system areas to allow tbr 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
Southoid Comprehensive lmplementatmn Strategx
Final Generic ElS
specific subdivision design and review, and can be mitigated through clustering to higher areas,
or by bringing in fill as noted.
For the purpose of regional analysis, efforts were made to digitally map areas with groundwater
of less than 10 feet. The DGEIS, Section 1.3.2, Implementation Tool #15, includes a Critical
Environmental Lands local law that would identify land with groundwater of less than t0 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 com~nent presents a detailed methodology whereby the commentator calculated the density
reduction achieved by app(ving 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-14.
Response:
The comment is noted, and the commenter is directed to Section 9.5 above, which describes the
Build-out analysis methodology for density 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 mlalysis included iii Appendix H of this
FGEIS.
9.11 Build-Out Analysis and Tracking Study
Comment D-80:
"I have a few questions for the moratorium committee. It appears that you arc' doing
disservice when you do a build-out analysis versus a tracking analysis; why? There's details
the tracking details I would li[~"e the details of it, not a summa~T, fidl detailx. "
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 bistory. The
DGEIS includes both a Build-Out Analysis, and an analysis of Land Preservation Efforts and
Future Development Trends, in order to present fair and accurate infbrmation. Both analyses are
described iii full, qualified as to applicability where appropriate, and available to readers of the
DGEIS. One analysis is not presented "versus" another; all infurmation relevant to the proposed
project and potential impacts is presented m objective, complete tbnn to provide decision-
Page 9-7
·
SouChold Com~l~hensive lmpleraentation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
makers with the necessary, information to weigh social and economic aspects as well as
enviromnental considerations.
9.12 Build-Out Analysis and Continued Preservation Efforts
Comments F-38 and G-45:
"I[rhile it ma), be true that revenues in fi~ture )'ears are not predictable to the penn)', it is a fact
that the Town will receive over $3.5 million in CPF fitnds 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 an5,
.future preseta'ation by the Town or CounO', especially in the AC and R-80 zones?"
Response:
The Build-out analysis is described in Section 3. l. 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 for 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 3.1.3 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
pem~anently 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 stone or greater level will be received in future years; however, beyond 2003, the actual
amount of preservation fuods 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 Preservation
Program".
Page 9-8
Southold Comp"l~ensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
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 of the DGE[S, and support for
the goals of the proposed action, including upzoning to 5-acres.
Response:
Comments acknowledged.
10.2 Site Plan Review
Comments B-I 1 and G-80:
"There is discussion as to what farmers are going to be able to do once the), subdivide their
property 80-20 percent. Part of that choice is you're going to have to tell, the Town's going to
be invoh,ed where the greenhouses go and the fences go and where things go that might interfere
with the view. It's interesting that the view from the public that's coming in from the ci~.' and
from Riverhead, from the west or the view fi'om 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."
Response:
The question of who will decide where major structures go will be made, as it always has been,
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 of
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 necessary,
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 of
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 the 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.
· implement a roadway beautification or "adopt-a-road" program, whereby civic-nfinded
citizens and businesses can help protect the scenic corridor.
Page 10-1
Southold Comp'?[~ensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
· 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 agricultural 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 o.f this be
included in the DGEIS.
Response:
Census data lbr 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 now, I'm invoh,ed, as the papers will tell you and others are invoh,ed in the formations of
villages in the Town qf Southampton. And those villages are being formed because public
properS_, owners don't trust the To~*'n Board. They feel the), have been lied to, cheated, taken
advantage of, and the)' vote with their veto. They don't leave the community, they leave the
To,cn. They.fortn their own village. It's not hard. You need five square miles and 500 houses.
Page 10-2
Southold Comp'l~[ensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
That alternative must now. I submit, be a part of your examination, your review. I'm not making
that up. This happened once already itl the To,vn of Southampton. It is happening n'hile we
stand here. and I'm involved in a third one there. It is not a big deal. t~'e can either get annexed
or secede; you get ),our own zoning: you rent your own firemen - not .firemen, the police and
eveo,thing else. It's not a big deal. That shouM be addressed because you're supposed to take
into account in your DGEIS the natural consequences or even the unnatural consequences of
what you're doing, and what you're doing is ?ou 're revving people up to do things that you ~na),
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 of what you are doing" and as
such the creation of new villages should be evaluated.
As described in the DGEIS, Section 8.0 alternatives 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 analysis of the interaction of the 43 recommended tools be
conducted, as well as an analysis of the potential effects .from implementation qf tools that
contradict or otherwise adversely 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 AvailabiliW of Public Water and Development Pattern
Comments B-37 and F-14:
These comments note that availability of public u'ater for residential and agricultural use is a
determining factor in the distributions of these uses. and that the qualiO, of groundwaters
underlying these uses is impacted by these uses.
Page 10-3
Southold Comp'l~ensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
Response:
The Town of Southold depends exclusively on groundwater for its water supply. This sole
xonrce aquifer is part of Groundwater Management 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
approximately 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 xvater mains, with approximately 26 miles planned or under
construction. This infrastructure 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, *t'hy am I telling you this? Because the thing is that if we're going to buiM 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 &tffolk County
Water Authori.tv 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 oJc 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 vet3.' poor area, you must
think about modular desalination plants, and these things are not that expensive. But people
have to realize !['they're going to move here, this is the situation that they're going to come into
if we start this an)' degree of build-out in this Town."
Page 10-4
Southold Coml]T~ensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
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 for his
use,
10.8 Objection to Use of Photograph of Krupski Farm in DGEIS
Conunents B-42 and G-2:
"The Krupski family objects to the use of our picture in the Southold Comprehensive
Implementation Strategy and Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement.
This picture represents at, endorsement qf a document that seeks to destro.}' 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 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 of
Southold. The photographs in Appendix E were used to illustrate examples of various aspects of
the community character, including:
· Agriculture
· Open Space
· Wetlands
· Waterfront
· Hamlets
· Residential Development
· Commercial Fishing
· Tourism
· Roadways
Page 10-5
Southold Com~l~l~aensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic EIS
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
platming 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 tbr the use of the Krupski image in the DGEIS without the consent of
the Krupski family.
10.9 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 pceservation of agriculture m~d 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 farming 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 percent. 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 10-6
Southol~ Com~enslve Implementation Strateg~
Final Generic ElS
10.10 Agricultural Preserve as Memorial
Comments C-1 and G-7:
"To the West qf tis is the Pine Barrons [sic] Preserve, in SouthoM Town we have the Fort
Corchaug Preserve dedicated to tribal history and nature stud),. So why not have an
Agricultural Preserve where the Good soils of SouthoM Town are reserYed for agricultural use
and dedicated to the memory of the kind of farming which gave us the rural scenes which we
enjoy. A fitting memorial wouM be wooded are depicting how the countr), looked before the land
was cleared for farming. Such a memorial may be funded by donations.
Many farmers have made long term commitments to farming by .forming agricuhural districts
and by participating in the sale of development rights. Other~vise it takes a billionaire to farm
on billionaire land. ff this is ones idea qf preserving open space then [ have recourse to selling
my estate to the highest bidder and taking the cash Otnreadabled. "
Response:
Comment noted.
10.11 Cottage House Conversions
Comment C-I 1:
"...but I hope you 'ye taken into consideration some qf the events that you're going to 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 full
~family 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 for 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 problems, they utilize water,
and generate sewage; they, fur the most part, do not generate school aged children that must be
educated in the local schools, or require other municipal services 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 traffic during
the winter months.
Page 10-7
Southold Compr~enslve Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
10.12 Variances
Comment C-12:
"Please take into consideration the variance reali.tv. An), of us who grew up in Huntington Town
or visited Port Jefferson have seen over the )'ears, you drive by a lot, you wouldn't think it was a
lot. It was a slope, it was a hill, nothing could 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 ofpareels. 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 fbr 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 preset~,ation in order to maintain the Town's rural qualities.
Villages and hamlets such as Port Jefferson and Huntington typically 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 western 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, environn~ental resources and health, safety and welfare of the community. Variances
Page 10-8
·
Southold Compi~'~ensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
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 services,
population, etc. from development arising from a 5-acre upzoning, in comparison 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 tbr additional information; however, in
general the fbllowing points are noted:
A primary goal of the Town is to maintain community character; upzoning 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 and natural-resource
qualities of the Town's community character.
In temps of public sen'ices, lower development densities generate less demand for public
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 for educational
sen'ices results in a substantially lower school district deficit, thus demonstrating the benefit
of density reduction with respect to a public sen, ice that comprises 64 pement 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 well as a
number of alternatives are addressed in the DGEIS and this FGEIS.
Page 10-9
Southold Comp~nsive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
10.14 Exhausting Single and Separate Lots
Comment C- 14:
"In fit,e or so ),ears we're going to exhaust our single and separate lots in this Town. Up island,
land for major development will be gone. tITater is going to be ubiquitous to our Town. Even if'
we continue our current preservation trend, and I commend everybody invoh,ed in it from the
Town government to those that work as consultants, and I might add to the taxpayers.~>r funding
the bill, but the fact of the matter is, if we keep preserving at about 250 acres per )'ear, in five
),ears our single and separates are pretty much gone. }ge spent $40 million in the interim
assuming some mix oJfarm acres and open space acres and we say we *t'ant our money to go to
preserve, and we still have over 7,000 acres at risk. Goodness gracious, what is going to happen
*t'hen those big three collide. Our single and separate lots are gone; water's ubiqttitous; the
development up island is gone; we cannot fail to underestimate what 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 the Toxvn to achieve its stated goals.
Programs included in the Southold CIS are directed toward density reductiom 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, F-57, 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 wotdd lead to unwanted competition with hotels and bed-and-breakfast
o*cners.
Response:
This comment is acknowledged. The DGEIS 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 n.~viexv 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 COmplNl~nsive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic EIS
type and number of facilities. Although competition between businesses is clearly beyond the
scope of an EIS~ socio-economic factors that could result from impact upon the existing hotel,
restaurant and bed-and-breakfast industry should be considered in any move to establish Country
Inns in Southold Town.
10.16 Parks and Hamlets
Conunent C-22:
"First, I'd like to address the item in the document; that apparently it pertains to limiting the
park districts in the To~vn. And I heard about this and I really couldn't believe it.
You knon', growing up out here, the park districts were part qf growing up out here. And it made
every area a part of the community, and if you lived in Cutchogue/New Suffolk Park District,
that's where you n'ent to the beach, and that's what you grew up with. And the park districts I
thought always did a very good job of keeping the areas nice and clean and open and accessible
to everyone. And 1 think it would be a huge mistake to t~, to homogenize these really local little
park areas into some kind a Town project, and especially where l've seen some qf the Town
projects in the past where some of these park areas turn into Fort Apaches with 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. The LWRP recommended acquisition of
additional waterfront near Horton's Creek.
Comment G-68:
"1. DGEIS 1-13 One of the enhancements recommended is the creation of a park in
Mattituck. I could not find the rationale for this project. Mattituck has the most parkland in the
Town of SouthoM with 71 acres of park land. g~v is it necessary to create another park in
Mattituck ? "
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 Comp~[S~ensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
Comment G-69:
"2. DGEIS 2-57 The second listing of Bailie Beach states that a Mattituck Park District
pertnit is required for parking. Can you change that to a Southold Parking permit is required for
parking."
Response:
Comment acknowledged.
Comment G-70:
"3. DGEIS 2-67 'The Town of SouthoM is uniquely defined by a series of nine hamlets,
including Laurel, Mattituck, Cutchogue, New &tffolk, 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 Island in the description of our Ibwn in its
entirety'. The photo section does not include it as well."
Response:
Comment acknowledged. Fishers Island 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 Mattituck/Cutchogue Library should be changed to Mattituck/Laurel Library."
Response:
Comment acknowledged.
Comment G-72:
"5. DGEIS 2-68 Could you rethink the short description of Mattituck hamlet. As it reads, it
does not include Rte. 25, but I think the hamlet has grown to include it as well as t'he librao,,
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
Comment G-73:
"6. DGEIS 2-27 'Route 25 traverses the hamlets of
to East Marion."
Response:
Comment aclmowledged.
Southold Compi~l~nslve Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
' Please change East bforiches
Comment G-74:
"7. DGEIS 2-48 Can you check table 2-13 ? It contains census numbers of each hamlet, but
lists Fishers Island as having 289 people. The Housing and Needs Assessment for the Town in
the Appendix has all information the same except it lists Fishers Island with 622 people. If this
is correct the numbers may 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 lOth hamlet, Fishers island.
It would be more complete to list this hamlet as well since it is part qf Southold Town."
Response:
Comment acknowledged, see above.
Comment G-76:
"9. Also, the CCA lumber used in bulkheading and other marine applications (a justi[iable
concern) are pointed out but there is an omission of all the CCA posts holding up the grape vines
throughout Southold. For balance and fairness mention of this situation would best serve all
residents since we see the vineyards everywhere in our 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 Agriculture and
Markets Law, as well as questions regarding its applicabiliO, to farm family housing.
Page 10-13
Southold Compr'gll'ensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic EIS
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 o.f D'ustees 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 wetlands 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 irt 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. We. tlands 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,
meadom% fiats or other low lands subject to tidal action, including those areas now or formerl)'
connected to tidal waters...." To smmnarize 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 research, 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 tlu:ough this Comprehensive hnplementation Strategy. It is important that
plmming functions be integrated with these offices and Boards as well.
Page 10-14
Southold Compl~t~nsive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic EIS
As a result, the DGEIS recognizes the important role and jurisdiction of the Town Trustees in
protecting a major Town environmental resource. 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 desirability of the Plan's 5-acre zoning proposal in terms of fiaure
Town character and increased scope and cost qf necessary governmental services: the
controversial nature of 5-acre zoning; and the ntility of the DGEIS as a description o.f 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 fully' evaluated
in Section 4.4 of the DGEIS.
10.20 Hamlet Delineations
Comment D-29:
"You want to send things into the hamlets, 3'et nobod, v can even tell you in this docutnent, it says
they can't even tell you where the hamlets begin or end. How do you know? How dc, you know
which hamlet you're talking about if you go down to the road and you don't know whether
you're talking about Peconic, or you're talking about Cutchogue, or you're talking abont
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 Compr~nsive Implementation 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 real~r have in Ton'n a lot qfnonconforming, undersized
lots. Half acre lots' are most necessarily nonconforming. The), are legal. They were Jbunded by
government. The), were passed with a legal site plan, and those governments were legal.
I'd like to get through some qf the ideas that we've always had in this Town abot~t 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-conforming 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 wtcant, 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 Comprl~ensive 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 going to have more qf an
effect on what's going to be in the fitture in this area.
I don't know (fyou 're aware of all the outside companies from Atlantic Ci0, and other areas, Las
Vegas that are looking for that site for casino gambling. It's ripe. The State 'S bro&' and guys
are looking at purchasing sections of that property and putting in billions o~f dollar.~ worth of
hotels and stufflike that. And that's going to have a tremendous effect on this area. Don't sell it
short. It 'S going to be eight ),ears, nine )'ears 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 Fo.n~,oods and stuff like that. The),
want the revenue right here. It 'S their last resort. The State is broke. So keep that in ~nind when
you start looking at that proposal in your master plan; you got to consider to the west of us."
Response:
The Grumman site is in the Town of Riverhead. Southold is unique and while there is; influence
from western towns as noted in Section 3.l.3 of the DGEIS, Southold must consider measures
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 conflict with the farm and farmland protection
sO'ategy, 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, of active
.farmland with residential uses. Now it's misquoted because now you're saying that in the
Master Plan, which is right here (indicating), that that was still the intent, and it's not true. The
intent, if ),ou read this Master Plan, they had the same problems making decisions that you have
today, is how to protect the ~farmland by clustering, by TDR, by CounO, programs, by Town
programs, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So this on Page 1-22 is not true."
Response:
There are a nmnber of factors that influence farmland preservation as outlined and d~scussed in
the DGEIS. The 1985 Master Plan was prepared 18 years ago, and conditions were not the same
Page 10-17
Southold Comprel/ensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic EIS
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 patterns 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 identify 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, gee were not
even close to talking 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 integriO, of the hamlet centers. Further, the concept qf the RO district
has been undermined by a permissive home occupan~v law that allows homeowners in
residential districts to enjoy many of the benefits of hosting a business in a residential area with
less qf the restrictions in att RO district. ,4 permissive home occupancy law, is that the next
target without SEQRA? I mean. I'm standing here a sur~,i¥or of the Count! 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 pr, 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 follow-up on an), aspect of this, we 'ye got to know what's coming and you're
not telling tls."
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 Fome 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 LB districts as noted in the
comment on Page 1-25 of Section 1.3.l. The intended review seeks to ensure that bnsiness 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 Compr~nsive Implementation Strategy
Final Geaeric ElS
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, economic and
environmental factors), and render decisions consistent with the ElS record, the Findings, and the
decision-making process that the Town Board is empowered to perform, 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 bel~veen an intensely
developed hamlet and general business area and agricultural land. The uses intended .for this
district were in keeping with the rural character in terms o~f the level of trafl2c and physical
appearance. The current code fails to do this. The LB district was created mair,'l_v for the
Cormo' Route 48 businesses. If you looked at the zoning map at the end qf the Master Plan, you
would find that probably 80 to 90 percent of the LB zones were located on CounO, Route 48.
That was so the), couldn't get into the general business community and there were a lot of
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 SEQRA
review at that point in time.
Comment E- 14:
"Review of home occupancy restrictions, l~e spent a little time on that one. The home
occupation lax*, said the law shouM simply permit the running of a single person business out of
a home **'here there is no retail, wholesale or customer traffic to and from the home. Outside q£
the baymen, that is true. It does not allow retail and it does not allow a constant flow of
customers. As .far as hair salons go, doctor's offices, n'hich **'ere already existing ,before this
law, there are cases, but there is not a terrific amount of traffic under most of those. They
existed before the home occupation law. The home occupation la**,, we covered the baymen, so
the baymen couM actually sell their scallops to somebody or somebody could pick i~hem up at
their house, or the)' could deliver from their house, and the builders and others couM work out of
the house, and if there **'as an)' equipment around it **'as supposed to be screened. If 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, all it says here is it's a
problem, and the problem is whoever wrote this doesn't understand it because it clearly doesn't
allow retail. Att example, medical office, tradesmen or contractor uses have resulted in
complaints. The nature of those complaints 1 would like to see itl this document because ~f these
Page 10-19
Southold Compi~'ensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic EIS
complaints have come in, you don't have to give specific names or anything, but if you have a
cotnplaint of a specific nature and the Town enforcement officer, which you have 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 which 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 preserYe balance, on Page 3-31, balance and
growth management for the interest of the overall Town, including landowners and farm
businesses. The Town can achieve preservation, 80 percent through mandato~? clustering on
one acre lots in connection with 60 percent densiO, reduction by upzoning fi'om 2 to 5-acre
equivalent yields. Such action wouM bring the Town more in conformance with its
comprehensive plan. t}~hat comprehensive plan has recommended this? I'm soro', 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 l don 't know what you 're bringing this into conformance with,
and if you're saying that it 'S in conformance with the SouthoM Comprehensive Implementation
Strategy, that's one thing, but it 's not. But the Master Plan c/early 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 equil), 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 .blaster Plan and until you change it, that's the gospel of this town,
whether people want to identify with it or not. I really think it should be reprinted, the
background studies, the summary, and I think it should be distributed to all the Board members
and be required reading for eve~. member that comes on Board. The Town has a Master Plan,
and it's not being used."
Page 10-20
Southold Comp'l'L~nsive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
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 decisions,
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 t~actors 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 u'ill
affect individual properties, and will be reviewed for consistency with comprehensive planning
efforts and overall needs of the Town. Given the comprehensive nature q£this initiative and the
well-grounded support in prior studies as well as analysis contained in this strategy, no
significant adverse itnpacts are expected. That's an ttnfounded statement. 1 will really like to
see that qualified. I mean, ho}v you can say that some of the things that l've mentioned are not
going to have an impact on this to~n as a whole, transfer of development rights, when the
Planning Board rejects the first time around, it goes to the Su~ffolk CounO, Planning Commission,
and then it requires a majoriO, pitts one to pass it. [['e 're talking ~vco' down the road before
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 is for
the future of the Town. I mean, you're read)' to put in 5-acre zoning right now. and then, if you
address qffordable housing in three to four ),ears and maybe TDRs in five years, then maybe
· we'll get something accomplished. But why not put them all together and do it the right n'~v?"
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 Sen'ices 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 10-2l
Southold CompreIYensive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
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:
"CommuniOn' 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 the), 're saying is basically build up your hamlets. Move everything out of the outside and
build up your hamlets. But you don't have to go the 5-acre zoning to do that. I mean, that was
part qf the plan. That's in the Master Plan now to build up the hamlets and several of the HD
zones, the old M zones that were 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 1 (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. l. The Town Board felt that there was sufficient information available, and directed the
preparation of an implementation plan, not another study.
The Toxvn 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 attomeys, 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
Sonthold ComprPll~sive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic EIS
effective way to comply with the Board directive and take advantage of the knowledge and
experience of Town personnel 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, attd 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:
"Enfo~vement, enforcement, enforcement. Good enforcement, would prevent a lot of these laws
from having to be changed for any reason. If there are complaints, the complaints should be
documented. The documented complaints should be put in this document, so ,ha, people can see
the reason behind the suggestion that they change a home occupation law, that the3' change an
RO zone. Show us where the problems are, don't just allude to then,. Show us where the
problems are, and th~:v should be documented if the enforcement department is doing their job."
Response:
Enforcement is important, and is acknowledged in the DGEIS in Table 1 ~ 1, where education and
enforcement are noted as important components of the Strategy. Enforcement 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-3 7:
"I'm not going to read all qf it. Developing water supply master plan, I think you have one. I
think you have one, and you have a map that's been passed on by the Town. I think that's what
Henry Raynor **'as addressing today. I think there 'S a map, and there's meetings and all of that
could be included. I know Howard's saying start over again. I 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 sen'ice map in Figure B-17, as agreed upon between the Town of Southold and the
Page 10-23
Southold Comic Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
SCWA. Though this is not a water supply master plan, it is useful intbnnation 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 wouM occur in areas distant
from agricultural use, the potential for impact to irrigation water would be reduced. I think ~£
you digest that one, you realize that something is radically wrong because in the Master Plan
study and an9' stud)' that I've ever seen on consumptive use in housing has been far le~s 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 of on-site wells for irrigation purposes.
10.26 Conservation Opportunity. Subdivision Enhancement
Comments G-88 and G-149:
"4. Southold Ag Advisor), Board respec~dly requests the (COP) Conservation Opportuni~.,
Subdivision plan be enhanced and cod!fled."
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 le~ for
further refinement. The DGEIS provides this further refinement of the RID concept, ~ 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 Comprq~l~sive Imilementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
The landowner retains the option to develop at 2-acre zoning if the Town fails to negotiate or to
allocate funds for the purchase of development rights during the term of the RID. Only if 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 EIS. In addition, it
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 for
comment.
The statetnents 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 to 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 for 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 Vote on Proposed Action
Comment G- 154:
"Actually, I don't believe that the Board consisting of five people shouM have the authoriO' 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:
Despite the reference to an open process with participation front townspeople, the DGEIS
process has been notable for the lack qf that input. In fact, the DGEIS process abruptly stopped
an open process involving, among others, the Blue Ribbon Commission deliberations. The
DGEIS process has even stopped development and discussion of the Rural Incentive District
proposal.
Page 10-25
Southold Compr~ll~sive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
The hearings on the DGEIS ri'ere overa'helming negative about the report. Besides the
substantive de~fects raised, this also reflects the fact that stakeholders, including but not limited
to landowners, had no input into the process.
in addition, neither the Plann 'ng Board nor Iown Board / ad more titan a passing involvement in
the preparation of the report, and it is the Town that is ultimately responsible to comply with
S£Q .
· 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,
23rd, 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
fbr 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 heatings, with the exception of that expressed by the farm
community against the 5-acre upzoning tool. Dozens of planning 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 ;vill not conclude until the Lead Agency adopts Findings.
Page 10-26
Southold Comp~sive Implementation Strategy
Final Generic ElS
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 in 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