Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-121.-4-9 (4)M n - STATE U' ALITY REVIEW (SEQRA` .TUSSHEET TYFr-,?F AC:roN: TYPE 1 T1. NLISTED LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD OTHER: xorrwt-,kz o tokj, w>, Jn1t'5W awl zo n 6at' 14 c am u 6 it CWJ -o INITIAL DF1'ERMINATION: ,k�;� NON-SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE LEAD AGENCY COORDINATION: UNCOORDINATED REVIEW—/—/ — COORDINATED REVIEW - START OF 30 DAY COORD. PROCESS—/—/— COMMENTS MEN'TS RECEIVED FROM: AGENCY: Sac ARkC1 /�� AZW 71 'z� � AGENCY: 'i AGENCY: r>ETERMINATION NEGATIVE DECLARATION ATE—/—/— CONDITIONAL NEG.DEC.- DATE /—/ POSITIVE DECLARATION�DATE /�/� IF POSITIVE DECLARATION SCOPING SESSION RECEIPT OF DEIS / P.-7-! 9D v�z31�'fc (a ri Uri,W D" DATE DEIS COMPLETE--+-=-t'//DATE DEIS INCOMPLETE /JE/ `�C RECEIPT OF REVISIONS TO DEIS -3 ! 1a/ 9 j jlt lr,t P.e. txt* o.e Ut') 0.y w f CYp +tstit17� DATE DEIS COMPLETE--tom=//DATE DEIS INCOMPLETE / / 1 RECEIPT OF REVISIONS TO DEIS/ 13/ 91 DATE DEIS COMPLETE__k/ 2/J_l//DATE DEIS INCOMPLETE_--?-�— START OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR DEIS 6 / q 11 Q-S 5 / pv 4) PUBLIC HEARING ON DEIS/ COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM: AGENCY: AGENCY: AGENCY: AGENCY: AGENCY: AGENCY: AGENCY: AGENCY: END OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR DEIS 7 / 5 / 91 FEIS TO BE PREPARED BY 71-- Clo✓eQ Cr tie If 4Z Darr.ajl ���� _��g.. 8Iu'9l cfu^""( cm . ;.,fo FEISRECEIVED�!J_/ 81�f19; Rece:vtafay:�cV flSc PYis ,ncop� 1117 153 4.ttc, Stm'k 4r....4.g, n: w�.o•trcr6u�recl'LS FEISCOMPLETE_/_/ .aru t°ets pa.a 5'9619V Rece2Jec4 ab&Hto+x.�'v.+�a. vv. re 5gncl'fi, F`C.IS START OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR FEIS_/_/_ - l9✓AAP ; 11y PUBLIC HEARING ON FEIS / /_ FINDINGS STATEMENT ADOPTED BY PLANNING BOARD—/—/— h MAJOR SUBDIVISION SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION OF LAND Planning Board File No. I. Name of Owner(s) Address 2. Name of Subdivider Address 3. Name of Subdivision Location Number of Acres ,t Number of Plots 30. . cirek,k 4. Preliminary Layout and Data Received 3/3/86 Filing Fees 7-.S5C ,qj Inspection Fee Hearing Approved Approved with conditions Recommended Corrections Additional Requirements Needed 5. Final Subdivision Plat, forms, and data submitted 6. Report of Superintendent Of Highways Received 7. Report of Suffolk County Planning Commission 8. Approval from Suffolk County Department of Health Services 9. Public Hearing (affidavits received) 10. Approved Disapproved Approved with conditions 11. Bond in the amount of - 12. Covenants and Restrictions Recorded 13. Map endorsed by Chairman 14. Map filed with the County Clerk Other Comments JUDITH T.TERRY,TOWN CLERK RECEIPT 52044 Town of Southold Southold,New York 11971 Phone:516-765-1801 DATE �' "� < 199 RECEIVED OF: ����. �5'1Ci.Y-� A-c:,�- < $ FOR: / -- CASH BY: 2 "C ECK i JUDITH T.TERRY,TOWN CLERK RECEIPT 051117 Town of Southold Southold,New York 11971 Poe:516-765-1801 DATE / 19� RECEIVED OFF9��, . G' " ` i — $ G©. Od j FOR: _ I ❑ CASH �K BY: r .. JUDITH T.TERRY,TOWN CLERK RECEIPT 048377 Town of Southold Southold,New York 801 /JJ _ /1 / t-- one:516-765-1801 DATE ["�-'�%�- J 19� RECEIVED OF (iCiCt�[�., $ � 66 FOR: CASH G BY: ` Q.6FECK O�y 1 7rlx�?e CLERK SOUTHOLD 4 3 3 61 rk Phone 516-765.1801 w York 11971 _ p Date 19, 9 �q,/,�/ V eo or Forv n �Dalars g �S _/? Judith T.Terry,Town Clerk Cash 0 Check+�' ��4°Sa9 By /� .� �j�1 Southold Town Plan Board 10 October 2 , 1995 k Mr . Cremers : Second . Mr . Ward : Motion seconded . All in favor? Ayes : Mr. Orlowski , Mr . Latham, Mr . Edwards , Mr. Cremers , Mr. Ward Mr . Ward: Opposed? Motion carried . APPROVAL OF PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Mr . Ward: The last order of business is the approval of the Planning Board minuteis . Board to approve the September 11 , 1995 minutes . Mr . Latham: So moved . Mr . Orlowski : Second . Mr . Ward : Moved and seconded . ` All in favor? Ayes : Mr . Orlowski , Mr . Latham, Mr . Edwards , Mr . Cremers , Mr . Ward Mr . Ward : Opposed? Motion carried . Charles Cuddy: I appear on behalf of Mr . Baxter and Indian Shores Subdivision. I ' m concerned that during the period of 30 days that you have just granted yourself, that there be some minimum communication to the applicant . Obviously, the applicant has spent some time doing what he ' s done in preparing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement . I have spoken to Melissa and I appreciate her candor in saying to me that there are some concerns that the Board had to address . But it would be helpful if either at a worksession or just through some communication process if you could tell us some of the things that seem to concern the Board, because I think if there are, we may be able to cure them if we ' re in agreement during that period of time . And just so we could move it along as quickly as we can . Mr . Ward : All right . We ' ll look into that . Mr . Cuddy: If you would , I ' d appreciate it . I think it just might help us . Mr . Ward : Anyone else wish to address the Board? Peter Danowski : Just two rather simple matters , but now that Mr . Macari had one subdivision application on . . . I know it ' s been awhile since I addressed the Board , I think at a worksession, with regard to Laurel Lake subdivision, and I know that at that time there had been some public interest and also some interest within Town Hall , to possibly have the County buy that property . Southold Town Plan*g Board 11 • October 2 , 1995 I did have a meeting with the County and the numbers didn ' t substantiate any sale to the County. However, I was led to believe that perhaps we could move through the SEQRA process to an extent , and hopefully get the sketch plan approval and then maybe the County would take a more serious look at buying the property . And I know that you have some experts who have communicated with you in the past , but I would like to perhaps by the next worksession or next meeting, perhaps get out of SEQRA with regard to that subdivision. We did allow Dr . Lamont , I think his name is , a botanist , onto the site to let him collect whatever ( inaudible ) he wanted to look at , and we did do some extra field work. One thing we didn ' t want to do was start huge archeological digs all over the site, especially with the view that we had already done some archeological work and if the County is going to buy it , it wouldn ' t serve any purpose . So, I was hoping that by the next meeting perhaps , this Board could end SEQRA and get us into a sketch plan . I will , after tonight ' s meeting, send some ( inaudible) information to the Board . And I think you had on your agenda for discussion purposes after the meeting, the letter with regard to Herb Mandel and Richard Israel ' s subdivision, Hightpoint Woods . And that ' s the trail system question that we kicked around so long and I know that Herb ' s bogged down, every time he sees me he says , do we have to do this trail system? It ' s gone back to the same issue , which is who is going to write up the regulations affecting the trail system and who is going to enforce it . And I know you had technically said let the Town Attorney draw up the ordinance and let him enforce it and ( inaudible) came back to me and said why don ' t you propose an ordinance? But I would like you to consider eliminating either the trail system or try to provide some enforceability, because his real problem with it has been this idea that people will go up and down and use this trail system and there will be no means of enforcing whatever covenants you want . Mr . Ward : There being no further business before the Board tonight , a motion is in order to adjourn . Yes sir? Wil liam,Tyree: My name is William Tyree . I 'm a �_g----ov�fier of Osprey Dominionain�-,ry on the Main Road in Peconic . _--I-think the Board is familiar with the ite . But I 'm in a quandary that I need the Board ' s help with. spoke to Mr . Frslier at the Building Department today and he sa ' robably the only one that could help me was to ask the Board . The problem that T --h-ave is that we were rewired by the Health Department to -p-ct a new well in, 150 foot . Romig Well Diggers went in and -We tested it and the water wasn ' t just r-. ht , it had some impurities in it . So we drove the hole deeper and it`till didn ' t test 1000,5. eG 6 New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation LL Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau O NEW YORK STATE Peebles Island, PO Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189 518-237-8643 Joan K.Davidson commissioner "�C.✓l t Copy to C rot me L t Voor h i5 _ 141aJl9f C� it U L iD;i Richard A. Jackson, Ph.D. 1C8 Zytel, Inc. EC P.O. Box 34 Commack, NY 11725 OTHOL.DMWN PLANNING BOARD Re: SEQRA Macari at Laurel Subdivision Southold, Suffolk County 91PRI742 Dear Mr. Jackson: The Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) has received the documentation you provided on your project. As the state agency responsible for the coordination of the State's historic preservation programs, including the encouragement and assistance of local preservation programs, we offer the following comments. The OPRHP has reviewed the Stage lA and Stage 1B Archaeological Investigations report. Based upon this review it is the opinion of the OPRHP that the work completed is acceptable. It is our understanding that this work identified the presence of a prehistoric archeological site within the project area. The OPRHP has reviewed the Stage II Archaeological Testing Report that was completed to evaluate the prehistoric site identified by the Stage IB survey. Based upon this review, the OPRHP does not consider the Stage II methodology adequate, and cannot accept or approve this report. Our concerns regarding the methodology include the following: * it is clear from the report that the researchers did not inspect or evaluate the artifact collection produced by the Stage 1B survey prior to initiating their Stage II fieldwork. An adequate understanding of the nature of the site and the remains that it has produced (and is likely to produce) is critical to the development and implementation of a valid Stage II testing strategy. * the OPRHP does not approve of the use of heavy equipment (backhoe) for Stage II survey. Typically, this approach is only used as a final mitigation strategy after Stage III data recovery excavations have been completed on a site that will be destroyed. Also, when a backhoe is used, complete shovel scraping of the entire exposed area is always recommended. It is unclear from the report whether this important step was done. * the testing methodology only included the hand-excavation of one unit. An Equal Opportunity/AHinnadve Actlon Agency Z'j c.:nw�..�ycreo.oe, Richard A. Jackson December 23, 1994 Page 2 In our previous letter on this project, dated October 2, 1991, OPRHP recommended that "at least six excavation units are needed to sample the area, as well as close interval shovel testing." We continue to hold the opinion that this level of excavation is necessary to adequately test the site. If you have any questions, please feel free to call Robert Kuhn at (518) 237-8643 ext. 255. SineR ert D. Kuhn, Ph. D. Program Analyst Field Services Bureau RDK:cm PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman Town Hall, 53095 Main Road George Ritchie Latham,Jr. ;, P. O. Box 1179 Bennett Orlowski,Jr. Southold, New York 11971 Mark S. McDonald ' �' Fax (516)765-3136 Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHO[LD November 15, 1994 Peter S. Danowski, Jr., Esq. P.O. Box 779 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: Major subdivision for Macari at Laurel SCTM# 1000-121-4-9 Dear Mr. Danowski: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, November 14, 1994: BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board adopt the environmental consultant's report dated November 10, 1994, in regard to the comprehensive review of the\Final Environmental Impact Statement. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Sinc erely, Q 0� 1' 0 1 UU Richard G. Ward IW5 Chairman enc. nuc CRAMER, V iR�� / SOCIATES • m` ENVIRONMENT Cpl NG CONSULTANTS November 10, 1994 Mr.Richard d3.ward Chairman Southold Plamning Board Town Hall,53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 D [ l� ] �g f # Southold, NY 11971 Re: Macara a Laurel Review of Final EIS Dear Mr.Ward Pt�rirlydc '3.: .' As per the Board's authorization,we have prepared a comprehensive review of the above referenced Final EIS in order to ensure that the document adequately reflects current conditions and issues concerning the Macari at Laurel site. In order to accomplish this,we have reviewed the Final EIS as submitted in August, 1993. It is noted that the August, 1993 Final EIS was not accepted due to issues involving pesticide concentrations in soil. With regard to this issue, the Final EIS provided a response to a comment on the Draft EIS from a party of interest. Reviewof the applicant's response resulted in reparation of a letter from this office dated November 4 1994 outlining the need for additional information. The applicant submitted an addendum to the Final EIS on May 20, 1994,which was reviewed by this office on August 1, 1994. Additional information was submitted by fax from the applicant to this office on September 13, 1994, which was reviewed by This office on September 27 1994. To date, there are outstanding issues with regard to pesticide concentrations in soil, This review will provide an outline regarding our suggestion on bow to proceed with regard to this issue. The following comments pertain to specific submissions associated with the Final EIS as referenced above. It is recommended that the Board seek to have the applicant address these issues to the satisfaction of the Planning Board prior to acceptance of the Final EIS. III-B-1: FLORA, Comment 2. (page 14) This comment stated that 7 rare plants have been historically jocumented as occuning in the area of the subdivision, and requested discussion concerning the likelihood of their presence on site. The Final EIS re-stated information from the Draft EIS with no additional information provided to address the comment. The document indicates that a professional botanist did not observe any of 7 possible rare plant species on the site during detailed field surveys. The season, method of observations, locations of observations and qualifications of the individual should be noted in order to support the conclusion. As a worst case scenario, and because it tray be possible that species are present on site but were not observed, the analysis should consider the possible presence of these Pale 1 ot4 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (5161331.1455 ��,�+rs-Wr+•.� - ,.,,� ..,� }.. .-.� .� � .�.... � m e.� .�...oma r,».� iRYFOtu w....ass-� a �t �...: .,.,�.:war.m Maerf at Iaurd Flow ELS litavta► species. Toward this end, the document should be revised to indicate that of the 7 rare p.tant species that have been identified in the area of the site, 5 are associated with either woodland or wetland habitat, and therefore will not be impacted by the Modified Cluster project map. The remaining 2 species(cut-leaved evening-primrose and dwarf plantain) are old field species. The number of acres of old field habitat currently existing,should be compared to disturbed areas and areas preserved in open space as a result of the Modified Cluster project ma . The discussion should reach conclt cions regarding the significance of the impact based on this information. ii Finally, the Draft EIS (pages III-27 to III-29)presented the NYS Legal Status and the Nahirial Heritage Program State Rank for the rare plant species identified in the Natural Heritage Program Database Report. Review of the Status Key finds that a Legal Status of"U"indicates the species is unprotected. The State Rank addresses the rarity of the species in the region, and is not a status related to leiral protection. This distinction should be noted in the Final EIS in order to further address Comment 2. III-C-2: GROUNDWATER QUALITY Comment 4. (page 36 and May 20, 1994 Addendum) Efforts to date to address the comment regarding pesticides in soil have been inconclusive. The CVA review letter of May 29, 1992 suggested the following: "Ibe a plicant should be directed to forward the sampling rationale and methodology and the results to the local Health Department for a decision regarding public health implications of site use. It is likely that SCDHS will forward the analysis to the State Department of Health for consideration; however, the request should originate from the loml agency . The Town of Southold is in the position of reviewing the response to comments on the Draft EIS raised by an interested party. The May 29 comment was intended to provide a means to have the appropriate State agency provide invut on this matter. The CVA letter of May 29, 1992 (page 3) further indicated that -Me highest soil concentrations and the human contact area would be expected in the upper 6 inches of soil. Soil samples collected for the Final EIS were composited from ucwn four (4) borings up to a depth of 1.5 feet in depth. These samples may not be representative of health related contaminant levels in upper soils. At) ropnate agencies should be contacted for sampling methodology and arislysis." Submissions dated May 20, 1994 and a fax dated September 13, 1994 have not adequately addressed this issue. Based on this, the following question remains: • The sampling rationale and methodology havc not bc=confirmed as appropriy to identify the scope of the problem,if present. The depth of somples,location of sampt_a and parameters for analysis should be.properly completed before conclusions can be rendered CVA has attempted to direct the applicant to the appropriate agencies for input. In an effort to assist the applicant further, CVA contacted James Maloney, SCDHS, Farmingdale, who referred the matter to Jim Rydeahaur of the New York State Deppartment of Health, Bureau of Toxic Substance Assessment, Albany. Mr. Ryderdiaur will review material submitted to his office through the SCDHS, and will apply his expertise in toxicology to determine if pesticide levels present a health or environmental risk. Mr. Rydenhaur indicated that a site of 6.3.6 acres warrants more �l ' Prar I of 4 CRAMER, VtRlf SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT7�j :Ah. G CONSULTANTS � Mart at LaaM Fin"EIS teevkw than one soil sample; Soil sam les should collected opportunistically in locations corresponding to agricultural fields, drainage collection areas and potential use areas (yards,playgrounds, eta). Mr. Rydenhaur confirmed that soil samples should be collected from shallow soils in the 2-3"and 3-6" range, not exceeding 6 inches. Soil um Iles should be analyzed for pesticides (including DDT and metabolites) as well as lead arsenic and mercury which are conservative components of some products. This information should be compiled and submitted to Mr.Rydenhaur through the Suffolk County Department of Health Services in order i6gain State Health Department input,and bring this matter to conclusion. i i; III-C-HYDROLOGIC SETTING: Comment 1. (page 58) The proposed Final EIS makes reference to the identification of the Macara at laurel site as being targeted for possible acquisition by the Suffolk County Department of Real]:state. The document indicates that appraisals were being compfeted in the Fall of 1993 and that purchase offers would be made by the County in the Sorina of 1994. Given the length of time that has passed in receiving an acceptable Final EIS, this section should be updated based on the current status of negotiations. V-=GA-ITVE MEASURES-5-CULTURA4 HISTORICAL, AND SCENIC RESOURCES: Comment 1 (page 136) The Gamment requested that the Final EIS "...contain documentation of contact with OPRHP and should outline an adequate means of mitigation of 'mpact upon preUtoric resources". The apppplicant's consultant made contact with OPRHP in a letter dated September 11, 1991 (Appendix I of Final EIS) outlining a possible Stage H excavation strategy to determine archaeological site sensitivity in a limited area of porotic test units north of the wetlands. The Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau of the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation responded in a letter dated October 2, 1991, and recommended 6 exvacation units and 5 meter shove:] testing (Appendix I). There is no furtber contact with OFRHP recorded in the Final EIS su ni sion subsequent to October 2, 1992; however, it is recognized that significant additional archaeological work was been completed to address the comment. The proposed Final EIS includes a Stage IT Archaeological Testing Report prepared by Greenhouse Consultants, Inc. New York, New York (Appendix K). Greenhouse Consultants is a qualified archaeological consulting firm recognized by the State of New:cork. Greenhouse Consultants was retained to conduct further subsurface recomni sane as a result of a concentration of positive test units in an area north of the wetlands. Greenhouse Consultants completed two (2) 6 1/2 x 100 foot long trenches and a S x S foot overlapping test unit to expose the B horizon. The Final EIS should include a statement of rationale for this sampling approach, particularly in view of recommendations for a subsurface excavationprogram provided by the Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau of the NYS Orf ee of parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (Appendix I). It would also be prudent to have the Field CRAMER, vc ///� FAW 3 oro SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT011 v �,,G CONSULTANTS y a • MsaaA at lAuret FkW ELS Review Services Bureau provide a comment on the adequacy of the State II Archaeological Testing Reppoort, since they were contacted by the applicant's consultant in 1991, and have (stabCished a file and correspondence on the project X-CUMULAXIVE IMPACTS Comment 2. (page 193) Since the submission of the proposed Final EIS,i activities have taken place with ?: regard to County negotiation to purchase lands In the vicinity of Laurel Lake. The Final EIS should be updated to reflect these efforts. It is recognized that reduction or elimination of development potential on adjacent lands will reduce cumulative ' impacts upon wildlife species and other environmental attributes in the region. The ,;. reduction of development potential should be discussed in terms of reduction of cumulative impacts on Laurel Lake and surrounds. Conversely, the Final EIS should also racogutze the impact of residential development of the Myacari at Laurel site as an intrusive use in an area of predominant oven space, as a result of land acquisition effort,; since the proposed Final EIS submission. The significance of these impacts should be evaluated given the cluster development plan, density of development and mitigation measures. This l.tter provides a comprehensive review of the proposed Final EIS in order to bring the project up to date, given the amount of time that has lapsed since the submission of this document in August, 1993. This review also provides an outline of recommendations concerning s,unpling of soil pesticide levels in response to supplemental submissions of'viay 20, 1994 and September 13, 1994. The Planning Board should consider these comments and if in agreement, these comments may be, forwarded to the applicant for response. if you '= have any questions concerning any aspect of this letter, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service to you. Very tru'lyy s, axles J. V ,CEP,AICP /- FIF4p M-4 qi1 of 4 CRAMER, �' �OCIATES ENVIRONMENT' AlG CONSULTANTS �.r CRAMER, VIflo--UNA OCI TESENVIRONMENG CONSULTANTS November 10, 1994 Mr.Richard,f3.Ward Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall,53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Macara a Laurel Review of Final EIS SCUP � Dear Mr.Wilyd Ptu^, : T As per the Board's authorization,we have prepared a comprehensive review of the above referenced Final EIS in order to ensure that the document adequately reflects current conditions and issues concerning the Macari at Laurel site. In order to accomplish this,we have reviewed the Final EIS as submitted in August, 1993. It is noted that the Aupust, 1993 Final EIS was not accepted due to issues involving pesticide concentrations in soil. With regard to this issue, the Final EIS provided a response to a comment on the Draft EIS from a party of interest. Review of the applicant's response resulted inreparation of a letter from this office dated November 4 1994 outlining the need for additional information. The applicant submitted an addendum to the Final EIS on May 20, 1994,which was reviewed by this office on August 1, 1994. Additional information was submitted by fax from the applicant to this office on September 13, 1994,which was reviewed by Iles office on September 27 1994. To date, there are outstanding issues with regard to pesticide concentrations in soil, This review will provide an outline regarding our suggestion on how to proceed with regard to this issue. The following comments pertain to specific submissions associated with the Final EIS as referenced above. It is recommended that the Board seek to have the applicant address these issues to the satisfaction of the Planning Board prior to acceptance of the Final EIS. III-B-1: FLORA Comment 2. (page 14) This comment stated that 7 rare plants have been historically documented as occurring in the area of the subdivision, and requested discussion concerning the likelihood of their presence on site. The Final EIS rc-stated information from the Draft EIS with no additional information provided to address the comment. The document Indicates that a professional botanist did not observe any of 7 possible rare plant species on the site during detailed field surveys. The season, method of observations, locations of observations and qualifications of the individual should be noted in order to support the conclusion. As a worst case scenario, and because it may be possible that species are present on site but were not observed, the analysis should consider the possible presence of these PW 1 or 4 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331.1455 Mats"Laurel Finatan Review species. Toward this end, the document should be revised to indicate that of the 7 rare plant species that have been identified in the area of the site, 5 are associated with either woodland or wetland habitat, and therefore will not be impacted by the Modified Cluster project maw. The remaining 2 species (cut-leaved evening pninrose and dwarf plantain) are old field species. The number of acres of old field habitat currently existing, should be compared to disturbed areas and areas preserved in open space as a result of the Modified Cluster project map. The discussion should reach condr,sions regarding the significance of the impact based on this information. Finally, the Draft EIS (pages III-27 to III-29)presented the NYS Legal Status and the Natural Heritage Program State Rank for the rare plant species identified in the Natural Heritage Program Database Report. Review of the Status Key finds that a Legal Status of"U" indicates the species u unprotected. The State Rank addresses the rarity of the species in the region, and is not a status related to legal protection. This distinction should be noted in the Final EIS in order to further address Comment 2. III-C-2: GROUNDWATER QUALITY Comment 4. (page 36 and May 20, 1994 Addendum) Efforts to date to address the comment regarding pesticides in soil have been inconclusive. The CVA review letter of May 29, 1992 suggested the f flowing: "Ihe applicant should be directed to forward the sampling rationale and methodology and the results to the local Health Department for a decision regarding public health implications of site use. It is likely that SCDHS will forward the analysis to the State Department of Health for consideration; however, the request should originate from the la:al agency", The Town of Southold is in the position of reviewing the response to conimeats on the Draft EIS raised by an interested p The May 29 comment was intended to provide a means to have the appropriate State agency provitde input on this matter. The CVA letter of May 29, 1992 {page 3) further indicated that"Ilio highest soil concentrations and the human contact area would be expected in the upper 6 inches of soil. Soil samples collected for the Final EIS were composited from unknown four (4)borings up to a depth of 15 foot in depth. These samples may not be representative of health related contaminant levels in upper soils. A propnate agencies should be contacted for sampling methodology and analysis" Submissions dated May 20, 1994 and a fax dated September 13, 1994 have not adequately addre,ised this issue. Based on this, the following question remains: • The eamplina rationale and methodology have sot been confirmed as appropriate to identify the scope of the problem,if present. The depth of samples,location of samples and parameters for analysis should be properly completed before conclusions can be rendered CVA lies attempted to d r a the applicant to the appropriate agenvies fot inpput. In an effort to assist the applicant further, CVA contacted James Maloney, SCDHS, Farmingdale,who refened the matter to Jim Rydenhaur of the New York State Deppattmeat of Health, Bureau of Toxic Substance Assessment, Albanyy. Mr. Ryderlhaur will review material submitted to his office through the SCDHS, sad will apply tris expertise in toxicology to determine if pesticide levels prMat a health or envircamental risk Mr. Rydenhaur indicated that a site of 63.6 acres warrants more \ FW2 91`4 CRAMER, VC (F4{t\ � SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT Alzj G CONSULTANTS mss. Macad at Iaursl Final E18 Revkw than one soil sample; Soil samples should collected opportunistically in locations corresponding to agrcatltural fields, drainage collection areas and potential use areas (yards,playgrounds etc). Mr. Rydenhaur confirmed that soil samples should be collected front shallow soils IIs the 2.3"and 3.6" range, not exceeding 6 inches. Soil Iain les should be analyzed for pestiddes (including DDT and metabolitca) as well as lead arsenic and mercury which are conservative components of some products. This infornration should be compiled and submitted to Mr.Rydenhaur through the Suffolk County Department of Health Services in order to gain State Health Department input.and bring this matter to conclusion. III-C-HYDROLOGIC SETTING: Comment 1. (page 58) Thr proposed Final EIS makes reference to the identification of the Macari at Laurel site as being targeted for possible acquisition by the Suffolk County Department of Real Estate. The document indicates that appraisals were being completed in the Fall of 1993 and that purchase offers would be made by the County in the Sppring of 1994. Given the length of time that has passed in receiving an acceptable Fuial EIS, this section should be updated based on the current status of negotiations. V-M nGA'ITVE MEASURES-5-CULTURAL, HISTORICAL, AND SCENIC RESOURCES: Comment 1 (page 136) The a)mment requested that the Final EIS"...coatain documentation of contact with OPRHP and should outline an adequate means of mitigation of mi act upon Fere-hu resources". The apppplicant's consultant made contact with OPRHP in a letter dated September 11, IM I of Final EIS) outlining a possible Stage H excavation strategy to determine archaeological site sensitivity in a limited area of positive test units north of the wetlands. The Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau of the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation responded in a letter dated October 2, 1991, and recommended 6 exvacation units and 5 meter shove:! testing(Appendix 1). There is no further contact with OPRHP recorded in the Final EIS submLcsion subsequent to October 2, 1992; however, it is recognized that significant additional archaeological work was been completed to address the comment. The proposed Final EIS includes a Stage H Archaeological Testing Report prepared by Greenhouse Consultants, Inc. New York, New York (Appen&K). Greenhouse Consultants is a qualified archaeological consulting firm recognized by the State of New:fork. Greenhouse Consultants was retained to conduct further subsurface recommissance as a result of a concentration of positive test units in an area north of the wetlands. Greenhouse Consultants completed two (2) 61/2 x 100 foot long trenches and a 5 x 5 foot overlapping test unit to expose the B horizon. The Final EIS should include a statement of rationale for this sampling approach, particularly in view of recommendations for a subsurface excavation program provided by the Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau of the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (Appendix I). It would also be prudent to have the Field CRAMER, V Rf \ ' SOCIATES Pap 3of4 ENVIRONMENT AV G CONSULTANTS Macarl at Laurel Flat BKS Revlew 3 Services Bureau provide a comment on the adequacy of the State 11 Archaeological Testirg Report, since they were contacted by the applicant's consultant in 1991, and have tatablf ed a file and correspondence on the project. X-CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Comment 2. (page 183) Since the submission of the proposed Final EIS, activities have taken place with regard to County negotiation to purchase lands in the vicinity of Laurel Lake. The Final EIS should be updated to reflect these efforts. It is recognized that reduction or ` elimination of development potential on adjacent lands will reduce cumulative uapacts upon wildlife species and other environmental attributes in the region. The reduction of development potential should be discussed in terms of reduction of cumulative impacts on Laurel Lake and surrounds. Conversely, the Final EIS should also nwo$aize the impact of residential development of the Micari at Laurel site as an intrusive use in an area of predominant oven space, as a result of land acquisition efform since the proposed Final EIS submission. The significanrn of these impacts should be evaluated given the cluster development plan, density of development and mitigation measures. a This latter provides a comprehensive review of the proposed Final EIS in order to bring the project up to date, given the amount of time that has lapsed since the submission of this document in August, 1993. This review also provides an outfmc of recommendations concerning sampling of soil pesticide levels in response to supplemental submissions of bray 20, 1994 and September 13, 1994. The Planning Board should consider these comments and if in agreement, these comments may be forwarded to the applicant for response. If you have any questions concerning any aspect of this letter, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service to you. 2ar trulyl 2s, ? les J. V -CEP,AICP /— Pa+pe 4 of 4 CRAMER V Rl� SOCIATES ENVIRONMENAJ ,�G CONSULTANTS PLANNING BOARD MEMBERSG y Richard G. Ward, Chairman va Z Town Hall,53095 Main Road George Ritchie Latham, Jr. P. O. Box 1179 Bennett Orlowski,Jr. �Ao atm Southold, New York 11971 Mark S. McDonald Fax(516)765-3136 Kenneth L. Edwards r Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 6, 1994 Peter S. Danowski, Jr. 616 Roanoke Avenue P.O. Box 779 Riverhead,11901 RE: Proposed Major Subdivision Macari at Laurel S/S Sound Ave. Middle Road); 2000' west of Cox Neck Rd., Southold SCTM# 1000-121-4-9 Dear Mr. Danowski: Charles J. Voorhis, of Cramer, Voorhis E Associates has reviewed the information which Mr. Jackson sent directly to him. Mr. Voorhis' comments are contained in the enclosed report dated September 27, 1994. As we have discussed, please ask your consultant to submit future communications directly to the Planning Board. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, //Wtov l Melissa Spiro Planner cc: Charles Voorhis, Cramer, Voorhis E Associates enc. CRAMER, V 1V, 0' SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT ��G CONSULTANTS T '\ u September 27, 1994 Mr. Richard G. Ward Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, ;13095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 • p Southold, NY 11971 Re: Macari at Laurel Interim Submission Regarding Soil Test Procedures SOUTHOLD T0`h4V PLANNING B0APO Dear RIP. Ward: As per our conversation, CVA has received an interim submission from the consultant (Richard Jackson) on Macari @ Laurel project concerning the methodology used for soil sampling as well as the laboratory analysis sheets. These were submitted in partial response to our letter dated August 1, 1994. Please be advised that I have expressed to the consultant that submissions should be made to the Planning Board and not directly to this office. For your records, attached please find the three sheets received by this office concerning soil test procedures. Said documents consist of the following: 1) a January 13, 1992 letter from McDonald Geoscience discussing the sample acquisition protocol used; 2) a map delineating McDonald Geoscience's sampling locations; and 3) a laboratory result sheet generated by Eco Test Laboratories, Inc.. In the: interest of cooperation and expedience, and in order to provide the consultant with guidance concerning soil test issues, I have reviewed the submitted information. First let me say that I believe it is unfortunate that the Planning Board is faced with dealing with this issue; however, there has been no meaningful input from any health or environmental agency concerning this issue. For this reason, we are faced with interpreting submissions based on the best available information. Based on the information submitted to date, there is just reason, for concern with regard to agricultural pesticide contaminant levels in the soil. This review provides further information and review for consideration in completing the necessary sampling for sound decision making. The documents submitted do not comprise a complete Sampling and Analysis Program (SAY). However, they adequately detail the location and frequency of the sample nodes that were composited to form the sample that was analyzed. Based on tire stated sample locat'on and frequency, the sampling protocol appears consistent with a jud ment" samplin plan (Gilbert, Richard O., 1987, Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring). A jud,yment sampling plan is not appropriate for this project because the sample frequency is statistically too low. Accordingly, the results should not be used to represent mean contaminant concentrations for the subject property. Consequently, the results cannot be used to de sign a proper mitigation plan. Since the subject property was used for a variety 3; Pare 1 On < Interim Review 9lacarl C Laurel of agricultural applications over an extended period of time, it is likely that contaminant concentration zones exist. The appropriate protocol to use for identifying these zones is a "probability/statistical"sampling protocol (Gilbert, 1987). A probability/statistical sampling protocol 'includes random sampling regimes, stratified random sampling regimes and systematic sampling regimes. Based on the available information concerning the subject property, stratified random sampling is the recommended protocol. Under the scope of such a protocol the property would be subdivided into target areas based on historic agricultural applications (type of crop and length of time used and then sampled randomly. The target areas would be classified based on their potential of containing elevated levels of pesticide contamination (high, medium and low). The frequency of samples to be acquired in each target area would then be determined teased on its classification. For example: in a target area classified as low, three samples could be secured from random locations; from a target area classified as high, seven samples could be secured. Under this protocol, the samples could be statistically proven to accurately reflect the pesticide contaminant concentrations present within the soils of each of the target areas identified on the subject property. Based upon the laboratory results obtained under such a protocol, a proper, zonal, Mitigation Plan could be designed. Said plan would detail the efforts that will be employed in each zone to prohibit contact of future inhabitants and wildlife with the indigenous soils of the subJ'ect property-and to prevent migration of the contaminant!; to ground water. Additionally, the mitigation plan could detail ways to limit fugitive dust originating from exposed surfaces from each zone during construction activities (e.g., excavation, modeling, stockpiling, transporting) from becoming airborne. As indicated, this review has been provided as a courtesy to provide input regarding an interim submission from Richard Jackson. If you have any questions concerning this review, please do not hesitate to call. AJ. CEP,AICD CRAMER, VppFiF�t A%SOCIATES ENVIRONh•E�1 r x i� it i. •.' '._ � •�"••_."..-" z.-w.rta..wa.:z.,n.a._„x,.,.u..eb.nw..W....0 r�W�xwseNBlYii d+ ihfiKM '•• Y i. C0 EST LABORATORIES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING 377 SHE I-FIELD AVE. • N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703 • (516) 422.5777 • FAX (516) 422.5770 LAB HO. C914411/4 12/27/91 John W. Hallman Ltd P. O. Box 423 5holtvr, Island Hwightr NY 11965 ATTN : SOUkCE OF SAMPLEt McDonald Geoscience, Mocarl at Laurel COLLECTED BY : JH/Ecotest DATE C0L1Dtl2/10/51 RECEIVED: 12/10/91 SAMPLE : Soil wample, eompooite ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL, PARAi1ETER5 Lindane ug/Xq <2 Aroclor 1260 ug/Kg <40 Heptachlor ug/Kg <2 Aldrin ug/Kg <2 Heptachlor Epoxide u.g./,Kq <2 . pop-DDE ug/Kg 130 Dieldrin ug/Kg 15 Endrin ug/Kg 6 pop-DDD ug/Xg 49 p. p-DDT ug/Kg 260 Chlordane ug/Kg <e Toxaphene ug/Kg <40 Endrin Aldehyde ug/Xg <12 a BHC ug/Kg 12 b HHC ug/Kg <2 t d BHC ug/Kg <2 Endoaulian 1 ug/Xg <4 Endoaulian 2 ug/Kg <4 Endoaulian Suliate ug/Xg <12 Aroclor 1016 ug/Kg <ie Aroclor 1221 ug/Kg <40 Aroclor 1232 ug/Kg 140 Aroclor 1242 ug/Kg <40 Aroclor 1248 ug/Kg <40 Aroclor 1254 ug/Kg <40 cc $ REMAPK5: -g+r � x 0 McDONALD 0 G.c OSCIENC E ?0= 1„f„O n e•uth,itl. New York 11971 5t6-765-3577 Jan. 13, 1992 Richard Jackson, Pt-M. Clcver Corp. 225 Main St. Northport, re 11768 l-ar Richard: Diclosed are the water and soil testing results from Mac.3ri at Laurel. The monitor well nuabers are the sa:_ nu.:xers we have use.1 through out this project. The soil sample was tax*a adjacent to monitor well #i. :our horings were taken at 31 int•2:vals to a depth of 1. 5 ' . ':;-,c soil frcm these four borings was corningled and a sample of this co - mmingled soil was taken to Eco7est lata. You should rwe aware that the choice o>: which veils to sa.:.ple was limited. Wells numter 2, 8, and 7 are no ]on ar usabla. i,'ell #2 has teen broken off belga yroung level, well 5 has bceh filled with soil, and well # 7 apyears to have Laen removed. M.cCona d 1 V a 4 n ,1 _,���. > t._J_� '? � _9k[� ..a,.+"_ 31 f' .\ ` - \\L `\ 1 - \ �r Mw J 7 LAUR£L LAKE c` \ 1vn/!Pi Si�ba 1 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS J' Richard G.Ward, Chairman ` Town Hall,53095 Main Road George Ritchie Latham,Jr. °� a, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. "ter✓ _ . ,,'' P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Mark S. McDonald Fax (516) 765-3136 Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone(516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE October 6, 1994 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Vito Minei Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services 225 Rabro Drive East Hauppauge, New York 11788-5527 RE: Proposed Major Subdivision Macari at Laurel S/S Sound Ave. (Middle Road); 2000' west of Cox Neck Rd. , Southold SCTM# 1000-121-4-9 Dear Mr. Minei: Enclosed please find reports from the Planning Board's environmental consultant in regard to the SEQRA review for the above mentioned subdivision. By way of background, the initial Final Environmental Impact Statement was deemed incomplete by the Planning Board on June 8, 1992. The applicant, on three different occasions, presented additional information to complete the FEIS. However, the Planning Board and the Board's � consultant found that the information was not sufficient to complete the FEIS. The September 27, 1994 report from Charles Voorhis is in response to the last information presented by the applicant. In addition, due to the length of time that has passed since the FEIS was initially submitted, the Planning Board is conducting a comprehensive review of the entire FEIS while the applicant is responding to the outstanding items outlined in the consultant's report. If you desire any additional information regarding this proposal, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, A Melissa Spiro Planner enc. e � CRAMER, Vlq 0,2CCONSULTANTS IATES ENVIRONMENT 1- SuBF PPS MS September 27, 1994 Mr. Richard G. Ward Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 11'79 Southold, NY 11971 0 �? 1 ' Re: Macaxi at Laurel S Z P 2 8 Interim Submission Regarding Soil Test Procedures SOUTHOLD TORN PLANNL,iG EOAPD Dear Mr. Ward: As per our conversation, CVA has received an interim submission from the consultant (Richard Jackson) on Macari @ Laurel project concerning the methodology used for soil samplingg as well as the laboratory analysis sheets. These were submitted in partial response to our7etter dated August 1, 1994. Please be advised that I have expressed to the consultant that submissions should be made to the Planning Board and not directly to this office. For your records, attached please find the three sheets received by this office concerning soil test procedures. Said documents consist of thy; following: 1) a January 13, 1992 letter from McDonald Geoscience discussing the sample acquisition protocol used; 2) a map delineating McDonald Geoscience's sampling locations; and 3) a laboratory result sheet generated by Eco Test Laboratories, Inc.. In the: interest of cooperation and expedience, and in order to provide the consultant with guidance concerning soil test issues, I have reviewed the submitted information. First let me say that I believe it is unfortunate that the Planning Board is faced with dealing with this issue; however, there has been no meaningful input from any health or environmental agency concerning this issue. For this reason, we are faced with interpreting submissions based on the best available information, Based on the information submitted to date, there is just reason, for concern with regard to agricultural pesticide contaminant levels in the soil. This review provides further information and review for consideration in completing the necessary sampling for sound decision making. The documents submitted do not comprise a complete Sampling and Analysis Program (Sp P). However, they adequately detail the location and frequency of the sample nodes that were composited to form the sample that was analyzed. Based on the stated sample locat;on and frequency, the sampling protocol appears consistent with a "judgment" samplin plan (Gilbert, Richard O., 1987, Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring). A jud;,ment sampling plan is not appropriate for this project because the sample frequency is :statistically too low. Accordinglyy, the results should not be used to represent mean contaminant concentrations for the subacct property. Consequently, the results cannot be used to design a proper mitigation plan. Since the subject property was used for a variety Interim Review Macurl C Laurel of agricultural applications over an extended period of time, it is likely that contaminant Concentration zones exist. The appropriate protocol to use for identifying these zones is a "probability/statistical"sampling protocol (Gilbert, 1987). A probability/statistical sampling protocol includes random sampling regimes, stratified random sampling regimes and systematic sampling regimes. Based on the available information concerning the subject property, stratified random sampling is the recommended protocol. Under the scope of such a protocol the property would be subdivided into target areas based on historic agricultural applications (type of crop and length of time used and then sampled randomly. The target areas would be classified based on their potential of containing elevated levels of pesticide contamination (high, medium and low). The frequency of samples to be acquired in each target area would then be determined based on its classification. For example: in a target area classified as low, three samples could be secured from random locations; from a target area classified as high, seven samples could be secured. Under this protocol, the samples could be statistically proven to accurately reflect the pesticide contaminant concentrations present within the soils of each of the target areas identified on the subject property. Based upon the laboratory results obtained under such a protocol, a pro er, zonal, Mitigation Plan could be designed. Said plan would detail the efforts that will be employed in each zone to prohibit contact of future inhabitants and wildlife with the indigenous soils of the sub'ect property and to prevent migration of the contaminants to $round water. Additionally, the mitigation plan could detail ways to limit fugitive dust originating from exposed surfaces from each zone during construction activities (e.g., excavation, modeling, stockpiling, transporting) from becoming airborne. As indicated, this review has been provided as a courtesy to provide input regarding an interim submission from Richard Jackson. If you have any questions concerning this review, please do not hesitate to call. AJ. CEP,AICP CRAMER. V^ ":� %i/� . . Pa" . 1 • & C ST LABORATORIES, INC. ENVIRONMVIT'AL TESTING 377 SHFI°FIELD AVE. • N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703 (515) 422.5777 • FAX (516) 422.5770 LAB HO. C914411 /4 12/27/91 John W. Hallman Ltd P. O. Box 423 Shaltvr laland Hpightc }Iy 11965 ATTK : SOURCE OF SAMPLE : McDonald Geoscience, Mocari at Laurel COLLECTED BY : JH/Ecotest DATE COL'D112/10/91 RECEIVED: 12/10/91 SAMPLE: Soil &ample, composite ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL, PARAMSTER5 Lindane ug/Kg <2 Aroclor 1260 vg/Kg <40 Heptachlor ug/Kg <2 Aldrin ug/Kg <2 Heptachlor Epoxide uql"Kg <2 . P, p-DDE ug/Kg 130 Dieldrin ug/Kg 15 Endrin ug/Kg 6 p# p^ADD ug/Kg 49 p. p-DDT ug/Kg 260 Chlordane ug/Kg <a Toxaphene ug/Kg <40 Endrin Aldehyde ug/Kg <12 a BHC ug/Kg <2 b 9HC ug/Kg <2 d BHC ug/Kg <2 Endosvlfon 1 vg/Kg <4 Endoaulfan 2 ug/Kg <4 Endoeulfen Sulfate ug/Kg <12 Aroclor 1016 ug/Kg <40 Aroclor 1221 ug/Kg <40 Aroclor 1232 ug/Kg <40 Aroclor 1242 ug/Kg <40 Aroclor 1248 ug/Kg <40 Aroclor 1254 ug/Kg <4p cc : REMAPKS : i / r`^ McDON.4LD GEOSCIENCE Sox 1000 .^ =ithtid, New York 11971 516.765J677 Jan. 13, 1992 Richard Jackson, PhD. cicver Corp. 225 Main St. Nocthr rt, NY 11769 1%--ar Richard: F.iiclused are the water and soil resting results from Macari at Izurel, The monitor veli nuTbers are the same nuurtters we hive used through out this project. The soil sample was tak:n adjacent to monitor well "I . Four borinya wire taken at 3- inte:•vals to a depth of 1.5' • The soil frc,n these four borings was cormingled and a sample of thin co - M-Mingled soil was taken to FcoTesb labs. Yau should be aware that the choice of which wells to --ample wa- limited. Wells number 2, 8, and 7 are no loner usable. stall #2 has been broken off below yvoung level, well w 6 has been filled with soil, and well # 7 apcears to have been removed. r; rely, J 1 ' + ,aeui */AY { MW +�1'SOIL SAMPLE — \ MW /41w 05, �J4TE ► _ _ LAKE J S l CRAMER, VOORHI8 &;ASSOCIATES NS ENVIRONMENTAL PI 4NNING CONSULTANTS Pd J August 1, 1994 Ms. Melissa Spiro Assistant Planner Town of Southold Main Road i D Southold, New York 11971 Re: Macari at Laurel Review of Final EIS Submission ;AUMU TOWN PLAMING ROM Dear Melissa: I am in receipt of the memorandum prepared by Richard Jackson, concerning the presence of pesticides in soil at the above referenced site. The following comments have been prepared for consideration by the Planning Board in reviewing this project and in determining the acceptability of the submitted Final EIS. 1. The document references laboratory analysis performed on soil samples secured from the subject property. Valid interpretations of the laboratory results cannot be made unless the sampling and analysis methodologies utilized for their summation are specified. The sampling and analysis methodology should be presented in a Sampling and Analysis Plan that documents: 1) the sampling protocol utilized (e.g.judgment, biased, search, probability/statistical) for the selection of sample node locations; 2) the node locations as presented on a scale map; 3) the method used to acquire the soil samples; 4) the quality assurance measures taken to insure sample accuracy (e.g. qualifications of sampling personnel, sample containers, field preservation operations, decontamination protocol); 5) the United States Environmental Protection Agency Test Method used by the laboratory to analyze the soil sample(s) and 6) the name and certification number of the New York State Department of Health Certified Laboratory used to perform the analysis. Additionally, the Sampling and Analysis Plan should include original copies of the test results as provided by the laboratory. 2. The document equates reported laboratory data with values presented in an appendix to revised New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Technical Administrative Guidance Memorandum (TAGM) number 4046 dated January 24, 1994 for, "pertinent data on pesticide contamination of soil as it relates to public health." It should be noted that revised TAGM 4046, Determination of Soil Cleanup Objectives and Cleanup Levels, was intended to be used at, "individual Federal Superfund, State Superfund, 1986 EQBA Title 3 and Responsible Party sites, when the Director of the DHWR (Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation) determines that cleanup of a site to pre-disposal conditions is not possible or feasible." The subject property does not fit any of the listed site categories. Consequently, this document is not suitable for gauging cleanup objectives on the subject property. 3. It should be noted that TAGM 4046 is based on the United State Environmental Protection Agency Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST), dated 1991 so it may have some merit for establishing exposure guidelines of soil to the environment. Macari at Laurel Final ELS Submission However, if these guidelines are to be used for establishing exposure data, then an extensive Sampling and Analysis Program of the surface and subsurface soils of the subject property will be required. Said Sam ling and Analysis Program would have to include tests for the total organic carbon (TOCJcontent of the indigenous soil. The listed values in Appendix A of revised 4046 are based on the assumption that the TOC content of the soil is 0.01. Therefore, in order to use this TAGM, TOC content must be determined and fall within the stated range. This may not be the prevalent condition on the subject property. 4. The document also equates reported laboratory data with values presented in TAGM number 3028 for, 'pertinent data on pesticide contamination of soil as it relates to public health." It should be noted that TAGM 3028, the Contained-in Criteria for Environmental Media, relates exclusively to solid waste classification for disposal purposes (hazardous vs. non-hazardous determinations) and not for public health determinations. It is only used for determining off-site disposal management requirements and therefore is not appropriate for citation in this regard. 5. Waste classifications for pesticide contaminated soil are more appropriately defined with TAGM 3002 (enclosed). Said TAGM entitled, Identification of Hazardous Waste, provides parameters to classify pesticide contaminated media. TAGM 3002 states, "If pesticide is applied to the ground during the normal course of application, in accordance with usage instructions, it is not a solid waste and, therefore, not a hazardous waste." It further states, "While the soil remains in place, it is not a waste. However, if the soil is to be excavated and removed from the site, then it can become a solid waste by virtue of being discarded if it contains a chemical contaminant. However, this does not prevent the soil from qualifying as a hazardous waste if it exhibits a [hazardous waste] characteristic." Since pesticides (chemical contaminants) were detected in the soil of the subject property, materials excavated from the subject property must be disposed of off-site as a solid waste that may or may not be hazardous (based on TCLP testing). Additional information requested in item i above will assist in clarifying the extent of this issue. 6. Based upon the laboratory results presented in the document, a Mitigation Plan should be submitted. Additional information requested in item i above will assist in clarifying the extent of this issue; however, based on limited data relatively high levels of certain constituents have been detected. The plan should detail the efforts that will be made to prohibit contact of future inhabitants and wildlife with the indigenous soils of the subject property and toprevent migration of the contaminants to the ground water. Additionally, the mitigation plan should detail ways to limit fugitive dust originating from exposed surfaces during construction activities (e.g. excavation, stockpiling, transporting) from becoming airborne. The exact scope of the Mitigation Plan can be determined based upon the results of a more detailed Sampling and Analysis Program. I believe the severity and consequences of the issues involved in utilization of this site warrant the submission of accurate and complete information. I have attempted to outline the appropriate standards with which to compare the analyses, and have requested information concerning sampling justification and analytical methods. Finally, it is suggested that thought be given to mitigating impacts of soil disturbance depending upon final results. CRAMER, VOORHIS, 8,ASSOCIATES Page 2 of ENVIRONMENTAt'AND PtAWNG CONSULTANTS V7,/ c. �f 4 Macari at Laurel Final EIS Submission I appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this review. Thank you for your /attention to this matter and please feel free to call if you have any questions. Very tours, Charles J 'Voorhis, CEP,AICP rill lffi (D LTOWN ILANNING BOARD -- `n CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES Page , -,A 7 ENVIRONMENTALAND PLANNING CONSULTANTS K/01F TATE DEPARTMENT OF EKYMONYENTAL CONSERVATION IEe�F g %N X SI�STMM IEOIiATIDN QPMan/TECMEOM.SUROIR "old TdortifWaste echnical Administrative Now Guidance Ej O660"' Manual p sep4rce..Policy N.. Technical Manual 16. Pesticide-Contaminated Media A. Pesticide-Contaminated Soil I. Soil Contaminated Throuch Proper Usage Guidance: If pesticide is applied to the ground during the normal course of application, in accordance with usage instructions, it is not a solid waste and, therefore, not a hazardous waste. 1 If treated soil is subsequently excavated and moved off-site, it would have the status of a solid waste, containing a chemical contaminant that might be a hazardous substance. The soil would be a hazardous waste only if it exhibited a characteristic. Basis: Under 6 NYCRR 371.1(c)(4)(i)(b), a commercial product is not a solid waste if it is applied to the ground and that is the ordinary manner of usage. While the soil remains in place, it is not a waste. However, if the soil is to be excavated and removed from the site, then it can become a solid waste by virtue of being discarded if it contains a chemical contaminant. Since the commercial product when the soil is excavated for off-site disposal. However, this does not prevent the soil from qualifying as a hazardous waste if it exhibits a characteristic. 06 STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION , NATAAOOW INJO TANOA PIPMATION 332 10 OF NIOMW WdTEOIeSO%L11U►►ORr *A@O Jdadifiration Waste Technical o.. Oty 31two p Administrative ' New Guidance o''OI"' Manual N.. Technical Manual II. Solid Contaminated by Leaks or spills of Pesticides Guidance If a pesticide is.a listed commercial chemical product and is leaked or spilled onto the ground, it is a listed hazardous waste, and the contaminated soil becomes potentially subject to regulation as a listed hazardous waste if managed as a waste material. If the pesticide is not a listed commercial chemical product, but the pesticide/soil mixture exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste, then the contaminated soil is potentially subject to regulation as a characteristic hazardous waste. ( Basis: Any contaminated soil, resulting from the spill of a listed commercial chemical product, is subject to regulation as a hazardous waste pursuant to 6 NYCRR �71.4(d)(4), if managed as a waste material. III. Soil Contaminated by Leaks Spills or Dumps of Rinsewater Guidance: Rinsewater results from cleaning out mixing equipment or pesticide containers. If the pesticide product is a listed commercial chemical product, then the rinsewater is a listed hazardous waste. If the rinsewater is a listed hazardous waste or if the contaminated soil exhibits a characteristic of a hazardous waste, then the contaminated soil is potentially subject to regulation as a hazardous waste, if managed as a waste material. Basis: Rinsewaters from containers that held a listed commercial chemical product are subject to regulation as a listed hazardous waste, unless exempted pursuant to 6 NYCRR However, this exemption for rinsewater only applies if the contained substances were used as raw materials or produced as products in a manufacturing operation. Soil, contaminated by such rinsewater, is potentially subject to regulation as a listed hazardous waste, pursuant to 6 NYCRR ' r TATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION yoF Page 11/15 W1TAi0oUS SUSSTAHM REdl4ATION OFPION"WWTEaeaoALSIPP= sA0d Identification of Wm*us lisste Technical CO 31 • p Administrative Now Guidance p Ob"1610 Manual p:•.•«<�•r.�I.,N.. Technical Manual SV. Soil Contamination Resulting Fran On-Site Disposal Guidance: A farmer who properly disposes of pesticides or rinsewater on his or her own property, in accordance with Part 325, or, for rinsewater, ECL-Article 17, is not subject to regulation, even if the pesticide, rinsewater, or contaminated soil qualifies as a hazardous waste. All others are subject to regulation, as in paragraphs II and III. If contaminated soil is excavated and managed as a waste material, it is a solid waste end, if it qualifies, a hazardous waste, subject to regulation, as in paragraphs II and III. Basis: Under 6 NYCRR 372.1 a (3), a farmer disposing( ) posing of pesticides and pesticide residues on his or her own property is exempt from regulation, as long as the pesticides are disposed of in accordance with Part 325 and the instructions on the pesticide label. The regulations do not provide such an exemption for any other persons. Any discharge of rinsewater requires authorization under Article 17-Title B (SPDES) . If contaminated soil or pesticides are excavated and managed as a waste material, they are no longer exempt from regulation as a solid waste or, if they qualify, as hazardous wastes. The exemption from Tegulation only applies to on-site disposal by a farmer. -------------- ATE DEPARTNENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION , VJKrAHM REOUATOW rrpMW wdTEOHSOAL9UPPOIR • HSste Technical ONow Administrative obsowe Guidance Sgerae/e NUq N*. Manual Technical Manual S. Rinsevater Containing Pesticides I. Rinsewaters Leaked or Spilled onto the gicund, o7nigcharge to Ground or Surface Maters Maidance: Rinsewater from rinsing out a container or mixing equipment that had held a listed commercial chemical product, or rinsewater which exhibits a characteristic is a hazardous waste. Basis: Under 6 NYCRR 371.1(d)(1)(ii)(d)(4) , rinsewater from containers can only be exempted if the contained substances were used as raw materials or produced as products in a manufacturing operation. Even this limited exemption does not apply if the rinsewater exhibits a characteristic. The discharge of these rinsewaters must, at any rate, be in compliance with ECL-Article 17. II. Disposal by Application Guidance: If rinsewater is collected and applied to the same area that the pesticide formulation had been applied to, without exceeding the maximum dosage reccc=ended, the rinsewater is not a solid waste and, therefore, not a hazardous waste. Basis: Rinsewater handled in this manner is considered to represent a weak application of a commercial product, still in accordance with Its normal proper usage. When a commercial product is applied to the land, it is not a solid waste if the application represents the normal usage of the product. In addition, this form of weak application does not require a SPDES permit, since it is deemed to represent product usage. \\\ CRAMER, VO( RH ySOCIATESf5 ENVIRONMENTAf 6pj U,ffl/J/ NG CONSULTANTS ✓s V's November 4, 1993 Mr. Richard G. Ward, Chairman Southold Planning Board Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 RE: Macari @ Laurel Review of the Final EIS Dear Mr. Ward: _._. in accordance with your authorization,we have reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Macari @ Laurel dated August 1993. This document was revised in order to address a comment letter issued by this office dated May 29, 1992. Overall, nearly all of the comments from the letter of May 29, 1993 have been satisfactorily addressed. One issue of substance seems to still be outstanding, and several other minor issues also remain. It is recommended that the applicant be contacted to determine if additional information is available with regard to pesticide use on the site. It is further recommended that the minor issues not be used as a basis for rejection of the Final EIS, due to the fact that they will not change the relevant conclusions ofthe document. The following review identifies all issues for your review and consideration: III. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING C. Hydrologic Setting 2. Groundwater (page 38) A previous comment pertained to soil testing for residual pesticides due to public health concerns related to future residential use of this site. It was requested that the soil analysis be evaluated as regards public health concerns and that the Suffolk County Department of Health Services be contacted in order to provide input regarding sampling methodology, analysis and potential public health issues. The revised Final Environmental Impact Statement includes a letter from Martin Trent of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services dated April 5, 1993. This letter indicates that iron and manganese concentrations exceed the drinking water maximum contaminant level and lead levels exceed the federal action level in groundwater samples collected at the site. In addition, Mr. Trent notes that"analyses for aldicarb residues (Temik) were apparently not performed, but would be critical to any evaluation of water quality in this area". The letter further indicates that "since organohalide pesticides were detected in the composited soil sample,water analyses should also include these compounds...As I [Trent] informed you [Jackson] in our telephone conversation the significance of the soil findings should be discussed with Cornell Cooperative Extension and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation." Mr. Trent's letter also indicates that the request for comments concerning Macarl @ Laurel Review of Final ELS water and soil tests was referred to Mr. Vito Minei at the SCDHS Office of Ecology. This letter is the only one included in the appendix in response to the above noted comment. This letter does not adequately respond to the comment and raises further issues which may require resolution. Furthermore, input from Mr. Vito Minei of the Office of Ecology, Cornell Cooperative Extension, and the NYSDEC seems appropriate in view of the letter from Mr.Trent. The applicant should be contacted to determine if this additional information is forthcoming. IV. ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION C. Hydrologic Setting 3. Sanitary Waste (page 62-73) Questions were raised concerning the methodo:ogy used in computing the concentration of nitrogen in recharge and consistency between the spreadsheet computations in Appendix E and the text on Pages 62-73. These discrepancies seem to persist in the revised Final EIS; however, it should be noted that the inconsistencies will not change the conclusion that the project will not cause an excessive concentration of nitrogen in recharge. An additional comment requested comparison of the predicted concentration of nitrogen in recharge with the statistical basis to determine what percentage of the time the anticipated 4.48 milligram per liter nitrogen would exceed the 10 milligram per liter nitrogen standard. This information does not appear to be included in the revised Final EIS; however, review of the publication"Land Use in Groundwater Quality in the Pine Barrens of Southampton" (Hughes and Porter, 1983), finds that the predicted concentration of nitrogen in recharge will exceed the 10 milligram per liter standard approximately 94-95% of the time. Though this information would be useful in the text of the Final EIS, it will not change the conclusion that the nitrogen in recharge will not cause significant adverse environmental effect. V. MITIGATIVE MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION. C. Hydrologic Setting 3. Sanitary Waste (page 107) The comment requested that the discharge of nitrogen in recharge be compared to on site nitrogen levels, not in a more distant water source. Similar comments in other sections were revised; however, this section was not revised in the current submission. This deficienry is not considered significant and will not change the conclusions with regard to the proposed project. VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION D. Transfer of Development Rights (page 181) The comment requested that additional analysis regarding a transfer of development C'RAMER VCORHIR R A`. SOC!^TES ?v ft ft art @ Ianed Review of Final EIS rights or a non-contiguous 281 concept be evaluated. The revised Final EIS indicates that although there are other tax parcels in the Town of Southold involving the owners name, other parcels are not within the same community of ownership. This response is utilized in order to avoid further analysis of a TDR or non-contiguous 281 concept. H it is indeed true that there are no other parcels in a similar ownership as the subject site, this would appear to be sufficient reason to not pursue a non-contiguous 281 concept. Furthermore, the amended site development plan involving a sound cluster proposal would lend credence to the cluster alternative as a means of minimizing environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable. If the Planning Board is in agreement with these statements, this would be a basis to not require further analysis of TDR or non-contiguous 281. The above comments indicate that there is only one significantoutstanding issue with regard to the Final EIS for Macari @ Laurel. This issue involves concerns regarding potential presence of toxins in soil due to past agricultural activities at the site. Further information should be sought consistent with the Aprp 5, 1993 letter from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, and our previous comments. The applicant should be contacted to determine if this information is forthcoming. We would be pleased to review anyfurther information at your request. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service to the Planning Board in review of the Final EIS for Macari @ Laurel. Please call if you have any further questions. Very truly yours, `Charles J. _Voorhis, CEP,Amp CRAMER, VOORHI &•A SOCIATES - "J�Q CC',"-ULTANTS ' \�� ':.:r{� • `,:.(/it CRAMER, V0641� &;A OCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL-AND PLANING CONSULTANTS 1 May 29, 1992 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 j v - ---' � Southold, NY 11971 Re: Macari at Laurel Review of Final EIS SOUTNOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Dear Benny: As per your request, we have completed the review of the proposed Final EIS for the Macari at Laurel site. The document contains comments received on the Draft EIS, and the applicant's response to said comments. Please note that it is the responsibility of the Planning Board to ensure that the responses to Draft EIS comments are complete and adequate, regardless of who prepares the Final EIS. Therefore, based upon detailed review of the response to comments provided by the applicant, we feel that significant additional information is required before this document could be considered to provide a complete Final EIS. Beyond the SEQR requirements for the Planning Board to file a complete Final EIS, we believe that there is additional information necessary in order to give full consideration to the environmental implications of the project, prior to reaching an informed decision. In general, there are several areas of concern which should be addressed prior to Final EIS acceptance. A comment on the Draft EIS requested soil sampling to determine potential Presence of toxins in soils, due to proposed residential use of the site. Analysis of on-site soils found the presence of five (5) pesticides in detectable concentrations, with two compounds (p,p-DDE and p,p-DDT) in concentrations of 130 and 260 ug/Kg, respectively. The applicant should be directed to forward the sampling rationale and methodology and the results to the local Health Department for a decision regarding public health implications of site use. It is likely that SCDHS will forward the analysis to the State Department of Health for consideration; however, the request should originate from the local agency. An additional comment on the Draft EIS dealt with the sensitivity of the site with respect to Cultural Resources. The site has been determined to exhibit extreme pre-historic resource sensitivity. The site is Proximate to other documented archaeological sites, and is near water sources and productive areas known to be frequented by aboriginal cultures. The site lies in an area known to yield archaeological artifacts, and indeed shovel probes yielded cultural material in 30 of 211 shovel probes, with definable areas of greater sensitivity. Recovered material not only included lithic material but also suggests woodworking tools, food preparation, stoneworking tools and wampum manufacture. Accordingly, environmental conditions and recovered material suggest a possibility of seasonal or permanent settlement of the site. Several areas with potential pre-historic integrity below the plow zone were delineated in the Final EIS (Figure 2). Due to the documented sensitivity of the site, additional information concerning the extent and significance of the present findings is necessary before adequate site use planning and impact determination Macari at Laurel Review of Final EIS can be completed. The applicant may wish to proceed with documentation and recovery of site cultural resources, or provide mitigation through avoidance possible through redesign, in order to maintain identified resources intact on the site. In review of the applicant's response to this issue provided in the Final EIS,we note that the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation is in concurrence that additional subsurface testing is warranted; however, that office was not supplied with a copy of the Stage IA/IB report, therefore meaningful technical comment was not provided. The extent of further exploration should be further coordinated with NYS Parks Department, through review of currently available material. These issues should be resolved prior to acceptance of the Final EIS in order to provide the Planning Board and involved agencies with information important in the planning process. It is also noted that the response to comments thinly defends the original proposed project, although a revised subdivision (tighter modified cluster) has been submitted with the Final ITIS which clearly will have less impact than the proposed project. This revised plan removes Lot 18 from the steep slope and contiguous open space area south of the central kettle, reduces lots sizes, increases open space, reduces nitrogen loading, maximizes wetlands setbacks, and is generally more sensitive to the sites environmental resources. The applicant has voluntarily submitted the revised plan in an effort to mitigate impacts noted in review of the Draft EIS. The Final EIS should support the revised plan based upon the superiority of the revised plan. This could be accomplished through the response to comments which precipitated the design changes, as well as in an additional alternative analysis which the applicant provided with this Final EIS. Finally, in terms of general comments on the proposed Final EIS for Macari, it is noted that the document does not include a reference list for sources of information quoted in the document. This should be included in a revised Final EIS submission. In addition to &eneral comments, there are a number of specific areas of the document which require revision. These comments pertain mainly to the sensitivity of the document in responding to comments on the Draft EIS, as well as more technical questions regarding accuracy and consistency of information presented. Comments are keyed to corresponding pages and sections of the proposed Final EIS as follows: II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Page 5 3. Comment: The comment requested that the applicant address the wetlands regulatory boundary of the Town Trustees. This has not been completed in the reply. 4. Comment: The comment requested that the applicant indicate if proposed landscape mitigation would be completed as part of proposed subdivision improvement, or as part of private lot development. Information concerning planting methodology has been provided; however, the distinction between whether planting will occur as part of the subdivision or private lot use is unspecified. It is important for the Planning Board to determine what landscaping can be required as part of subdivision improvement, as it is more difficult to control landscaping of private lots. III. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Page 14 B. Biological Setting CRAMER, VOfRHI �G,l� SOCIATES r_nn,+pr'NVFN7A1'';AN-UtO N�ING CONSULTANTS oe; Macari at Laurel Review of Final EIS 1. Flora 1. Comment: Review of Appendix B-1 finds that wetland area MT-22 is delineated in the easternmost kettle on the NYSDEC map. The eastern kettle does not contain wetlands however, the central one does. Therefore, in order to clarify the wetlands location the Final EIS should make note of the mapping error in the NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Maps. C. Hydrologic Setting 2. Groundwater Page 38 4. Comment: The comment pertained to soil testing for residual pesticides due to public health concerns related to future residential use. Soil analysis was conducted; however, no supported conclusion with regard to suitability of testing, or public health concern was reached. Analysis should be submitted to the NYS Department of Health via the SCDHS for a determination prior to Final EIS acceptance. With regard to analysis the following is noted. The highest soil concentrations and the human contact area would be expected in the upper 6 inches of soil. Soil samples conducted for the Final EIS were composited from unknown portions of four (4) borings up to a depth of 1.5 feet in depth. These samples may no be representative of health related contaminant levels of upper soils. Appropriate agencies should be conducted for sampling methodology and analysis. The document makes note of high iron and manganese in the range of 38.6 to 54.2 mg/l, but incorrectly compares these levels to a 50 mg/I guideline. In fact, the guideline of combined iron and manganese for Class GA waters contained in 6 NYCRR Part 703.5 is 0.5 mg/1, indicating that concentrations detected on the site are excessive and warrant further explanation. D. Municipal Setting 4. Traffic Page 41 2. Comment: The comment requested information concerning seasonal increase of traffic volume on area roads. The response indicates that a worst-case scenario was utilized; however, contact with NYSDOT finds that for seasonal traffic based communities, August daily traffic may be as much as 15 percent higher than June traffic. The Traffic Impact Study does not make note of any seasonal variation whatsoever, and does not provide a worst-case analysis as is purported in both the Traffic Impact Study and the proposed Final EIS. IV. ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION C. Hydrologic Setting 2. Groundwater Page 59 1. Comment: The comment requested further information of the impact of the proposed project on the water quality of Laurel Lake. In addition to information contained in the response, the quality of recharge entering the site (particularly nitrogen) should be considered in the context of groundwater-surface water relationships, should certain water years produce a more southerly component of groundwater migration. 3. Sanitary Waste Pae 62-73 1. Comment: The applicant has provided additional computations regarding the concentration of nitrogen in site recharge. Review of this section raises several CRAMER, VO(7RH\I � SOCIATES Pa e "IV'RO."1"AENTPS .AND L' 1NG CONSULTANTS Macari at Laurel Review of Final EIS questions with regard to assumptions and values. The irrigation rate of 10 inches/year noted on Page 67 and in other portions of the document should be referenced. Hughes and Porter (1983) (Land Use and Ground-Water Quality in the Pine Barrens of Southampton) make note of a turf irrigation rate of 5.5 inches/year. In addition, irrigation would be subject to evapotranspiration which does not appear to be included in the calculations. References should also be provided for the pet waste nitrogen based on 0.41 lbs/person equivalent. This section also refers to Appendix E for detailed calculations. Cross reference between the Final EIS text and Appendix E finds that the text refers to a nitrogen fertilizer load of 2.31bs/1000 sq ft; however, Appendix E uses 3.5 lbs/1000 sq ft. In addition, the text refers to a pet nitrogen contribution of 0.41 lbs/person equivalent, whereas Appendix E uses 0.82 lb/person. These discrepancies should be clarified so that the document is consistent. In the conclusion regarding nitrogen impact on groundwater, the concentration of nitrogen in recharge should be compared to water quality beneath the site as determined by on-site monitoring, rather than nitrogen from a more distant water source. In addition, Hughes and Porter (1983) (Land Use and Ground-Water Quality in the Pine Barrens of Southampton) provide a statistical basis to determine the potential for a nitrogen in recharge concentration to exceed the 10 mg/l standard. The project discharge could be considered in this context as an additional means of determining potential impacts. Any changes in the values, assumptions, methods of analysis and determination of impact potential related to concentration of nitrogen in recharge, should be changed in each analysis throughout the document, including Appendices and Alternatives. 2. Comment: The comment requested the background level of nitrogen beneath the site. The response should not assume that groundwater beneath the site is similar to the Captain Kidd water supply, when this is directly contradicted by more accurate and specific on-site data. 9. Comment: The new well sample should be reviewed as compared to the 0.5 mg/l combined iron and manganese guideline. D. Municipal Setting 4. Traffic Page 84-85 1. Comment: The comment pointed out the discrepancy between the traffic study build out evaluation based on 2 years, and the Draft EIS project occupancy schedule based on 5 years. The response indicates "It is common to use a two year interval between existing and built conditions". While it may be common to perform analysis based on a two year build out, proper analysis would attempt to make the build out analysis year consistent with the specific project. In addition, the Traffic Study (Page 4; DEIS Appendix D), indicates that, "Traffic impact studies are intended to examine the worst case situation'. Certainly projecting the growth rate over a longer period of time which is more consistent with the expected build out year would constitute both a more appropriate methodology and a worst case scenario. The response should be modified to address the comment. CRAMER, VOARHt SOCIATES Page ENVIRONMENT t� �G CONSULTANTS Macari at Laurel Review of Final EIS 2. Comment: The comment requested mitigation for a degradation of Level of Service from B to C at the intersection of Sound Avenue and Cox Neck Road. The response indicates, "A Level of Service C is very acceptable". The Final EIS should define the Level of Service as regards intersection operational efficiency in support of this statement. V. MITIGATIVE MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION B. Biological Setting 1. Flora Page 92 3. Comment: The comment requested more stringent measures to minimize impact by restricting lot clearing and minimizing lawn areas. The reply did not address this issue, however, it is noted that additional measures could be taken to further reduce impacts. Such measures including: covenanted rear yard buffers, percent of lawn area covenants, etc. should be noted in the Final EIS. C. Hydrologic Setting 2. Groundwater Page 103-106 1. Comment: The nitrogen in recharge should be compared to groundwater nitrogen beneath the-site rather than nitrogen in a more distant water source. 2. Comment: The location of the possible future well field site requested by SCWA should be included in the Final EIS. The project is a cluster design, therefore it may be possible to provide sufficient acreage for placement of a well field. In addition, the site is in a core watershed area with high groundwater elevations as compared other areas of the North Fork, and on-site water quality is good with the exception of iron and manganese. The Final EIS should evaluate the feasibility of well field siting in consideration of SCWA elevation and size requirements. 3. Comment: The last sentence in the reply to this comment should be corrected to indicated that sand only could be used for deicing purposes. 3. Sanitary Waste Page 107 1. Comment: Discharge of nitrogen in recharge should be compared to on-site nitrogen levels not nitrogen in a more distant water source. D. Municipal Setting 1. Potable Water Supply Pale 107-117 1. Comment: On-site water quality analysis is available and indicates unsuitable water quality with respect to iron and manganese. The implications of this should be discussed as regards proposed water supply for site in view of Article 4 requirement (4)• 3. Zoning/Land Use/Planning/Open Space Page 123-130 3. Comment: The Department of State comments that the Draft EIS should consider the 44 State LWRP policies. One particular comment involved consideration of Transfer of Development Rights to preserve the parcel. The applicant has responded that the project proponent owns other acreage in Southold; however, Southold does not have a TDR program in place. The possibility of utilizing NYS Town Law 281, CRAMER, VOaRHI 0` ,SOCIATES Pages ENVIRONMENTA'1\_N " �G CONSULTANTS Macari at Laurel Review of Final EIS ' for a yield shift between non-contiguous parcels owned by the same party should be explored as a means of achieving the same objective. With regard to Policy 23, the response should be amended as necessary based on additional evaluation of cultural resources. With regard to Policy 26, the applicant should discuss the fact that only approximately 50 percent of the parcel contains prime agricultural soil, and the balance of the site contains valuable wetlands and unique geologic features associated with Laurel Lake and its environs. Therefore the appropriateness of preserving the site for agricultural use in view of other factors must be considered. Trends in farming on the parcel and area should be stated in relation to possible inability to conserve and protect agricultural use of the site. 5. Cultural/Historical/Scenic Resources Page 137 1. Comment: The comment notes the documented archaeological sensitivity of the subject site. Due to the documented sensitivity of the site, additional information concerning the extent and significance of the present findings is necessary before adequate site use planning and impact determination can be completed. The applicant may wish to proceed with documentation and recovery of site cultural resources, or provide mitigation through avoidance possible through redesign, in order to maintain identified resources intact on the site. 3. Comment: The comment indicated that "The DEIS also does not discuss the relationship of the proposed road system to the existing unpaved rights-of-way". Review of the Final EIS finds that this comment has not been responded to. VI. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Page 145 1. Comment: The response to this comment should reflect the findings of further archaeological investigation. VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION Page 145 1. Comment: The consideration of the modified cluster plan should make note of the benefits of this modified cluster which clearly will reduce potential environmental impacts as compared to the proposed project. These benefits include but are not limited to: removal of Lot 18 from contiguous open space area; increase in overall percentage of open space on site; increase in percentage of contiguous open space on site; reduction in the concentration of nitrogen in recharge; and, increase in the setback of private land and developed areas from on-site wetlands. D. Transfer of Development Rights Page 181 1. Comment: Additional analysis regarding this alternative should be provided based upon the non-contiguous 281 concept noted above. X. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Page 184 2. Comment: The comment relates to wildlife impacts due to cumulative development CRAMER, VOl7R it ` SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT'A� t f G CONSULTANTS Page 6 Macari at Laurel Review of Final EIS noted in the Draft EIS. The response relies on public acquisition of lands in the watershed as the only means of mitigation. If acquisition is not feasible what form of contiguous open space habitat could be protected if other land development conformed to open space preservation achieved under the modified cluster for Macari at Laurel. 6. Comment: The comment pertains to the need for comprehensive planning between projects proposed in the area of Laurel Lake. It is noted that the Peconic Homes project includes 45.3 acres located directly adjacent and west of the subject site. Consideration should be given to alignment of contiguous open space between these parcels, and adequate protection of the resources of Laurel Lake and its environs. The comment requests information concerning the Miller property and State land within the cumulative study area,which is not provided in the reply. The status of proposed use of the Miller property should be indicated. This parcel lies between the subject project and Laurel Lake, and therefore, consideration should also be given to alignment of contiguous open space between the site and this parcel, and adequate protection of the resources of Laurel Lake and its environs. In addition, the size and configuration of the NYSDEC lands, Camp Malloy and the McFeely parcel should be determined as related to cumulative impact analysis. 7. Comment: The comment further indicates the need for cumulative impact planning with regard to minimizing impact to Laurel Lake and associated wetlands. It is recognized that the sponsor of the Laurel Lake project is responsible for only one project; however, this project will provide infrastructure, establish development trends, induce growth and set precedent. The cumulative impact analysis is mandated by SEOR and was required in order to provide information concerning the combined effect of development in the area of Laurel Lake. Macari at Laurel is the first significant project to proceed through the EIS process, and therefore will serve as a model for planning and review. It is not sufficient to indicate that other projects are inactive, as it is likely that other projects will become active as Macari proceeds through the review process. The response to the comment on Pale 190 provides no useful information for Planning Board consideration in determining cumulative and secondary impacts. The applicant is urged to provide further analysis with regard to positive and negative cumulative impacts as was requested in scoping sessions and review comments on the Draft EIS. This letter constitutes our review of the Final EIS submission for Macari at Laurel. We feel that the applicant has not provided sufficient information in response to comments based on the current submission. This letter is advisory to the Planning Board, and I would be pleased to meet with the Board to discuss any aspect of this letter at your request. If the Board in consideration of this letter is in agreement with our findings, you may wish to forward this correspondence to the applicant to serve as a guide for revision to the Final EIS. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Board with input concerning this project. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Very t Yrs, arles J. Voorhis,CEP,AICD amu\ A CRAMER, VOQRHIS� J;ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENT \ASD G CONSULTANTS Pagel CRAMER, V3 SOCIATES • ENVIRONMENT � _ G CONSULTANTS � SU3F Pill) September 27, 1994 Mr. Richard G. Ward Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, ;13095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 - Southold, NY 11971 i s Re: Maca.ri at Laurel SEP 2 8 1994 Interim Submission Regarding Soil Test Procedures SOUTHOLD TOWN PLAN.P21NG BOLI PD Dear Mr. Ward: As per our conversation, CVA has received an interim submission from the consultant (Richard Jackson) on Macari @ Laurel project concerning the methodology used for soil sam pling as well as the laboratorryy analysis sheets. These were submitted in partial response to ourletter dated August 1, I994. y Please be advised that I have expressed to the consultant that submissions should be made to the Planning Board and not directly to this office, For your records, attached please find the three sheets received by this office concerning soil test procedures. Said documents consist of the following: 1) a January 13, 1992 letter from McDonald Geoscience discussing the sample acquisitionprotocol used; 2) a map delineating McDonald Geoscience's sampling locations; and 3) a laboratory result sheet generated by Eco Test Laboratories, Inc.. In the interest of cooperation and expedience, and in order to provide the consultant with guidance concerning soil test issues, I have reviewed the submitted information. First let me say that I believe it is unfortunate that the Planning Board is faced with dealing with this issue; however, there has been no meaningful input from any health or environmental agency conecrning this issue. For this reason,we are faced with interpreting submissions based on the best available information. Based on the information submitted to date, there is just reason, for concern with regard to agricultural pesticide contaminant levels in the soil. This review provides further information and review for consideration in completing the necessary sampling for sound decision making. The documents submitted do not comprise a complete Sampling and Analysis Program (SAY). However, they adequately detail the location and frequency of the sample nodes that were compposited to form the sample that was analyzed. Based on the stated sample locat'on and frequency, the sampling protocol appears consistent with a "judgment" samplin&plan (Gilbert, Richard O., 1987, Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring). A jud; ment sampling plan is not appropriate for this project because the sample frequency is statistically too low. Accordingly, the results should not be used to represent mean contaminant concentrations for the subject property. Consequently, the results cannot be used to design a proper mitigation plan. Since the subject property was used for a variety Page It ort 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331.1455 Interim Review Macarl C Laurel of agricultural applications over an extended period of time, it is like) that contaminant Concentration zones exist. The appropriate protocol to use for identifying these zones is a "probability/statistical" sampling protocol (Gilbert, 1987). A probability/statistical sampling protocol includes random sampling regimes, stratified random sampling regimes and systematic sampling regimes. Based on the available information concerning the subject property, stratified random sampling is the recommended protocol. Under the scope of such a protocol the property would be subdivided into target areas based on historic agricultural applications (type of crop and length of time used and then sampled randomly. The target areas would be classified based on their potential of containing elevated levels of pesticide contamination (high, medium and low). The frequency of samples to be acquired in each target area would then be determined based on its classification. For example: in a target area classified as low, three samples could be secured from random locations; from a target area classified as high, seven samples could be secured. Under this protocol, the samples could be statistically proven to accurately reflect the pesticide contaminant concentrations present within the soils of each of the target areas identified on the subject property. Based upon the laboratory results obtained under such a protocol, a proper, zonal, Mitigation Plan could be designed. Said plan would detail the efforts that will be employed in each zone to prohibit contact of future inhabitants and wildlife with the indigenous soils of the sub'ect property and to prevent migration of the contaminants to ground water. Additionali'y, the mitigation plan could detail ways to limit fugitive dust originating from exposed surfaces from each zone during construction activities (e.g., excavation, modeling, stockpiling, transporting) from becoming airborne. As indicated, this review has been provided as a courtesy to provide input regarding an interim submission from Richard Jackson. If you have any questions concerning this review, please do not hesitate to call. X is,CEP,AICA CRAMER, VC SOCIATES Page 2of2 ENVIRONMENT `\�_ �/� .\ G CONSULTANTS 4ESF i'ffl L' f : 1 f ..r:' fo� : '.41 : . , . , ` ; d . i *'• r _ t � • eca EST LABORATORIES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING 377 SHPT°FIELD AVE. • N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703 • (516) 422.5777 • FAX (516) 422.5770 LAB NO. C9144}1 /4 12/27/91 John W. Hallman Ltd P. O. Box 423 Shaltpr Island Hpights NY 11965 ATTN : SOURCE OF SAMPLE McDonald Geoeeience, Hoeari at Lourel COLLECTED BY : JH/Ecotest DATE COL'Dtl2/10/91 RECEIVED: 12/10/91 SAMPLE: $oil sample, composite ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL, PARAMETERS Lindane ug/Kg <2 Aroclor 1260 ug/Kg <40 Heptachlor ug/Kg <2 Aldrin ug/Xg <2 Heptachlor Epoxide ug/)(g <2 P. p-DDE ug/Kg 130 Dieldrin ug/Kg 15 Endrin uq/Kg 6 pop-DDD ug/Xg 49 p. p-DDT ug/Kg 260 Chlordane ug/Kg <e Toxaphene ug/Kg <40 Endrin Aldehyde ug/Kg <12 a BHC ug/Xg <2 b BNC ug/Kg <2 d BHC ug/Kg 42 Endoeulfon i uq/Kg <4 Endoculfan 2 ug/Kg <4 Endoeulfan Sulfate ug/Kg <12 Aroclor 1016 u9/K9 <40 Aroclor 1221 ug/Kg <40 Aroolor 1232 uq/Kg <40 Aroclor 1242 ug/Kg <40 Aroclor 1246 ug/Kg <40 Aroclor 1254 uq/Kq 440 cct REMARKS: _. Y EF - i ;•a 1i F.' Ltill ..!; � ! a '. : _ 1 ^57' McDON.ID GEOSC NCE Box 1000 0 $0uthVd. New York 11971 616.766-3677 Jan. 13, 1992 Richard Jackson, PhD. Clcver Corp. 225 Main St. Northport, NY 11768 Lamar Richard: Enclosed are the water and soil testing results from Mac,ari at Laurel. The monitor well numbers are the same numbers we have used through out this project. The sail sample was taka;, adjacent to monitor well #1 . Four borings were taken at 3, intervals to a depth of 1.51 . The soil frc,m these four borings was commingled and a sample of this co- mmingled soil was taken to °coTesb labs. You should be aware that the choice of which wells to eample was limited. Wells number 2, 8, and 7 are no longer usable. Wail #2 has been broken off below yroung level, well w 6 has veep filled with soil, and well # 7 apcears to have been removed. ra ruly, 1 . M.cDonald b Ei d s � l ' \\ `" f,Ft r ,a e u r `NAy G i � 1 SON \ Mfw *'-SOEL SAMPLE _ Mw 0 \\\� \ `\ z - — L rnw ss. LAUREL. \ :+ �. `� LAKE • c5 6YnIIP� Sobo � PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ' Richard G.Ward, Chairman a Town Hall,53095 Main Road George Ritchie Latham,Jr. Bennett Orlowski, d P. O. Box 1179 ys, Southold, New York 11971 Mark McDonald 7 a'.! Fax(516)765-3136 Kennetthh L. Edwards Telephone(516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 21, 1994 Charles J. Voorhis Cramer, Voorhis & Associates 54 N. Country Rd. Miller Place, NY 11764 Re: Major subdivision for Macari at laurel SCTM# 1000-121-4--9 Dear Mr. Voorhis: The Planning Board has received the $500 review fee from the applicant for your comprehensive review of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Please consider this letter authorization for you to proceed with your review of the document. Please submit your report within 30 days of receipt of this letter. Sincerely, ' U-o Melissa Spiro Planner LAW OFFICESB� PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR. 616 ROANOKE AVENUE P.O.BOX 779 RIVERHEAD, NY 11901 (516)727-4900 FAX(516)727-7451 September 13 , 1994 Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Rd. , Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Attn: Richard G. Ward Re : Maior Subdivision For Macari at Laurel. NY Dear Mr. Ward: Per your letter of August 23 , 1994 (copy enclosed) , enclosed please find my client ' s check for $500 . 00 to cover your consultant ' s fee to conduct their comprehensive review of the entire Final EIS regarding the above matter. Thank you for your assistance in this matter . Very truly yours, PETER S . DANOWSKI , JR. PSD:gsg Encl . CC : Joseph Macari KSEP 77M Southold Town Planning Boa• 22 August 22, 1994 • Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. Mr. Ward: Margaret Best and Adlvn Swerson - This existing 1.3 acre parcel with two dwellings is to be divided into two lots, each having one of the dwellings. SCTM# 1000-123-6-17. Mr. McDonald: I make a motion that the Southold Town Planning Board start the coordination process on this Type 1 action. Mr. Latham: Second the motion. Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. Mr. Ward: Henry L. King & Margaret G. King and Susanna von der Schulenbura - This lot line change is to subtract 0.75 acres from a 4.21 acre parcel and add it to a 3.24 acre parcel located on Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-5-2-10.8 and 10.9. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, start the coordination process on this Type 1 action because the property is located on Fishers Island. Mr. Orlowski: Second. Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. Final Environmental Impact Status Mr. Ward: Macari at Laurel - Board to review the additional information submitted for the Final Environmental Impact Statement to determine completeness. SCTM# 1000-121-4-9. Is there anybody here that would like to address the Board this evening? Pat Moore: Thank you. Pat Moore from the office of Moore and Moore. We _- Southold Town Plarwwo Boal 73 Aupus[22, 1994 • represent the Laurel Lake Civic Association and most of the homeowners are here tonight to present themselves to the Board. We have been retained to assist the Civic Association in reviewing the SEQRA process. Our role is to assist them to make sure the Planning Board, as lead agency have all the information which is necessary to make an informed decision on the Macari subdivision. Two significant issues have been raised throughout the SEQRA process and we believe that these issues have not been adequately addressed. The first issue is the significance of the archeological. Originally there was a Phase 1 study done which identified throughout the subdivision, archeological artifacts. From that, the applicant then submitted a Phase 2 study which is to assist the Board in making a determination in whether or not there is significance. In that Phase 2 stud/ the consultants took a bulldozer, made two large ditches and came to a conclusion that there were no artifacts whatsoever. Based on the October 2, 1991 letter from the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, they had been apparently prior to this Phase 2 study, had been sent a letter by the applicant's consultant asking for a recommendation on how best to proceed with this study. They came back with a recommendation of six cuttings and shovelfuls that are within 5 meters apart; it's the October 2 letter. That letter apparently was completely ignored because the study ultimately did not do any of the recommended shovel cuttings that the Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation had recommended. Apparently from the record it does not look like that Phase 2 study has been sent to the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, and we would ask that the Board be sure to do that because certainly the Board does not have the archeological expertise to review what has been done. We feel that they are an agency that is there for your use and can make a very good recommendation. The second issue which has been addressed throughout, however, it was not adequately addressed, is the issue of the flora and fauna in the Laurel Lake vicinity. The DEIS and FEIS mention that there are seven rare plant species that have been located within that area, or have been identified in that area. However, they were unable, by their botanist, to identify any. They don't specify who the botanist is, what qualifications that botanist has, and if in fact whether there was an actual inventory of the property and what time of the year that was conducted. We have referred the study in the FEIS and DEIS to Dr. Lamont and I have a review that was done by Dr. Lamont who is a noted botanist, has written extensive literature, has prepared species lists for the DEC as well as numerous consultants. He has reviewed it and had made certain recommendations and I'd like to present that to the Board and ask that you incorporate that in your ultimate determination whether or not the FEIS is adequate and complete. (Submitted Dr. Lamont's report) A couple of the points he raises. The vicinity of the Laurel Lake area, he had done an extensive research at one point or another for his literature and he identified three rare and endangered species of plant life that apparently the applicant's botanist never identified. It's unlikely that he would find these rare species on the north side of the lake and not find them In the area of the Macari subdivision. Secondly, very few botanists are qualified to recognize such rare species at the time of the year, it's very important to do this Inspection at the right time of the SOtNnld Town Flaming lb* 24 August 22, 1994 • year, ideally it would be now to go and do a site inspection. We would certainly recommend to the applicant and suggest that you recommend to the applicant that Dr. Lamont or someone of equal qualifications be asked to review the property and identify whether or not rare species do exist. The study which had been done in the DEIS and FEIS does not map where the inspection took place, who conducted the inspection. There was no effort at all to identify any species. We believe that in the SEQRA process issues like these should properly be addressed through a supplemental EIS. Ideally, these kind of issues in the supplemental would then be subject to review by other agencies to give you additional expertise. To do it at this stage as part of the FEIS is certainly better than nothing but is really not the best process for an adequate review and to make the proper decision that you will ultimately be asked to make. Thank you very much for considering our comments. Peter Danowski: Interestingly enough I would just question the Board with regard to procedure here. It seems to me that the DEIS was accepted as complete, it was distributed out pursuant to SEQRA, the public comment period is over. The FEIS was submitted, we paid the Town required fees for the Town's consultant to review the FEIS. Reports were made. The Planning Board sent me communications. We revised the DEIS based upon those communications. Further revision was suggested and we supplied additional information. At some point the process has to end. I certainly don't mind and object to Mrs. Moore making the comments she made from the viewpoint of attending this meeting with her clients and addressing the Board. But from a legal standpoint, I-doobject to them being made part of the record with regard to anything that relates back to the DEIS which is accepted as complete and distributed and relates to the FEIS when the public comment period has been over. What stage we're at now is to accept the FEIS and for this Board to thereafter distribute the FEIS and make a finding statement. With regard to any comments that may be contained in recommendations in the previous report from the consultant, he very correctly noted that there weren't any remaining issues of great substance other than one. With regard to that, we submitted further reports and I think the real main question becomes, what happens with every piece of agricultural land or former agricultural land, there's always a question raised about pesticides or nitrate loading. And that is normally resolved through the routing of the Suffolk County Health Dept. As you know, when you go through the subdivision process, we have to comply with Article 6, we have to go and submit a formal application to the Health Dept. and we have to Comply with their standards, which include pesticides. If we can't comply we have to then follow their regulations on the approval process with that department. So it seems to me it's time to put the environmental process at an end, accept the FEIS and distribute out the FEIS to everyone, including Mrs. Moore, and make a findings statement. We're prepared to move forward. We're going to move forward with this application. If you look at all the subdivisions you've approved during the pending application of Mr. Macari, you'll find you've never required the items you're now suggesting that should be required on this particular subdivision. I think the man's name across the street is Thornton Smith. He had a major subdivision approved. He went through the process, probably at a parallel period of time. I recognize we're on Laurel Lake, I recognize the beautiful area, I recognize that certainly any neighbor, and they have attended other meetings, :w;wu,i...+:., Y.�..�+�. ,r.......::;u...w.. w�w ,M.,: ..,. ._....::,�., :......:.:... , ,. .,. ...... , ,.._.,,�+a«�..tvuwar ..� _ -.��....:.,�•< Southold Town Punning lb* 25 August 22, 1994 • would love to have the area not developed. That certainly I understand and I appreciate. Certainly if it's prevented from being developed, which appears to be the track that this application is found, my client has to be compensated for it and that hasn't happened to date. And if you're going to stop us from building, someone is going to pay. Thank you. Mr. Ward: Anybody else that would like to address the Board? Greg Blass: Mr, Chairman, I know the microphone's not working so I'll speak briefly. I appeared here as the legislator that represents this area on the Suffolk County Legislature. And I realize that my comments have to be phrased carefully because of the limited role that a Planning Board has in an application like this, and the relevance of all the comments that have to be made to it. I only wish to bring forth to you that the fragility of this parcel that is suggested for this subdivision is of paramount importance to the public's concern that the Laurel Lake region is really the last deep water reserve in the Town of Southold, in the entire town. would invite to the Board's attention that though there has been publicity that undoubtedly has come before this Board's attention, that the County is listing this as a priority, the fact is from my perspective that the County is walking away from major responsibilities in addressing open space preservation on the east end. Now I only invite to the Board's attention the unfortunate chain of events that led to Robins Island, to the unfortunate chain of events that led to the inability of the County to go through with Fort Corchaug. All this may or may not even be relevant to what the Board has to take into consideration in this application. But what is relevant is that the environmental fate of Laurel Lake may ultimately and finely rest only, and unfortunately only, with this Board. And I say unfortunately because greater authorities should be taking an interest but aren't and therefore it's of paramount importance and I respectfully suggest that there is underscored here a very important fact and that is that what decisions you make need the most updated information as possible. You have had this application for quite some time now and everything you do may be all that is done with respect to the future of this very sensitive parcel. And that's really all I wanted to say. Thank you. Mr. Ward: Anybody else that would like to address the Board on Macari at Laurel Lake? If there's no further comment I would like to offer a resolution this evening. WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board has reviewed the additional information prepared by Richard A. Jackson, which was submitted by Peter S. Danowski, Jr. on May 25, 1994 for consideration by the Planning Board in determining the acceptability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board's environmental consultant, Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, has also reviewed the above mentioned information; and WHEREAS it has been concluded that the additional information is Inadequate for purposes of completing the Final EIS as described in the report dated August 1, 1994 from Cramer, Voorhis & Associates; be it therefore RESOLVED that the Planning Board deem the additional Information Incomplete for Purposes of completing the Final EIS. Southold Town Plamiro B0* 26 August 22,1994 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that due to the length of time that has passed since the Draft EIS was deemed complete (June 4, 1991), the Final EIS was initially submitted (April 2, 1992) and the additional information for the Final EIS was submitted (August 18, 1993 and May 26, 1994), the Planning Board will conduct a comprehensive review of the entire Final EIS. This review is necessary to ensure that the document is reflective of current site and area conditions and is responsive in addressing comments on the Draft EIS in view of current conditions. The Planning Board is ultimately responsible for the content, accuracy and adequacy of the Final EIS and due to the inordinate delay in receipt of Final EIS submissions finds that comprehensive document review is necessary to determine acceptance. Mr. Orlowski: Second. Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. Mr. McDonald: I abstain. Tape malfunctioned. The following is reconstructedfrom notes taken by Melissa Spiro at the meeting. SI PLANS Final De rminations: Petrol Station • - This site plan is to remove and relocate existing dri ay and reconfigure par ' g area on a 5.8 acre site located on Rt. 25 in chogue. SCTM# 1000-109-1-23. T final determination and the SEQRA det !nation were held over until the Sep em r 12th meeting. SITE PLANS - STATE ENVIRON NTAL QUALITY REV�ACT Determinations Vincent Geraghty - This site plan is fo(th onstruction of a 4,800 square foot boat sales service and office buiWng with o oor boat display area, in Arshamomaque. SCTM# 1000't6-4-13.3, 13.4 14 The applicant's attorngy,'bavid Yudelson asked the Pla Ing Board to postpone the SEQRA determination. He explained that he had recently en retained by the applicant, and h,.ad not had sufficient time to familiarize him f with the file. i The Planni>� Board members discussed the request with Mr. Yude n. They explai9�the options the applicant had; to proceed with the applicati as is, or to withdraw the application and to present a new revised application. ..-+w..srrwarwa...�..r..:.i....,....,.. .�,raw.:.-;_.. ....,...:::,.... .... „_. ..... ,._�......... ... ...... ,. _' ..w ,.;;: PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G.Ward, Chairman 'a ? Town Hall,53095 Main Road George Ritchie Latham,Jr. "'j ��a P. O. Box 1179 Bennett Orlowski,Jr. , , '` ',�* Southold, New York 11971 Mark S. McDonald q -`;s'; Fax(516)765-3136 Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 23, 1994 Peter S. Danowski, Jr. P.O. Box 779 Riverhead, NY 11901 RE: Proposed Major Subdivision for Macari at Laurel S/S Sound Ave. (Middle Road); 2,000' west of Cox Neck Rd., Southold SCTM# 1000-121-4-9. The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on August 22, 1994: WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board has reviewed the additional information prepared by Richard A. Jackson, which was submitted by Peter S. Danowski, Jr. on May 25, 1994 for consideration by the Planning Board in determining the acceptability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board's environmental consultant, Cramer, Voorhis & i Associates, has also reviewed the above mentioned information; and WHEREAS it has been concluded that the additional information is inadequate for purposes of completing the Final EIS as described in the report dated August 1, 1994 from Cramer, Voorhis & Associates; Be it therefore RESOLVED that the Planning Board deem the additional information incomplete for purposes of completing the Final EIS. Page 2 Macari at Laurel August 23, 1994 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that due to the length of time that has passed since the Draft EIS was deemed complete (June 4, 1991), the Final EIS was initially submitted (April 2, 1992) and the additional information for the Final EIS was submitted (August 18, 1993 and May 26, 1994), the Planning Board will conduct a comprehensive review of the entire Final EIS. This review is necessary to ensure that the document is reflective of current site and area conditions and is responsive in addressing comments on the Draft EIS in view of current conditions. The Planning Board is ultimately responsible for the content, accuracy and adequacy of the Final EIS and due to the inordinate delay in receipt of Final EIS submissions finds that comprehensive document review is necessary to determine acceptance. While your client is responding to the information outlined in the August 1, 1994 report from Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, the Planning Board and the Board's consultant will conduct the above mentioned comprehensive review. The fee for the comprehensive review is $500.00. The review will be conducted upon receipt of the fee from your client. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely/, w(C1fi1/+� /� � Richard G. Ward S cc: Charles J. Voorhis, Cramer, Voorhis & Associates yrs REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (RARE PLANT SECTIONS) FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT LAUREL, SOUTHOLD TOWNSHIP. SUFFOLK COUNTY , NEW YORK PREPARED FOR: MOORE & MOORE, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 315 WESTPHALIA ROAD P.O. BOX 23 MATT ITUCK, NEW YORK 11952 PREPARED BY: ERIC LAMONT, PH.D. BOTANICAL CONSULTANT 586 SOUND SHORE ROAD RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK 1 1901 Sabmftted by l�o-t Mcnrc, 'Esq. C10 8�L2�y. Publrc /reeh'rq_ (J rPSILOANINNG AUGUST 1994 Southold Township once provided habitat that supported a rich diversity of plants and animals. Southold Township has lost most of its biodiversity & natural resources, therefore the little resources that remain must be protected and preserved for future posterity. NYNHP has reported a significant number of rare plant species from the proposed development area. IMAAR CMMMM WDYM aur 1. What attempts were really made to locate the rare plants reported from the proposed development area? 2. When were site inspections conducted; what months of the year? (eg., Plantago pusilla is very ephemeral, can only be observed in the field during a short time in May and early June; whereas, Lespedeza stuevei can only be positively identified in Sept & Oct.) 3. How many searches for rare plants were conducted? 4. Who conducted the searches for rare plants? (Many of the rare plants reported by NYNHP are either inconspicuous, or difficult to identify; I am aware of only a very few qualified botanists on Long island who have the qualifications to properly identify many of the rare plants reported from the site by NYNHP) 5. Inaccuracies in EIS in dealing with ecological requirements of rare plant species: a. (eg., Lespedeza stuevei is reported in the EIS as occurring in freshwater wetland habitats, preferring "either pond margins or other such habitats. However, L. stuevei actually occurs in "dry upland woods and barrens" (Gleason & Cronquist, 1991); see also U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service list-of wetland indicator plants for N.Y.S.) Therefore, according to the EIS L. stuevei was not even searched for in the proper habitat. -2- b. Two of the rare plants associated with wetlands (Hypericum adpressum & Rhynchospore inundate) are indicators of a very rare ecological community, the coastal plain pondshore. These rare plant species have very specific requirements for survival, and any slight changes in the water hydrology near the area can result in the loss of these rare species_ The EIS does not address the potential effects of the proposed development on water hydrology (eg., lowering of water table, Increased fertilizers and herbicides), and therefore the indirect impacts upon certain rare plant species. The EIS does not mention the relationship between certain rare plants and the globally rare coastal plain pondshore ecological community. 6. Innaccuracies and confusion in the reporting of the rarity status of plant species. The EIS reports its source of rare plants previously documented from the proposed development area as being the New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP), which is the proper source. However, in the discussion of exactly how rare each species is, the EIS uses a 13-year old, outdated source for its rarity ranking system (Mitchell & Sheviak, 1981). For example the EIS lists the rarity status of 3 of 7 rare plant species as "Unknown." NYNHP (1992) lists each of these three species as "Critically imperiled in N.Y.S. because of extreme rarity." (Less then 5 populations in all of N.Y.S.). RARITY RANK OF PLANT SPECIES NYNHP NYS (1992) (1981) Cardamine longi S1 U Hypericum adpressum S1 E Lespedeza stuevei S2S3 -* Q Oenothera laciniata 1 �p Flantago pusRa S1 U Rhynchosporainundata S1 ` E Scleria pauciflora var. caroliniana �( `} T -3- 7. Unsupported conclusions in EIS (as noted in review comments). The EIS concludes that since certain rare plants have not been observed since 1925, they can no longer occur on site. The EIS concludes that since the property has been disturbed since 1925, the rare plants can no longer occur on site. The EIS devotes almost 20 lines of discussion defending these unsupported conclusions, and then as a postscript states in one short, undocumented sentence that "professional botanists" did not locate the rare plants on site. 0. Incomplete site inspection & field search. The EIS indicates that no rare plants reported by NYNHP have been currently reported from the development area, although on-site field visits were conducted by professional botanists. However, during a recent visit to the area, I located two of the reported rare plants in a relatively short time period. Also, it is unusual that no additional rare plants, not reported by NYNHP, were located by "professional botanists, " from this area which is known to historically support a rich diversity of rare plants. CONCLUSION: The EIS is does not fully demonstrate that the potentially significant environmental impacts upon rare plants would be satisfactorily mitigated. Personally, I would be embarassed to submit such a worthless document claiming to address the significant natural resources documented from the potential development area. -4- Eric E. Lamont 586 Sound Shore Road Born: 21 September 1953 Riverhead, New York 11901 Little Neck, New York 516-722-5542 Marital Status: Married EDUCATION: 1991 Ph. D., Biology, City University of New York, in affiliation with the New York Botanical Garden. 1978 M. S., Biology, Long Island University/C.W. Post Center, New York. ,r. 1975 B. S., Biology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas. WORK EXPERIENCE: 1981-present Biology Teacher, Riverhead High School, Riverhead, New York. 1988-present Botanical Consultant; Federal, State & local government, private agencies. 1988-1992 Botanist, Town of Southampton, Long Island, New York. 1989-1991 Botanist, Atlantic Golf Club, Bridgehampton, New York. Summer 1982 Interpretive Specialist, The Nature Conservancy, Long Island, New York. Summer 1981 Interpretive Ranger, U.S. Department of Interior/National Park Service, Fire Island National Seashore, New York. 1980-1981 Adjunct Instructor, Biology Department, Long Island University, N.Y. 1979-1981 Resident Director/Teacher, BOCES Outdoor & Environmental Education Center, Lloyd Harbor, New York. Summer 1980 Research & Teaching Assistant, Queens College Center for Environmental Teaching & Research, City University of New York. Summer 1979 Agricultural Laborer, Kibbutz Yiron, Northern Galilee, Israel. 1977-1978 Director, Environmental Arts Program, Nassau County Office of Cultural Development, Roslyn Harbor, N.Y. CERTIFICATION: New York State Permanent Teaching Certificate in Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Earth Science, and General Science. PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 1991-present President, Long Island Botanical Society, Long Island, New York. 1991-present Secretary/Executive Board Member, New York Flora Association. 1993-present Executive Board Member, South Fork Natural History Society, New York. 1993-present Field Trip Leader/Manuscript Reviewer, Torrey Botanical Club, N.Y. 1979-present Coordinator, National Audubon Society, Christmas Bird Count, Cold Spring Harbor, New York. PUBLICATIONS: 1994 (in press). Taxonomy of Eupatorium section Verticillata (Asteraceae). Memoirs New York Botanical Garden. 1994 (in press). Rediscovery of Solidago sempervirens var. mexicana (Asteraceae) in New York, with notes on its taxonomic history. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 1994 (in press). In Memorium: Arthur Cronquist (1918-1992). Bartonia. 1993. The status of the Coastal Plain Pondshore community in New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 120: 180-187. [with R. Zaremba]. 1993. The vascular flora of Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie, South Carolina, one year after Hurricane Hugo. Castanea 58: 141-152. [with R. Stalter]. 1991. The vascular flora of Orient Beach State Park, Long Island, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 118: 459-468. [with R. Stalter]. 1991. Life forms of the flora at Hempstead Plains, New York, and a comparison with four other sites. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 118: 191-194. [with R. Stalter & D. Kincaid]. 1990. Eupatorium steelei (Asteraceae), a new species from the southern Appalachian Mountains of eastern U.S.A. Brittonia 42: 279-282. 1990. A new combination in Eupatorium section Verticillata (Asteraceae). Phytologia 69: 467-468. 1990. The vascular flora of Assateague Island, Virginia. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 117: 48-56. [with R. Stalter]. 1988. Current status of orchids on Long Island, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 115: 113-121. [with J. Beitel & R. •Zaremba]. 1987. Vegetation of Hempstead Plains, Mitchell Field, Long Island, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot Club 114: 330-335. [with R. Stalter]. 1986. Vegetation of Fire Island, New York. Buil. Torrey Bot. Club 113: 298-306. [with R. Stalter & J. Northup]. ms August 4, 1994 Richard G. Ward Town Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear: Mr. Ward: As a resident and property owner on Laurel Lake I am very concerned about the prospect of the Macari Subdivision Development plan. Extensive development as planned will certainly have a negative environmental effect on the surrounding wetlands and ultimately to the Town's current and future water supply. Why can't Suffolk County acquire this land as promised? Suffolk County's sales tax was increase to 8 1/2% so that 1/4% could be used to acquire environmentally sensitive lands through the Revenue Sharing Element of the Suffolk County Drinking Water Protection Program. If this money is not being used for it's original purpose, then the tax should be repealed. The property should be condemned if negotiations are not possible since the cost will certainly increase once the property receives subdivision approval. Please use your influence. Let's not let our preserved resources go the way of Robins Island! Bradley J. Belz Crescent Way Laurel Lake Tel - 298 -8674 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD • • � � Sur3�rc.c� CRAMER, VSOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Pd J August 1, 1994 Ms. Melissa Spiro Assistant Planner Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971 5 IM Re: Macari at Laurel Review of Final EIS Submission Dear Melissa: I am in receipt of the memorandum prepared by Richard Jackson, concerning the presence of pesticides in soil at the above referenced site. The following comments have been prepared for consideration by the Planning Board in reviewing this project and in determining the acceptability of the submitted Final EIS. 1. The document references laboratory analysis performed on soil samples secured from the subject property. Valid interpretations of the laboratory results cannot be made unless the sampling and analysis methodologies utilized for their summation are specified. The sampling and anal sis methodology should be presented in a Sampling and Analysis Plan that documents: Ne sampling protocol utilized (e.g.judgment, biased, search, probability/statistical) for the selection of sample node locations; 2) the node locations as presented on a scale map; 3) the method used to acquire the soil samples; 4) the quality assurance measures taken to insure sample accuracy (e.g. qualifications of sampling personnel, sample containers, field preservation operations, decontamination protocol); 5) the United States Environmental Protection Agency Test Method used by the laboratory to analyze the soil samples) and 6) the name andcertification number of the New York State Department of Health ertified Laboratory used to perform the analysis. Additionally, the Sampling and Analysis Plan should include original copies of the test results as provided by the laboratory. 2. The document equates reported laboratory data with values presented in an appendix to revised New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Technical Administrative Guidance Memorandum (TAGM) number 4046 dated January 24, 1994 for, "pertinent data on pesticide contamination of soil as it relates to public health." It should be noted that revised TAGM 4046, Determination of Soil Cleanup Objectives and Cleanup Levels,was intended to be used at, "individual Federal Superfund, State Superfund, 1986 EQBA Title 3 and Responsible Party sites,when the Director of the DHWR (Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation) determines that cleanup of a site to pre-disposal conditions is not possible or feasible." The subjectproperty does not fit any of the listed site categories. Consequently, this document is not suitable for gauging cleanup objectives on the subject property. 3. It should be noted that TAGM 4046 is based on the United State Environmental Protection Agency Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST), dated 1991 so it may have some merit for establishing exposure guidelines of soil to the environment. Page 1 of 3 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 Macari at Laurel Final EIS Submission However, if these guidelines are to be used for establishing exposure data, then an extensive Sampling and Analysis Program of the surface and subsurface soils of the subject property will be required. Said Sampling and Analysis Program would have to include tests for the total organic carbon (TOC) con-tent of the indigenous soil. The listed values in Appendix A of revised 4046 are based on the assumption that the TOC content of the soil is 0.01. Therefore, in order to use this TAGM, TOC content must be determined and fall within the stated range. This may not be the prevalent condition on the subject property. 4. The document also equates reported laboratory data with values presented in TAGM number 3028 for, "pertinent data on pesticide contamination of soil as it relates to public health."It should be noted that TAGM 3028, the Contained-in Criteria for Environmental Media, relates exclusively to solid waste classification for disposal purposes (hazardous vs. non-hazardous determinations) and not for public health determinations. It is only used for determining off-site disposal management requirements and therefore is not appropriate for citation in this regard. 5. Waste classifications for pesticide contaminated soil are more appropriately defined with TAGM 3002 (enclosed). Said TAGM entitled, Identification of Hazardous Waste, provides parameters to classify pesticide contaminated media. TAGM 3002 states, "If pesticide is applied to the round during the normal course of application, in accordance with usage instructions, it is not a solid waste and, therefore, not a hazardous waste." It further states, "While the soil remains in place, it is not a waste. However, if the soil is to be excavated and removed from the site, then it can become a solid waste by virtue of being discarded if it contains a chemical contaminant. However, this does not prevent the soil from qualifying as a hazardous waste if it exhibits a [hazardous waste] characteristic." Since pesticides (chemical contaminants) were detected in the soil of the subjectproperty, materials excavated from the subject property must be disposed of off-site as a solid waste that may or may not be hazardous (based on TCLP testing). Additional information requested in item 1 above will assist in clarifying the extent of this issue. 6. Based upon the laboratory results presented in the document, a Mitigation Plan should be submitted. Additional information requested in item 1 above will assist in clarifying the extent of this issue; however, based on limited data relatively high levels of certain constituents have been detected. The plan should detail the efforts that will be made to prohibit contact of future inhabitants and wildlife with the indigenous soils of the subject property and to prevent migration of the contaminants to the ground water. Additiona!the , mitigation pshould detail ways to limit gitivedust originating romexposed suaces during constron activities (egxcavationstockpilintransporting) fromecomingairborne. The exact scope of the Mitigation Plan can be determined based upon the relts of a more detailed Sampling and Analysis Program. I believe the severity and consequences of the issues involved in utilization of this site warrant the submission of accurate and complete information. I have attempted to outline the appropriate standards with which to compare the analyses, and have requested information concerning sampling justification and analytical methods. Finally, it is suggested that thought be given to mitigating impacts of soil disturbance depending upon final results. CRAMER, V SOCIATES Page 2of3 ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Macari at Laurel Final EIS Submission I appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this review. Thank you for your attention to this matter and please feel free to call if you have any questions. Very tru ou , Charles oorhis,CEP,AICD 5 � D UNNING BDARD CRAMER, VR OCIATES Palpe3or3 ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS STEW WORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION RtT P g / 15 ONIUM OF NAiNCo X SUWTANOES REG"TM aUIWOFPMQMMdTEONISOLLSIRI'ORT S'p'0I TArdifinTie� of Iu7mT met Technical Wy 31, IM - Administrative p N.. Guidance p Do • Manual p:.,......ta1�N.. Technical Manual 14. Pesticide-Contaminated media A. Pesticide-Contaminated Soil 2. Soil Contaminatea�Through Proper Usage Guidance: If pesticide is applied to the ground during the normal course of application, in accordance with usage instructions, it is not a solid waste and, therefore, not a hazardous waste. 1 If treated soil is subsequently excavated and moved off-site, it would have the status of a solid waste, containing a chemical contaminant that might be a hazardous substance. The soil would be a hazardous waste only if it exhibited a characteristic. Basis: Under 6 NYCRR 371.2(c)(4)(1)(b), a commercial product is not a solid waste if It is applied to the ground and that is the ordinary manner of usage. While the soil remains in place, it is not a waste. However, if the soil is to be excavated and removed from the site, then it can become a solid waste by virtue of being discarded if it contains a chemical contaminant. Since the commercial product when the soil is excavated for off-site disposal. However, this does not prevent the soil from qualifying as a hazardous waste if it exhibits a characteristic. TAGTRtFRu Ar • NEW TORR STATE DEPARTMENT Or ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Polar VWW=Or 1KTAR000S SUKTANOEt REOIAATION 1KINEW OrPROOIMMNUITEOIeeo1LIRRPORT Waste Technical o. fty 31 IM Administrative O Now Guidance 0 o`'oloo Manual Q serer"At Policy No. Technical Manual II. Solid contaminated by Lanka or spills of pesticides Guidance: If a pesticide is.a listed commercial chemical product and is leaked or spilled onto the ground, it is a listed hazardous waste, and the contaminated soil becomes potentially subject to regulation as a listed hazardous waste if managed as a waste material. If the pesticide is not a listed commercial chemical product, but the pesticide/soil mixture exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste, then the contaminated soil is potentially subject to regulation as a characteristic hazardous waste. ( Basis: Any contaminated coil, resulting from the spill of a listed commercial chemical product, is subject to regulation as a hazardous waste pursuant to 6 NYCRR �171.4(d)(4), if managed as a waste material. III. Soil Contaminated by Leaks Spills, or Dumps of R3asewater Guidance: Rinsewater results from cleaning out mixing equipment or pesticide containers. If the pesticide product is a listed commercial chemical product, then the rinsewater is a listed hazardous waste. If the rinsewater is a listed hazardous waste or if the contaminated soil exhibits a characteristic of a hazardous waste, then the contaminated soil is potentially subject to regulation as a hazardous waste, if managed as a waste material. Basis: Rinsewaters from containers that held a listed ccamercial chemical product are subject to regulation' as a listed hazardous waste, unless exempted pursuant to 6 NYCRR However, this exemption for rinsewater only applies if the contained substances were used as raw materials or produced as products in a manufacturing operation. Soil, contaminated by such rinsewater, is potentially subject to regulation as a listed hazardous waste, pursuant to 6 NYCRR 371.1(d)(1)(ii)(d) . TAOTR2 FRM NEW YORK(TATE DEPARTMENT Of ENYIRONYENTAL OOMtERVATION FIdstificition 11/15 D,,,ruNal�Aloa�tsussrAnoEiReatATaN of t�dxts OLMM Of PrOVAYW/TEONtdLOW ORf _Technical Administrative Guidance p Manual p:.►..o.t.r.u�N.. Technical Manual Iv. Soil contamination Resulting tram On-Site Disposal Guidance: A farmer who properly disposes of pesticides or rinsewater on his or her own property, in accordance with Part 325, or, for rinsewater, ECL-Article 17, is not subject to regulation, even if the pesticide, rinsewater, or contaminated soil qualifies as a hazardous waste. All others are subject to regulation, as in paragraphs II and III. If contaminated soil is excavated and managed as a waste material, it is a solid waste end, if it qualifies, a hazardous waste, subject to regulation, as in paragraphs II and III. Basis: Under 6 NYCRR 372.1(e)(3), a farmer disposing of pesticides and pesticide residues on his or her own property is exempt from regulation, as long as the pesticides are disposed of in accordance with Part 325 and the instructions on the pesticide label. The regulations do not provide such an exemption for any other persons. Any discharge of rinsewater requires authorization under Article 17-Title 8 (SPDES) . If contaminated soil or pesticides are excavated and managed as a waste material, they are no longer exempt from regulation as a solid waste or, if they qualify, as hazardous wastes. The exemption from Tegulation only applies to on-site disposal by a farmer. TAGTRTiPY -NEM TORR STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENTMONNENTAL CONSERVATION rZC3 Inv ims ONM7N OF NADIfE=X&JUTOMM M lLA71M Tivintifiratim �L �teTech) ical w hy 31 19M Administrative �-�1 lJ obsolete Guidance Ofgerre/e Nile'No. Manual Technical Manual B. Rinsewater containing Pesticides I. Rinsewaters Leaked or Spilled onto the grauad, or Discharged to Ground or Surface Maters Guidance: Rinsewater from rinsing out a container or mixing equipment that had held a listed commercial chemical product, or rinsewater which exhibits a characteristic is a hazardous waste. Basis: Under 6 HYCRR 371.](d)(1)(ii)(d)(4), rinsewater from containers can only be exempted if the contained substances were used as raw materials or produced as products in a manufacturing operation. Even this limited exemption does not apply if the rinsewater exhibits a characteristic. The discharge of these rinsewaters must, at any rate, be in compliance with ECL-Article 17. II. Disposal by Application Guidance: If rinsewater is collected and applied to the same area that the pesticide formulation had been applied to, without exceeding the maximum dosage recommended, the rinsewater is not a solid waste and, therefore, not a hazardous waste. Basis: Rinsewater handled in this manner is considered to represent a weak application of a commercial product, still in accordance with its normal proper usage. When a commercial product is applied to the land, it is not a solid waste if the application represents the normal usage of the product. In addition, this form of weak application does not require a sPDES permit, since it is deemed to represent product usage. TIbTAT iRM C Marr..0 A. and R. Jahier Pd ' P.O. Boz 542 Mattituck, N. Y. , 11952 July 8, 1994 To all members of the Southold Town Planning Board: We are very upset to hear Mr. Macari is pursuing his plan of development for the former Jazombed land to the north of Laurel Lake . Twenty-seven more houses with families, their friends and guests surrounding and using the lake will be a disaster. We will have another "Dead" lake like Laxe Ronkonkoma - 27 cesspools, 27 lawns to be ferti- lized and treated chemically for weeds and bugs, road run-off downhill to the lake . We understood Laurel Lake was to be the reservoir for the future water supply for Mattituck. This is a small lake with no water flow- ing in or out to cleanse it. The lake has changed drastically in the last 15 years - more vegetation along the shore, weeds in the lake and wetland area, few frogs, and few fish. Boats are often trailered to the water edge and the wheels cause oil slicks. This is not good for the lake water and surrounding area. Motorcycles ride in the water, also. What happened to our tax money that was to purchase such land from developers or the transfer development rights? This is a perfect example of an area that should not be develpped. We who live here try very hard to care for the water and surrounding land. Please help us succeed. JUL 13 SOUTHOLDIWIN PLANNING BOARD Sc Ms LAW OFFICES PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR. 616 ROANOKE AVENUE P.O. BOX 779 RIVERHEAD, NY 11901 (516)727-4900 FAX(516)727-7451 July 1 , 1994 Town of Southold Plannina Board Office Town Hall - 53095 Main Rd. P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Ma'ior Subdivision for Macari at Laurel Dear Sir or Madam: Per your letter of June 21, 1994 (copy enclosed) , enclosed find my client ' s check to the Town of Southold for $00 . 00 . Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Very truly yours , j, ���, � - P TER S . DANOWSKI , JR. PSD:gsg Encls . ! sii. : . i �oSOFF01/( NNING BOARD MEMBERS j�0 Gy ;George ichard G.Ward, Chairman ��i+ x Town Hall,53095 Main Road Ritchie Latham,Jr. p P. O. Box 1179 Bennett Orlowski,Jr. 41 �`� Southold, New York 11971 Mark S. McDonald O! ,yr, �a Fax(516)765.3136 Kenneth L. Edwards T Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 21, 1994 Peter S. Danowski,Jr. P.O. Box 779 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: Major Subdivision for Macari at Laurel SCTM# 1000-121-4-9 Dear Mr. Danowski: The Planning Board has received a cost estimate of 3400.00 from their Environmental Consultant for review of the additional information for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the above mentioned subdivision. This fee must be paid in full by your client before the Planning Board will authorize their consultant to proceed with the review. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, � 44 l 1NN�Gf Richard G, Ward f Chairman " SOUTFiOLO iuN,'N PLANNING 6OARD PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G.Ward, Chairman y i , Town Hall,53095 Main Road George Ritchie Latham, Jr. , P. O. Box 1179 Bennett Orlowski,Jr. :y;i Southold, New York 11971 Mark S. McDonald / a Fax (516)765-3136 Kenneth L. Edwards _.r Telephone(516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD July 7, 1994 Charles J. Voorhis Cramer, Voorhis & Associates Environmental and Planning Consultants 54 N. Country Rd. Miller Place, NY 11764 Re: Major subdivision for Macari at Laurel SCTM# 1000-121-4-9 Dear Mr. Voorhis: The Planning Board has received the $400 review fee from the applicant for your review of the additional information for the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Please consider this letter authorization for you to proceed with your review of the document. The Planning Board has a meeting scheduled for August 22, 1994. Please submit your report no later than August 12th in order for the Board to review it before the meeting. Please contact me if you require any additional information. Sincerely, A 4 Melissa Spiro Planner PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ' Richard G. Ward, Chairman :� d Town Hall, 53095 Main Road George Ritchie Latham,Jr. P. O. Box 1179 Bennett Orlowski,Jr. � } ,w Southold, New York 11971 Mark S. McDonald Fax(516)765136 Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone(516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 21, 1994 Peter S. Danowski,Jr. P.O. Box 779 Riverhead, IVY 11901 Re: Major Subdivision for Macari at Laurel SCTM# 1000-121-4-9 Dear Mr. Danowski: The Planning Board has received a cost estimate of$400.00 from their Environmental Consultant for review of the additional information for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the above mentioned subdivision. This fee must be paid in full by your client before the Planning Board will authorize their consultant to proceed with the review. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, q? // v Richard G, Ward f Chairman CRAMER, V ; SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT 9N _ G CONSULTANTS June 19, 1994 Melissa Spiro Town of Southold Planning Board Office Town Hall,33095 Main Road P.O. Boz 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Additional Information for Final Environmental Impact Statement Macari at Laurel - SCTM No. 1000-121-4-9 Dear Melissi: As per your request, this letter provides a proposal for review of the above noted information Preliminary review finds that substantive information is Included in this submission. The matter is important due to potential health implications of residential development on a former agricultural site. We feel that a budget of$400.00 is appropriate for us to perform the level of review needed to resolve this issue. Our review will be completed within 30 days of authori2adon to proceed. PIease discuss this matter with the Planning Board, and call if you have any further questions. Veryurs, le les J. Voorhis,CPP,AICP JUN20i ' SOi17NOLD 30 NN PLANNING 80A ' 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331.1455 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman � - y Town Hall,53095 Main Road George Ritchie Latham, Jr. P. O. Box 1179 Bennett Orlowski,Jr. ,. Southold, New York 11971 Mark S. McDonald -? a Fax(516)765-3136 Kenneth L Edwards _ y Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 16, 1994 Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. Environmental and Planning Consultants 54 N. Country Rd. Miller Place, NY 11764 Re: Additional information for Final Environmental Impact Statement Macari at Laurel - SCTM# 1000-121-4-9 Dear Mr. Cramer: The Southold Town Planning Board hereby refers additional information in regard to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Macari at Laurel, (letter dated May 20, 1994 from Richard Jackson) as requested in your report dated November 4, 1993. Please develop an estimate of what it will cost to undertake the review and send it to this office by facsimile. If the Planning Board wishes you to proceed with the review, you will be so authorized. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, ;"- -4�-W, Melissa Spiro Planner enc. LAW OFFICESl� PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR. N( 616 ROANOKE AVENUE P.O. BOX 779 / RIVERHEAD, NY 11901 (516)727-4900 FAX(516)727-7451 May 25 , 1994 Richard G. Ward, Chairman Southold Planning Board Town hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Macari at Laurel - FEIS Dear Mr. Ward: Enclosed please find five copies of Mr. Jackson' s report dated May 20 , 1994, for your consideration. Very truly _yours, PETER S . DANOWSKI, JR. PSD:gsg Encls . HAND DELIVERED - r( e s cin S�e� �v CC : Joseph Macari Richard A. Jackson FEVVY/ ,j4 sour r1oLo rrx'N PLANNING BOARD PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G.Ward, Chairman q Town Hall,53095 Main Road George Ritchie Latham,Jr. r�.`,r P. O. Box 1179 Bennett Orlowski,Jr. ° .p Southold, New York 11971 Mark S. McDonald �' >, Fax(516) 765-3136 Kenneth L. Edwards w Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 25 , 1994 Stephen M. Jones Director of Planning County of Suffolk Dept. of Planning H. Lee Dennison Building Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 RE: Proposed Major Subdivision for Macari at Laurel S/S Sound Ave. (Middle Road) ; 2,000 ' west of Cox Neck Rd. , Southold SCTM# 1000-121-4-9. Dear Mr. Jones : Valerie Scopaz asked me to update you on the status of the above mentioned subdivision. The initial Final Environmental Impact Statement was deemed incomplete by the Planning Board on June 8, 1993: The applicant subsequently submitted a revised FEIS, which was reviewed by the Planning Board and the Planning Board' s environmental consultant. On November 17, 1993 , the Planning Board notified the applicant that certain information, as noted in the consultant' s report, was required prior to the Board accepting the FEIS. (Please see enclosed November 17, 1993 correspondence from the Planning Board. ) As of this date, the information requested has not been received. I have enclosed a copy of the revised FEIS dated August, 1993, Books 1, 2 and 3 , for your assistance. Please feel free to call me if you require any additional information. Sincerely, Melissa o Planner enc. SU6. COUNTY OF SUFFOLA n1S (9 ROBERT J. GAFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES MARY E. HIBBERD, M.D., M.P.H. COMMISSIONER MEMORANDUM To: Richard Jackson, Ph.D. Environmental Consultant From: Kimberly Shaw, Senior Environmental Analyst J� Date: January 12, 1994 Re: Macari at Laurel SCTM# 1000-121-4-9 The Office of Ecology has received the groundwater data regarding the above-captioned application. The data is inconclusive and incomplete and is not acceptable for Health Department subdivision review. Although the data indicates excessive concentrations of iron , manganese, and lead, other options (eg. construct an on site community water system or deepen the test wells) and alternatives (reconfigure the subdivision so that all the lots are greater than 5.0 acres) should be considered. Test wells are required by the Department if it has been determined that public water supply is not available or accessible. Test wells must be constructed in accordance with all Department standards if their eventual use for potable supply is anticipated. Water sampling and analyses is performed by the Department provided proper application has been made and testing fees have been paid. Analytical results will be deemed valid for one year from the date of sampling. The Office of Ecology submitted comments on this application in 1989 to the the Town of Southold. As per our agencies review requirements test wells were performed in 1988 and 1989,however, this information is no longer valid. If the Town of Southold is concerned with the potability of the water supply, the applicants can submit a new application to the Office of Wastewater Management. Technical continents and the analysis of the test wells can be made available to the Town. KS/amf cc Southold Town Planning Board / J�� DIVIRION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COUNTY CENTER RIVERHEAD. N.V. 11901-3397 862-2100 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS ri Richard G.Ward. Chairman - _�,^ .�.% . Supervisor George Ritchie Latham,Jr. ' n Road Town Hall, 53095 Main Bennett Orlowski,Jr. - _ '_ _- P.O. Box Mai Mark S. McDonald " 179 Kenneth L. Edwazds Southold, New York 11971 Telephone(516) 765-3938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE rax(516) 765- 1623 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD November 17, 1993 Peter Danowski, Esq. P.O. Box 779 Riverhead, NY 11901 RE: Review of Final Environmental Impact Statement Macari at Laurel SCTM # 1000-121-4-9 Dear Mr Danowski: The enclosed report, written by Charles Voorhis our environmental consultant, was reviewed by the Planning Board at its last work session. Before accepting the proposed Final Environmental Impact Statement as complete for reviewing purposes, the Board would appreciate receiving all relevant information regarding the possible presence of toxins, particularly input from Vito Minei of the Suffolk County Department of Health, the staff of the Cornell Cooperative Extension and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, as noted in the enclosed report. While not critical, we also would appreciate correction of the minor discrepancies noted in the report by our consultant. With regard to the discounting of any consideration of the transfer of development rights option, the Board has decided to proceed with the review of the document as written once the information on pesticides is received. If there are any questions, please contact Valerie Scopaz. Sincerely, Richard G. Ward Chairman enc. .CRANiER, %C \ ' 0 TES • i / 2, ENVIRONMENT ^JG CONS!_'LTANTS November 4, 199, Mr. Richard G. Ward, Chairman Southold Phnning Board "Town of Southold P.O. Boa 11179 Southold, NYC 11971 RE: Macari @ Laurel Review of the Final EIS Dear Mr. Ward: In aa:ordanee with your authoriration,we have reviewed the Finnol Privirotl2ental Impact Stau went for Nfacari @ Laurel dated August 19'93. This document Was revised in order to address a conun.ant letter issued by this office dated May 29, On. Crverall, nearly all of the comments from the letter of Nfay 29, 1993 cave been satisfactorily addressed. One issue of substance seems to cilli be outstanding, and several other minor issues also remain. It is recommended that the appiicant be contacted to determine if additional inicrmadon is available with repgard io pesticide ase on she site. It is further recoirtmended that the `minor iiSues not be used .as a basis for refection of the Final EIS, due to the fact chat they will not charue the relevant +.onchlsiens of the locant nY. The following revi?W identifies all issues fQr yo;tr review and cCll ides.^Pion: III. EMS'CING °`'.N1'IROIYb:'It;N"i'r":L viii1�211t C. Hydrologic Setting 2. Groundwater (page 38; A+.previous conlrlent pertained to soil testing for residual pesticide, du? to public health concerns related to suture residential vise 6.. this site. It•.vas rezlu'�Nsted that the soil analysis be evaluated as regards public health concerns amd that time .�,�'mfollk vurty Department of Heal'h SSrvices be coutacted in, ord r to provi le input reg+ar-jing s 1'•'g meth d to + analysis And M ' ii" 1, l s. 'IC v-is�d ". ' E e, 1IIti.e..t � 0 0 ,'�, c+Il..l}+ I w ,� p ,entizl pub];� ea�ih 7.5sUe A t to e' s'illa! " itY'ir0•ui�.v:tat impact Statement includes a IctIcr frons Mxtln Tr-n t Cd ?l)e Sniio, t�t)ilnly+ Depa1?rr.;ent of Health Services dated Aprii S, 19�a3, T'uis letter indicates that iron and rra;aka.nese corcentratiams exceed the. drin inn water ^,.)a,`1mum e0ut :t ,7 Wmt Ivw't i ,and le_3d levels exceed the federal action level in goundwa.ter samples collected at th-I site. L) ad(lition, Mr. "Trent notes '.hat "analyses for aldicarb residues (errl:klJ,,vete aprs.?rently not---rfoz-wed, but would be critical to a.t y evaj.Ua iou, Gi?wafer C1Ualli� ll.! 4Y1S$ 1rEa°, X317;7 iudicat?,s that "since on,anY)hi ,Iib- pesticides !Vere cetected In the cow.T(isited soil :iu'n,file, water analyses sh.oN 3iSo include; These cornpolinds..-As I ['rent] InfoI7ned y471 [Jfi Icsorj i;l Our telephone cCanversatiOr }:e sicnifir-Vic-0 of the soot fiedins 551!'y121d be cliscq,l -J with Corn-.11 u Cocpera ire Extension oral the N7eW :'vrk St,5,10 D. ,,pas z:cr.t of Envir��;:mentai CO:tSCrVatiOG" >iI. rent's letter also hidicat:S juat the is:� e.`.;. f;)C C4eilc^-^.Sit:; +:Gtic'rn!ng 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE ?, 1.11LLEy PLACE, NY 11744 (SIL) !JI-14155 'rt:cart C;Iaurd 9XV1rw of Fluid FJS water and soil. tests was referred to Mr. Vito N inei at the `'`c i CDHS r 1 h u v•._;�; c. . raiz .�. letter is the oily one included in the appendix is nYsoonII a,, to ije above = s' comment, This letter does not ade�uataly respond to the rammer. :)Mdr?a:.es i,:�� r 1:41-1 Bs W1Lch may require resolution. Fw ermore, input ,nota?Ar. Vito '.rtinci •:'f tll_- tiuu. t 'C. 0"'ogy, Cornell Cooperative extension, and the NY,`�.DECza; beca-4:^-.Dnr0}�iatQ ti8Nct° r from Mr. Treat. The applicant should be couted to detcr-., ze n 'his I;J it eua information i;forthcoming. 'N. ANTICIPATED EAWROtd'A'IF'i' NAL B'I 'AMPs OF:,,Ilo oszD s`'s:v C. Hydrologic Setting 3. Sanitary Waste (page 62-73) Questions were raised Concerning the mefhodoloh; lised La c.72T_aiitinl the concentration of nitrogen in recharge amd ronsiswucy t"er-veer ,"e rprea;- eet computation.,, in Appendix E:and the text an Pages 62-73, nese ?.�sti egancies seem to persist in the re'&ec'i i in iEIS; eowevar, it should l , not ,cd that the Liz,' ot;i=te,cies °x-,Ii not change the conclusion what the project viii not cane rti excc;sive conc,-ntradon of nitragpm in recharge. An additional coa=cnt requested C,==- ,5orA of°l C�`I .=ii4 C7 nues^�*3tiar OF nitrogen in recharge with tl;e statistical basis Iod;,termi what oerceztige- of the time the anticipated 4.43 mi;ligr,am per liter:uitrogen vgouid excaed the 10 mil'Us ai'n pper titer nit:oge.. standard. This information dus not y appear to � includ d ir.the reSistiu }�ih� EIS; however, review of the publication MJ rd Use In Groundwater in flue siiie Barrens of SoutbamptoIi' (HAIR es acid Pt}r ,er inj. ) finds that the L} r;? . r ,a i.'Lr Hughes . r., i le l :G111 :Tc; 10tt 9I n p BII In rechaFge will exceed the 10 I"'i,:lEgrarll per liter stw^idard appro;!]rnat_J; '-'1•S)av%J V't ue tithe. 1 houg4 th;S infor^Jat:t�n wow d ::P 't+S fl11 i.� moi!-_ te:;t ;)t the "j^... tM Lwill]il rc1a„the conclusiea that the nitrogen n roc ?r^e wiilnot caklf;' Mgni";3!t zd' e75e Nnnvio; necta' effect. - V. 1t3ITIGA7CI°:E iYIE.' C i'gS '�rO wrlivlii':;AD. rJwE Ei"a�' tz II,Iia ,"AC.5 OF Tri I ROPOSEID ACTION. C. Hydrologic Setting 3. Sanilary Waste (page 107) The comment requested that tb— discharge a:n t ;gen in ?ch_ a be r^,mpare to on site nitrogen levels, not in a more dist;wt ,nater wurce. i.rru;u%Geri r_cn tom, other szctio s r were rev.sed; however, this sectior. ,vas not rCVA3ed tit he current snbi7iissicr:. 114s deficiency is not considered signui Mamt -rind viiji not c ;ally; 'i.0 + Jlrel�'ic�ns =x'ith TCS aF4� t'a th Propose d project. e VTI. AT.n.XT--4,vm' S TO TNT; PROPOSE fD AC—%AO"7 D. Transfer of Mvelopment Rights wage 18 1) TIC comnent rcquesteO that a('ditional ':alysis rc6prdiiia a Zttrmizfer of dev.-h-p=lerit CRAMER V '� JKA RHI a '§SOCIA T ES i s 2 of 3 ENVIRONMENT l �\ '� "nu CONSULTANTS G i U/{%\k'\ PCvtLtl/QI FtaA- LIS rights or a non-contiguous 281 concept be evalua;:d. TL-c ::4�sed ? "n.] 7 indi tes that although them. are other tax parcels in the TO,%M of Sort alsi t'.'nzJiy the c"Naers ra:.:c, other parcel; are not-,within L�Le same c,vzun *,j of owcc�izin. "i :es V n� s uri i order to avoid further analysis of a TDR. or non-.oauguom 231 . fir;pt. f it is 37doe;i sru that there are no other parcel in a sirnilu ownczstp as the s�.lrcct si.c, tbi>�.ruld a wti'ar to be sufficient reason to not pursue a nor-coatipous SI concept, u wring>e. tee amended site development flan involving a sound Custer propos i r, id lend -edM:,e to the cluster alternative as a means of inktw.ng cnvirnnmental :~p ,to the mxdma"— extent practicable. If the Planning Board is in =eemcnt vvith their, this Fvould be a basis to not require further analysis of TDIF or mon rnc'a cars 2,9 1. The above comments 'indicate that there is only one si,50- ant outstanding issue Kith regard to the Final EIS for Macari @ Laurel. Tmss issue in;•olves conc,-= regard mg potential presence of toxins in soil due to pint agictiku:,i activities. at the site". F urtn-er information should be sought cccsistent Wath the,!.pri8 5, 1;93 letter from. the Suffolk County Department of i-zealot Ser iCes, arid our pr::Tnvus wm nems. he ap i-icznt shoed be contacted to determine if this 1n o-matlGn is f6rtbco4' 'We would. bis ?leas^d to ANXI i' any further irdormation at your request. t1 r c;o ivr t P en�or"u�;t r to be, �z Bev ce to the Planning Board to revs,-w of the a iDai 'FIS for faca , !? L.U4;11, ;.`i--ase caU if you have j anyfurther questions. Very truly yours, i .aril'$J. �-jv'?rl3lS, Cr".P,ftQ° I CRAMER, V('�R� � F0se3of3 SOC ONSU ENVIgCNMENT't� Al' �� � G CONSULTANTS i PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS " SCOTT L. HARRIS > Supervisor Richard G. Wand,Chairman - - •+-;,✓ •_aa . George Ritchie Latham,Jr. 1 - Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Bennett Orlowski,Jr. Mark S. McDonald P.O. Boz 1179 "' Southold. New York 11971 Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE rax(516) 765- 1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD November 17 , 1993 Peter Danowski, Esq. P.O. Box 779 Riverhead, NY 11901 RE: Review of Final Environmental Impact Statement Macari at Laurel SCTM # 1000-121-4-9 Dear Mr Danowski: The enclosed report, written by Charles Voorhis our environmental consultant, was reviewed by the Planning Board at its last work session. Before accepting the proposed Final Environmental Impact Statement as complete for reviewing purposes, the Board would appreciate receiving all relevant information regarding the possible presence of toxins, particularly input from Vito Minei of the Suffolk County Department of Health, the staff of the Cornell Cooperative Extension and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, as noted in the enclosed report. While not critical, we also would appreciate correction of the minor discrepancies noted in the report by our consultant. With regard to the discounting of any consideration of the transfer of development rights option, the Board has decided to proceed with the review of the document as written once the information on pesticides is received. If there are any questions, please contact Valerie Scopaz. Sincerely, Richard G. Ward Chairman enc. CRAMER, VOQRHI$ &iAISOCIATES J�rn ENVIRONMENTALAND PLANNING CONSULTANTS November 4, 1993 Mr.Richard G. Ward, Chairman Southold Planning Board Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 ' Southold, NY 11971 RE: Macari @ Laurel Review of the Final EIS Dear Mr. Ward: in accordance with your authorization,we have reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Macari @ Laurel dated August 1993. This document was revised in order to address a comment letter issued by this office dated May 29, 1992. Overall, nearly all of the comments from the letter of May 29, 1993 have been satisfactorily addressed. One issue of substance seems to still be outstanding, and several other minor issues also remain. It is recommended that the applicant be contacted to determine if additional information is available with regard to pesticide use on the site. It is further recommended that the minor issues not be used as a basis for rejection of the Final EIS, due to the fact that they will not change the relevant conclusions of the document. The following review identifies all issues for your review and consideration: III. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING C. Hydrologic Setting 2. Groundwater (page 38) A previous comment pertained to soil testing for residual pesticides due to public health concerns related to future residential use of this site. It was requested that the soil analysis be evaluated as regards public health concerns and that the Suffolk County Department of Health Services be contacted in order to provide input regarding sampling methodology, analysis and potential public health issues. The revised Final Environmental Impact Statement includes a letter from Martin Trent of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services dated April 5, 1993. This letter indicates that iron and manganese concentrations exceed the drinking water maximum contaminant level and lead levels exceed the federal action level in groundwater samples collected at the site. In addition, Mr. Trent notes that"analyses for aldicarb residues (Temik) were apparently not performed, but would be critical to any evaluation of water quality in this area". The letter further indicates that "since organohalide pesticides were detected in the composited soil sample,water analyses should also include these compounds...As I [Trent] informed you [Jackson] in our telephone conversation the significance of the soil findings should be discussed with Cornell Cooperative Extension and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation." Mr. Trent's letter also indicates that the request for comments concerning 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 1 � i +• Macari @ Laurel Review of Final EIS water and soil tests was referred to Mr. Vito Minei at the SCDHS Office of Ecology. This letter is the only one included in the appendix in response to the above noted comment. This letter does not adequately respond to the comment and raises further issues which may require resolution. Furthermore, input from Mr. Vito Minei of the Office of Ecology, Cornell Cooperative Extension, and the NYSDEC seems appropriate in view of the letter from Mr.Trent. The applicant should be contacted to determine if this additional information is forthcoming. IV. ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION C. Hydrologic Setting 3. Sanitary Waste (page 62-73) Questions were raised concerning the methodology used in computing the concentration of nitrogen in recharge and consistency between the spreadsheet computations in Appendix E and the text on Pages 62-73. These discrepancies seem to persist in the revised Final EIS; however, it should be noted that the inconsistencies will not change the conclusion that the project will not cause an excessive concentration of nitrogen in recharge. An additional comment requested comparison of thepredicted concentration of nitrogen in rechar&e with the statistical basis to determine what percentage of the time the anticipated 4.48 milligram per liter nitrogen would exceed the 10 milligram per liter nitrogen standard. This information does not appear to be included in the revised Final EIS; however, review of the publication"Land Use in Groundwater Quality in the Pine Barrens of Southampton" (Hughes and Porter, 1983), finds that the predicted concentration of nitrogen in recharge will exceed the 10 milligram per liter standard approximately 94-95%of the time. Though this information would be useful in the text of the Final EIS, it will not change the conclusion that the nitrogen in recharge will not cause significant adverse environmental effect. V. MITIGATIVE MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION. C. Hydrologic Setting 3. Sanitary Waste (page 107) The comment requested that the discharge of nitrogen in recharge be compared to on site nitrogen levels, not in a more distant water source. Similar comments in other sections were revised; however, this section was not revised in the current submission. This deficiency is not considered significant and will not change the conclusions with regard to the proposed project. VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION D. Transfer of Development Rights (page 181) The comment requested that additional analysis regarding a transfer of development i Page 2 of 3 CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS Macao @ laurel Review of Final EIS rights or a non-contiguous 281 concept be evaluated. The revised Final EIS indicates that although there are other tax parcels in the Town of Southold involving the owners name, other parcels are not within the same community of ownership. This response is utilized in order to avoid further analysis of a TDR or non-contiguous 281 concept. If it is indeed true that there are no other parcels in a similar ownership as the subject site, this would appear to be sufficient reason to not pursue a non-contiguous 281 concept. Furthermore, the amended site development plan involving a sound cluster proposal would lend credence to the cluster alternative as a means of minimizing environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable. If the Planning Board is in agreement with these statements, this would be a basis to not require further analysis of TDR or non-contiguous 281. The above comments indicate that there is only one significant outstanding issue with regard to the Final EIS for Macari @ Laurel. This issue invoIves concerns regarding Potential presence of toxins in soil due to past agricultural activities at the site. Further information should be sought consistent with the Apri15, 1993 letter from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, and our previous comments. The applicant should be contacted to determine if this information is forthcoming. We would be pleased to review anyfurther information at your request. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service to the Planning Board in review of the Final EIS for Macari @ Laurel. Please call if you have any further questions. Very truly yours, X/ Criazles J. Voorhis, cEp,AICP CRAMER, VOORHIS &ASSOCIATES Page 3of3 ENVIRONMENTAL,AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS CRAMER, VSOCIATES �8 ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS0 ] 7� November 4, 1993 Mr. Richard G. Ward, Chairman Southold Planning Board Town of Southold P.O.Box 1179 - Southold, NY 11971 RE: Macad @ Laurel 1,10V 4 19984 Review of the Final EIS Dear Mr.Ward: in accordance with your authorization,we have reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Macari @ Laurel dated August 1993. This document was revised in order to address a comment letter issued by this office dated May 29, 1992. Overall,nearly all of the comments from the letter of May 29, 1993 have been satisfactorily addressed. One issue of substance seems to still be outstanding, and several other minor issues also remain. It is recommended that the applicant be contacted to determine if additional information is available with regard to pesticide use on the site. It is further recommended that the minor issues not be used as a basis for re'ection of the Final EIS, due to the fact that they will not change the relevant conclusions oto the document. The following review identifies all issues for your review and consideration: III. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING C. Hydrologic Setting 2. Groundwater(page 38) A previous comment pertained to soil testing for residual pesticides due to public health concerns related to future residential use of this site. It was requested that the soil analysis be evaluated as regards public health concerns and that the Suffolk County Department of Health Services be contacted in order to provide input regarding sampling methodology, analysis and potential public health issues. The revised Final En irom6ntal Impact Statement includes a letter from Martin Trent of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services dated April 5, 1993. This letter indicates that iron and manganese concentrations exceed the drinking water maximum contaminant level and lead levels exceed the federal action level in groundwater samples collected at the site. In addition, Mr. Trent notes that"analyses for aldicarb residues (Temic)were apparently not performed,but would be critical to any evaluation of water quality in t�area". The letter further indicates that"since organohalide pesticides were detected in the composited soil sample,water analyses should also include these compounds...As I [Trent] informed you [Jackson] in our telephone conversation the significance of the soil findings should be discussed with Cornell Cooperative Extension and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation." Mr.Trent's letter also indicates that the request for comments concerning 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 Maeari @ Laurel Review et Hurl ELS water and soil tests was referred to Mr. Vito Minei at the SCDHS Office of Ecology. This letter is the only one included in the appendix in response to the above noted comment. This letter does not adequately respond to the comment and raises further issues which may require resolution. Furthermore,input from Mr.Vito Minei of the Office of Ecology, Cornell Cooperative Extension, and the NYSDEC seems appropriate in view of the letter from Mr.Trent. The applicant should be contacted to determine if this additional information is forthcoming. IV. ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION C. Hydrologic Setting 3. Sanitary Waste (page 62-73) Questions were raised concerning the methodology used in computing the concentration of nitrogen in recharge and consistency between the spreadsheet computations in Appendix E and the text on Pages 62-73. These discrepancies seem to persist in the revised Final EIS; however, it should be noted that the inconsistencies will not change the conclusion that the project will not cause an excessive concentration of nitrogen in recharge. An additional comment requested comparison of the predicted concentration of nitrogen in recharge with the statistical basis to determine what percentage of the time the anticipated 4.48 milligram per liter nitrogen would exceed the 10 milligram per liter nitrogen standard. This information does not appear to be included in the revised Final EIS; however, review of the publication"Land Use in Groundwater Quality in the Pine Barrens of Southampton" (Hughes and Porter, 1983), finds that the predicted concentration of nitrogen in recharge will exceed the 10 milligram per liter standard approximately 9495%of the time. Though this information would be useful in the text of the Final EIS, it will not change the conclusion that the nitrogen in recharge will not cause significant adverse environmental effect. V. MITIGATIVE MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION. C. Hydrologic Setting 3. Sanitary Waste (page 107) The comment requested that the discharge of nitrogen in recharge be compared to on site nitrogen levels, not in a more distant water source. Similar comments in other sections were revised;however,this section was not revised in the current submission. This deficiency is not considered significant and will not change the conclusions with regard to the proposed project. VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACHON D. Transfer of Development Rights (page 181) The comment requested that additional analysis regarding a transfer of development CRAMER, VOCIATES Page 2of3 ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS @IAS Review of Final EIS rights or a non-contiguous 281 concept be evaluated The revised Final EIS indicates that although there are other tax parcels in the Town of Southold involving the owners name, other parcels are not within the same community of ownership- This response is utilized in order to avoid further analysis of a TDR or non-contiguous 281 concept. If it is indeed true that there are no other parcels in a similar ownership as the subject site,this would appear to be sufficient reason to notpursue a non-contiguous 281 concept. Furthermore, the amended site development plan involving a sound cluster proposal would lend credence to the cluster alternative as a means of minimizing environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable. If the Planning Board is m' agreement with these statements, this would be a basis to not require further analysis of TDR or non-contiguous 281. The above comments indicate that there is only one si cant outstandir issue with regard to the Final EIS for Macari @ Lamel. This issue involves concerns reding Potential presence of toxins in soil due to past agricultural activities at the site. F er information should be sought consistent with the Apri15, 19931etter from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, and our previous comments. The applicant should be contacted to determine if this information is forthcoming We would be pleased to review adv further information at your request Thank you for the opportunity to be of service to the Planning Board in review of the Final EIS for Macari @Laurel. Pease call if you have any further questions. Very t lyours, CEPry oorl te,. AICA CRAMER, Vev SOCIATES Pap3or3 ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS r SCOTT L. HARRIS Richard O.Wand,Chairman ",a )ice. `:` Superdsor George Ritchie Latham.Jr. Bennett Orlowski,Jr. •; �� Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box Mai Mark S. McDonald =--- 179 Kenneth L. Edwards Southold, New York 11971 Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Fax(516) 765- 1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 14, 1993 Charles J. Voorhis Cramer, Voorhis & Associates Environmental and Planning Consultants 54 N. Country Road Miller Place, New York 11764 RE: Major Subdivision for Macari at Laurel SCTM# 1000-121-4-9 Dear Mr. Voorhis: The Planning Board has received the $550 review fee from the applicant for your review of the revised Final Environmental Impact Statement. Please consider this letter authorization for you to proceed with your review of the document. The Planning Board has a meeting scheduled for November 15th. Please submit your report no later than November 5th in order for the Board to review it before the meeting. Please contact me if you require any additional information. Sincerely, ' " ` 1N w Melissa Sp Planner LAW OFFICES PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR. 616 ROANOKE AVENUE P.O. BOX 779 RIVERHEAD,NY 11901 (516)727-4900 PETER S. DANOWSKI,JR. FAX(516)727-7451 MICHAEL T.CLIFFORD OF COUNSEL ROBERT F. KOZAKIEWICZ October 13 , 1993 Town of Southold �� Planning Board rpWU�/ 53095 Main Rd. , Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Attn: Valerie Scooaz Re: Maior Subdivision For Macari at Laurel, NY Dear Ms. Scopaz : Per your letter of August 27, 1993 (copy enclosed) , enclosed please find my client ' s check for $550 . 00 to cover your consultant ' s fee to review the revised Final EIS regarding the above matter. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Very truly yours, 1 PE E S. DANOWSKI, JR. PSD:gsg Encl . CC : Joseph Macari OCT 1 4 1993 • � SNBFiLc-' MS LAW OFFICES PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR. 616 ROANOKE AVENUE P.O. BOX 779 RIVERHEAD, NY 11901 (516)727-4900 PETER S. DANOWSKI,JR. FAX(516)7277451 MICHAEL T.CLIFFORD ROBERT F. KOZAKIEWICZ OF COUNSEL August 31, 1993 Southold Town Planning Board 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Attn: Richard Ward, Chairman Valerie Skopacz, Planner Re: Laurel Lake - Joseph Macari Dear Mr. Ward and Ms . Skopacz : Per my recent conversations with Ms . Skopacz, I believe the Town is now reviewing my client ' s environmental report , which was hand delivered by Richard Jackson, our environmental consultant . since this project has been ongoing for some period of time, I would appreciate having this matter calendared as promptly as possible . If there is any further material that needs to be provided, please advise. Very truly yours, ). PIER S. DANOWSKI, JR. PSD:gsg cc : Joseph Macari Young & Young, Surveyors Richard Jackson Cramer, Voorhis & Assoc. , Inc . 1 SLI I I~J� �OGyn a PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS rn 2 SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman � ' O�� Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 August 27, 1993 Peter Danowski, Jr. 616 Roanoke Avenue P.O.Box 779 Riverhead, New York 11901 RE: Major Subdivision for Macari at Laurel, New York 11952 SCTM # 1000-121-4-9 Dear Mr. Danowski: On August 18th, five ( 5) copies of a revised final environmental impact statement for the above-named subdivision application were delivered to this office. Since no cover letter accompanied the impact statements, I called you to confirm your client' s intentions to proceed with the environmental review process. Subsequent to that call, a copy of the impact statement was sent to our environmental consultants for an estimate of the review fee, which is $550.00. A copy of their correspondence is included for your reference. The consultants will be authorized to proceed with the review upon receipt of the review fee. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, �copa Senior Planne - ` gFict CRAMER, V Su ¢ fl��j�j SOCIATES rS ENVIRONMENT � �/ GCONSULTANTS Post-It"brand fax transmittal memo 7671 N otpeyes . /11 Ca iC'SCOP�L From Co. C7G OQ/Lr Co. Dept. Phone N C./1'11N/,ty Fax N Fax N August 27, 1993 Valerie Scopaz Southold Planaung Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Macari @ Laurel Review of Final EIS Dear Valerie: As per your request, this letter provides an estimate of the cost for review of the revised Final EIS submission regarding the Macari @ Laurel project, The fee for review of the three (3) volumes of the document obtained from your office on August 27, 1993 is $550.00. A significant amount of time has lapsed since prior processing of this document. Since we are in the Final EIS stage, I believe it is important to conduct an adequate level of review to ensure that the document is completely satis£actoty. The requested fee allows us to conduct this review, If you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter,please do not hesitate to call. Very trul rs C axles J. Voorhis,Cr_P,.gtee 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 ��� :_�( SuBFi[E CRAMEATES >ENVIRONMENTgin, ONSULTANTS R, V / Post-it"brand tax transmittal memo 7671 #of pages . To /}LCA rC SCGP/FL From i�h 7G OQ2/ Co, Coo - Dept. phone M N/rtL Fox N Fax N August 27, 1993 Valerie Scopaz Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Macari @ Laurel Review of Final EIS Dear Valerie: As peryour request, this letter provides an estimate of the cost for review of the revised Final EIS submission regarding the Macari @ Laurel project. The fee for review of the three (3)volumes of the document obtained from your office on August 27, 1993 is $550.00. A significant amount of time has lapsed since prior processing of this document. Since we are in the Final EIS stage, I believe it is important to conduct an adequate level of review to ensure that the document is completely satisfactory. The requested fee allows us to conduct this review. If you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter,please do not hesitate to call. Very troll rs 4 C arles J. Voorhis,C13P,AICP AUG 2 7 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 1 - PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ' ti SCOTT L. HARRIS Richard O. Ward, Chairman ..�` Supervisor George Ritchie Latham.Jr. Bennett Orlowski,Jr. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald - P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards Southold, New York 11971 Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Fax(516) 765- 1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 20 , 1993 Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. 54 North Country Rd. Miller Place, NY 11764 Re: Review of Final EIS Macari at Laurel SCTM# : 1000-121-4-9 Dear Messrs. Cramer and Voorhis: Enclosed please find the Final EIS for the above mentioned major subdivision, for your review, subsequent to your report of May 1992 . Please advise us of additional review fees. Sincerely, Richard Ward Chairman enc. August 18, 1993 Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 95 This to acknowledge the receipt of five (5) copies of the revise Final Environmental Impact Statement for Macari At Laurel or review. / i DATE: �p Re resentati e Jed i vere.d by : };chard Jcickson from: Joseph Macari AUG 1 8 1993 Of ot PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairmaned ' ��1ti Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. P ';,a�` Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald � `r' P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 June 9, 1992 Peter Danowski, Jr. 616 Roanoke Avenue P.O. Box 779 Riverhead, New York 11901 - RE: Major Subdivision for Macari at Laurel SCTM# 1000-121-4-9 Dear Mr. Danowski: The following resolution was adopted by the Planning Board at a meeting held on June 8, 1992: WHEREAS the Southold Town Planning Board has reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Statement dated March 1992; and WHEREAS the Planning Board' s environmental consultant, Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, has also reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Statement; Be it therefore RESOLVED that the Planning Board deem the Final Environmental Impact Statement dated March 1992 incomplete, and adopt the report dated May 29, 1992 from Cramer, Voorhis & Associates. Upon receipt of a revised Final Environmental Impact Statement the Board will proceed with their review. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, /r. , f Chairman Encl. CRAMER, V06=k &•yA SOCIATES ENVIRONMENTA ND;,P,,, 1A tN(NG CONSULTANTS t Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. May 29, 1992 Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road &Z . ,� P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 ' � - Re: Macari at Laurel �� - 0 Review of Final EIS A�1, SOUTHR TOWN Dear Benny: PLANNING BOARD As per your request, we have completed the review of the proposed Final EIS for the Macari at Laurel site. The document contains comments received on the Draft EIS, and the applicant's response to said comments. Please note that it is the responsibility of the Planning Board to ensure that the responses to Draft EIS comments are complete and adequate, regardless of who prepares the Final EIS. Therefore, based upon detailed review of the response to comments provided by the applicant, we feel that significant additional information is required before this document could be considered to provide a complete Final EIS. Beyond the SEOR requirements for the Planning Board to file a complete Final EIS, we believe that there is additional information necessary in order to give full consideration to the environmental implications of the project, prior to reaching an informed decision. In general, there are several areas of concern which should be addressed prior to Final EIS acceptance. A comment on the Draft EIS requested soil sampling to determine potential presence of toxins in soils, due to proposed residential use of the site. Analysis of on-site soils found the presence of five (5) pesticides in detectable concentrations, with two compounds (p,p-DDE and p,p-DDT) in concentrations of 130 and 260 ug/Kg, respectively. The applicant should be directed to forward the sampling rationale and methodology and the results to the local Health Department for a decision regarding public health implications of site use. It is likely that SCDHS will forward the analysis to the State Department of Health for consideration; however, the request should originate from the local agency. An additional comment on the Draft EIS dealt with the sensitivity of the site with respect to Cultural Resources. The site has been determined to exhibit extreme pre-historic resource sensitivity. The site is proximate to other documented archaeological sites, and is near water sources and productive areas known to be frequented by aboriginal cultures. The site lies in an area known to yield archaeological artifacts, and indeed shovel probes yielded cultural material in 30 of 211 shovel probes, with definable areas of greater sensitivity. Recovered material not only included lithic material but also suggests woodworking tools, food preparation, stoneworking tools and wampum manufacture. Accordingly, environmental conditions and recovered material suggest a possibility of seasonal or permanent settlement of the site. Several areas with potential pre-historic integrity below the plow zone were delineated in the Final EIS (Figure 2): Due to the documented sensitivity of the site, additional information concerning the extent and significance of the present findings is necessary before adequate site use planning and impact determination Page 1 54-2 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 Macari at Laurel Review of Final EIS can be completed. The applicant may wish to proceed with documentation and recovery of site cultural resources, or provide mitigation through avoidance possible through redesign, in order to maintain identified resources Intact on the site. In review of the applicant's response to this issue provided in the Final EIS, we note that the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation is in concurrence that additional subsurface testing is warranted; however, that office was not supplied with a copy of the Stage IA/IB report, therefore meaningful technical comment was not provided. The extent of further exploration should be further coordinated with NYS Parks Department, through review of currently available material. These issues should be resolved prior to acceptance of the Final EIS in order to provide the Planning Board and involved agencies with information important in the planning process. It is also noted that the response to comments thinly defends the original proposed project, although a revised subdivision (tighter modified cluster) has been submitted with the Final EIS which clearly will have less impact than the proposed project. This revised plan removes Lot 18 from the steep slope and contiguous open space area south of the central kettle, reduces lots sizes, increases open space, reduces nitrogen loading, maximizes wetlands setbacks, and is generally more sensitive to the sites environmental resources. The applicant has voluntarily submitted the revised plan in an effort to mitigate impacts noted in review of the Draft EIS. The Final EIS should support the revised plan based upon the superiority of the revised plan. This could be accomplished through the response to comments which precipitated the design changes, as well as in an additional alternative analysis which the applicant provided with this Final EIS. Finally, in terms of general comments on the proposed Final EIS for Macari, it is noted that the document does not include a reference list for sources of information quoted in the document. This should be included in a revised Final EIS submission. In addition to general comments, there are a number of specific areas of the document which require revision. These comments pertain mainly to the sensitivity of the document in responding to comments on the Draft EIS, as well as more technical questions regarding accuracy and consistency of information presented. Comments are keyed to corresponding pages and sections of the proposed Final EIS as follows: II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Page 5 3. Comment: The comment requested that the applicant address the wetlands regulatory boundary of the Town Trustees. This has not been completed in the reply. 4. Comment: The comment requested that the applicant indicate if proposed landscape mitigation would be completed as part of proposed subdivision improvement, or as part of private lot development. Information concerning planting methodology has been provided; however, the distinction between whether planting will occur as part of the subdivision or private lot use is unspecified. It is important for the Planning Board to determine what landscaping can be required as part of subdivision improvement, as it is more difficult to control landscaping of private lots. III. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Page 14 B. Biological Setting 'n� CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL AND;PLANNING CONSULTANTSPaget Vii// "A _ Macari at Laurel V Review of Final EIS i. Flora 1. Comment: Review of Appendix B-1 finds that wetland area MT-22 is delineated in the easternmost kettle on the NYSDEC map. The eastern kettle does not contain wetlands however, the central one does. Therefore, in order to clarify the wetlands location the Final EIS should make note of the mapping error in the NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Maps. C. Hydrologic Setting 2. Groundwater Page 38 4. Comment: The comment pertained to soil testing for residual pesticides due to public health concerns related to future residential use. Soil analysis was conducted; however, no supported conclusion with regard to suitability of testing, or public health concern was reached. Analysis should be submitted to the NYS Department of Health via the SCDHS for a determination prior to Final EIS acceptance. With regard to analysis the following is noted. The highest soil concentrations and the human contact area would be expected in the upper 6 inches of soil. Soil samples conducted for the Final EIS were composited from unknown portions of four (4) borings up to a depth of 1.5 feet in depth. These samples may no be representative of health related contaminant levels of upper soils. Appropriate agencies should be conducted for sampling methodology and analysis. The document makes note of high iron and manganese in the range of 38.6 to 54.2 mg/1, but incorrectly compares these levels to a 50 mg/l guideline. In fact, the guideline of combined iron and manganese for Class GA waters contained in 6 NYCRR Part 703.5 is 0.5 mg/l, indicating that concentrations detected on the site are excessive and warrant further explanation. D. Municipal Setting 4. Traffic Page 41 2. Comment: The comment requested information concerning seasonal increase of traffic volume on area roads. The response indicates that a worst-case scenario was utilized; however, contact with NYSDOT finds that for seasonal traffic based communities, August daily traffic may be as much as 15 percent higher than June traffic. The Traffic Impact Study does not make note of any seasonal variation whatsoever, and does not provide a worst-case analysis as is purported in both the Traffic Impact Study and the proposed Final EIS. IV. ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION C. Hydrologic Setting 2. Groundwater Page 59 1. Comment: The comment requested further information of the impact of the proposed project on the water quality of Laurel Lake. In addition to information contained in the response, the quality of recharge entering the site (particularly nitrogen) should be considered in the context of groundwater-surface water relationships, should certain water years produce a more southerly component of groundwater migration. 3. Sanitary Waste Page 62-73 1. Comment: The applicant has provided additional computations regarding the concentration of nitrogen in site recharge. Review of this section raises several CRAMER,VOORHI`S &ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL:AND.PLAJNTG CONSULTANTS Page 3 = v:n/ Macari at Laurel Review of Final EIS Y questions with regard to assumptions and values. The irrigation rate of 10 Inches/year noted on Page 67 and in other portions of the document should be referenced. Hughes and Porter (1983) (Land Use and Ground-Water Quality in the Pine Barrens of Southampton) make note of a turf irrigation rate of 5.5 inches/year. In addition, irrigation would be subject to evapotranspiration which does not appear to be included in the calculations. References should also be provided for the pet waste nitrogen based on 0.41 lbs/person equivalent. This section also refers to Appendix E for detailed calculations. Cross reference between the Final EIS text and Appendix E finds that the text refers to a nitrogen fertilizer load of 2.3 lbs/1000 sq ft; however, Appendix E uses 3.51bs/1000 sq ft. In addition, the text refers to a pet nitrogen contribution of 0.41 lbs/person equivalent, whereas Appendix E uses 0.82 lb/person. These discrepancies should be clarified so that the document is consistent. In the conclusion regarding nitrogen impact on groundwater, the concentration of nitrogen in recharge should be compared to water quality beneath the site as determined by on-site monitoring, rather than nitrogen from a more distant water source. In addition, Hughes and Porter (1983) (Land Use and Ground-Water Quality in the Pine Barrens of Southampton) provide a statistical basis to determine the V for a nitrogen in recharge concentration to exceed the 10 mg/1 standard. The project discharge could be considered in this context as an additional means of determining potential impacts. Any changes in the values, assumptions, methods of analysis and determination of impact potential related to concentration of nitrogen in recharge, should be changed in each analysis throughout the document, including Appendices and Alternatives. 2. Comment: The comment requested the background level of nitrogen beneath the site. The response should not assume that groundwater beneath the site is similar to the Captain Kidd water supply, when this is directly contradicted by more accurate and specific on-site data. 9. Comment: The new well sample should be reviewed as compared to the 0.5 mg/l combined iron and manganese guideline. D. Municipal Setting 4. Traffic Page 84-85 1. Comment: The comment pointed out the discrepancy between the traffic study build out evaluation based on 2years, and the Draft EIS project occupancy schedule based on 5 years. The response indicates 'It is common to use a two year interval between existing and built conditions". While it may be common to perform analysis based on a two year build out, proper analysis would at to make the build out analysis year consistent with the specific project. In addition, the Traffic Study (Page 4; DEIS Appendix D), indicates that, "Traffic impact studies are intended to examine the worst case situation". Certainly projecting the rowth rate over a longer period of time which is more consistent with the expected build out year would constitute both amore appropriate methodology and a worst case scenario. The response should be modified to address the comment. CRAMER, VOORHIS, & ASSOCIATES Page ENVIRONMENTAL-AND PLANNI�G CONSULTANTS Macari at Laurel Review of Final EIS • 2. Comment: The comment requested mitigation for a degradation of Level of Service from B to C at the intersection of Sound Avenue and Cox Neck Road. The response indicates, "A Level of Service C is very acceptable". The Final EIS should define the Level of Service as regards intersection operational efficiency in support of this statement. V. MITIGATIVE MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION B. Biological Setting 1. Flora Page 92 3. Comment: The comment requested more stringent measures to minimize impact by restricting lot clearing and minimizing lawn areas. The reply did not address this issue, however, it is noted that additional measures could be taken to further reduce impacts. Such measures including: covenanted rear yard buffers, percent of lawn area covenants, etc. should be noted in the Final EIS. C. Hydrologic Setting 2. Groundwater Page 103-106 1. Comment: The nitrogen in recharge should be compared to groundwater nitrogen beneath the site rather than nitrogen in a more distant water source. 2. Comment: The location of the possible future well field site requested by SCWA should be included in the Final EIS. The project is a cluster design, therefore it may be possible to provide sufficient acreage for placement of a well field. In addition, the site is in a core watershed area with high groundwater elevations as compared other areas of the North Fork, and on-site water quality is good with the exception of iron and manganese. The Final EIS should evaluate the feasibility of well field siting in consideration of SCWA elevation and size requirements. 3. Comment: The last sentence in the reply to this comment should be corrected to indicated that sand only could be used for deicing purposes. 3. Sanitary Waste Page 107 1. Comment: Discharge of nitrogen in recharge should be compared to on-site nitrogen levels not nitrogen in a more distant water source. D. Municipal Setting 1. Potable Water Supply Pale 107-117 1. Comment: On-site water quality analysis is available and indicates unsuitable water quality with respect to iron and manganese. The implications of this should be discussed as regards proposed water supply for site in view of Article 4 requirement (4)• 3. Zoning/Land Use/Planning/Open Space Page 123-130 3. Comment: The Department of State comments that the Draft EIS should consider the 44 State LWRP policies. One particular comment involved consideration of Transfer of Development Rights to preserve the parcel. The applicant has responded that the project proponent owns other acreage in Southold; however, Southold does not have a TDR program in place. The possibility of utilizing NYS Town Law 281, CRAMER, VOORHIS &ASSOCIATES Page ENVIRONMENTAL.AND,PLANNING CONSULTANTS �.= 6iilll 1AA Macari at Laurel Review of Final EIS for a yield shift between non-contiguous parcels owned by the same party should be explored as a means of achieving the same objective. With regard to Policy 23, the response should be amended as necessary based on additional evaluation of cultural resources. With regard to Policy 26, the applicant should discuss the fact that only approximately 50 percent of the parcel contains prime agricultural soil, and the balance of the site contains valuable wetlands and unique geologic features associated with Laurel Lake and its environs. Therefore the appropriateness of preserving the site for agricultural use in view of other factors must be considered. Trends in farming on the parcel and area should be stated in relation to possible inability to conserve and protect agricultural use of the site. 5. Cultural/Historical/Scenic Resources Page 137 1. Comment: The comment notes the documented archaeological sensitivity of the subject site. Due to the documented sensitivity of the site, additional information concerning the extent and significance of the present findings is necessary before adequate site use planning and impact determination can be completed. The applicant may wish to proceed with documentation and recovery of site cultural resources, or provide mitigation through avoidance possible through redesign, in order to maintain identified resources intact on the site. 3. Comment: The comment indicated that "The DEIS also does not discuss the relationship of the proposed road system to the existing unpaved rights-of-way". Review of the Final EIS finds that this comment has not been responded to. VI. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Page 145 1. Comment: The response to this comment should reflect the findings of further archaeological investigation. VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION Page 145 1. Comment: The consideration of the modified cluster plan should make note of the benefits of this modified cluster which clearly will reduce potential environmental impacts as compared to the proposed project. These benefits include but are not limited to: removal of Lot 18 from contiguous open space area; increase in overall percentage of open space on site; increase in percentage of contipous open space on site; reduction in the concentration of nitrogen in recharge; and, increase in the setback of private land and developed areas from on-site wetlands. D. Transfer of Development Rights Page 181 1. Comment: Additional analysis regarding this alternative should be provided based upon the non-contiguous 281 concept noted above. X. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Page 184 2. Comment: The comment relates to wildlife impacts due to cumulative development CRAMER, VOORHIS, &'ASSOCIATES Page6 ENVIRONMENTAL,AND PLANNICG CONSULTANTS v iv Macari at Laurel Review of Final EIS noted in the Draft EIS. The response relies on public acquisition of lands in the watershed as the only means of mitigation. If acquisition is not feasible what form of contiguous open space habitat could be protected if other land development conformed to open space preservation achieved under the modified cluster for Macari at Laurel. 6. Comment: The comment pertains to the need for comprehensive planning between projects proposed in the area of Laurel Lake. It is noted that the Peconic Homes project includes 45.3 acres located directly adjacent and west of the subject site. Consideration should be given to alignment of contiguous open space between these parcels, and adequate protection of the resources of Laurel Lake and its environs. The comment requests information concerning the Miller property and State land within the cumulative study area,which is not provided in the reply. The status of proposed use of the Miller property should be indicated. This parcel lies between the subject project and Laurel Lake, and therefore, consideration should also be given to alignment of contiguous open space between the site and this parcel, and adequate protection of the resources of Laurel Lake and its environs. In addition, the size and configuration of the NYSDEC lands, Camp Malloy and the McFeely parcel should be determined as related to cumulative impact analysis. 7. Comment: The comment further indicates the need for cumulative impact planning with regard to minimizing impact to Laurel Lake and associated wetlands. It is recognized that the sponsor of the Laurel Lake project is responsible for only one project; however, this project will provide infrastructure, establish development trends,induce growth and set precedent. The cumulative impact analysis is mandated by SEQR and was required in order to provide information concerning the combined effect of development in the area of Laurel Lake. Macari at Laurel is the first significant project to proceed through the EIS process, and therefore will serve as a model for planning and review. It is not sufficient to indicate that other projects are inactive, as it is likely that other projects will become active as Macari proceeds through the review process. The response to the comment on Pale 190 provides no useful information for Planning Board consideration in determining cumulative and secondary impacts. The applicant is urged to provide further analysis with regard to positive and negative cumulative impacts as was requested in scoping sessions and review comments on the Draft EIS. This letter constitutes our review of the Final EIS submission for Macari at Laurel. We feel that the applicant has not provided sufficient information in response to comments based on the current submission. This letter is advisory to the Planning Board, and I would be pleased to meet with the Board to discuss any aspect of this letter at your request. If the Board in consideration of this letter is in agreement with our findings, you may wish to forward this correspondence to the applicant to serve as a guide for revision to the Final EIS. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Board with input concerning this project. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Very t Yrs, -/ arles J. Voorhis, CEP,AICP 1A N (.1 CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES Pagel ENVIRONMENTAL AND,PLANNING CONSULTANTS CRAMER, V R OCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS May 29, 1992 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road L b Q d P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 , 2 Re: Macari at Laurel Review of Final EIS 4Z� SOUTHOID TOWN PIANNINO BOARD Dear Benny: As per your request,we have completed the review of the proposed Final EIS for the Macari at Laurel site. The document contains comments received on the Draft EIS, and the applicant's response to said comments. Please note that it is the responsibility of the Planning Board to ensure that the responses to Draft EIS comments are complete and adequate, regardless of who prepares the Final EIS. Therefore, based upon detailed review of the response to comments provided by the applicant,we feel that significant additional information is required before this document could be considered to provide a complete Final EIS. Beyond the SEQR requirements for the Planning Board to file a complete Final EIS, we believe that there is additional information necessary in order to give full consideration to the environmental implications of the project, prior to reaching an informed decision. In general, there are several areas of concern which should be addressed prior to Final EIS acceptance. A comment on the Draft EIS requested soil samplin&to determine potential presence of toxins in soils, due to proposed residential use of the site. Analysis of on-site soils found the presence of five (5) pesticides in detectable concentrations, with two compounds (p,p-DDE and p,p-DDT) in concentrations of 130 and 260 ug/Kg, respectively. The applicant should be directed to forward the sampling rationale and methodology and the results to the local Health Department for a decision regarding public health implications of site use. It is likely that SCDHS will forward the analysis to the State Department of Health for consideration; however, the request should originate from the local agency. An additional comment on the Draft EIS dealt with the sensitivity of the site with respect to Cultural Resources. The site has been determined to exhibit extreme pre-historic resource sensitivity. The site is proximate to other documented archaeological sites, and is near water sources and productive areas known to be frequented by aboriginal cultures. The site lies in an area known to yield archaeological artifacts, and indeed shovel probes yielded cultural material in 30 of 211 shovel probes,with definable areas of greater sensitivity. Recovered material not only included lithic material but also suggests woodworking tools, food preparation, stoneworking tools and wampum manufacture. Accordingly, environmental conditions and recovered material suggest a possibility of seasonal or permanent settlement of the site. Several areas with potential pre-historic integrity below the plow zone were delineated in the Final EIS (Figure 2). Due to the documented sensitivity of the site, additional information concerning the extent and significance of the present findings is necessary before adequate site use planning and impact determination Page 1 54-2 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 Macari at Laurel Review of Final EIS can be completed. The applicant may wish to proceed with documentation and recovery of site cultural resources, or provide mitigation through avoidance possible through redesign, in order to maintain identified resources intact on the site. In review of the applicant's response to this issue provided in the Final EIS,we note that the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation is in concurrence that additional subsurface testing is warranted; however, that office was not supplied with a copy of the Stage IA/IB report, therefore meaningful technical comment was not provided. The extent of further exploration should be further coordinated with NYS Parks Department, through review of currently available material. These issues should be resolvedprior to acceptance of the Final EIS in order to provide the Planning Board and involved agencies with information important in the planning process. It is also noted that the response to comments thinly defends the original proposed project, although a revised subdivision (tighter modified cluster) has been submitted with the Final EIS which clearly will have less impact than the proposed project. This revised plan removes Lot 18 from the steep slope and contiguous open space area south of the central kettle, reduces lots sizes, increases open space, reduces nitrogen loading, maximizes wetlands setbacks, and is generally more sensitive to the sites environmental resources. The applicant has voluntarily submitted the revised plan in an effort to mitigate impacts noted in review of the Draft EIS. The Final EIS should support the revised plan based upon the superiority of the revised plan. This could be accomplished through the response to comments which precipitated the design changes, as well as in an additional alternative analysis which the applicant provided with this Final EIS. Finally, in terms of general comments on the proposed Final EIS for Macari, it is noted that the document does not include a reference list for sources of information quoted in the document. This should be included in a revised Final EIS submission. In addition to general comments, there are a number of specific areas of the document which require revision. These comments pertain mainly to the sensitivity of the document in responding to comments on the Draft EIS, as well as more technical questions regarding accuracy and consistency of information presented. Comments are keyed to corresponding pages and sections of the proposed Final EIS as follows: II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Page 5 3. Comment: The comment requested that the applicant address the wetlands regulatory boundary of the Town Trustees. This has not been completed in the reply. 4. Comment: The comment requested that the applicant indicate if proposed landscape mitigation would be completed as part of proposed subdivision improvement, or as part of private lot development. Information concerning planting methodology has been provided; however, the distinction between whether planting will occur as part of the subdivision or private lot use is unspecified. It is important for the Planning Board to determine what landscaping can be required as part of subdivision improvement, as it is more difficult to control landscaping of private lots. III. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Page 14 B. Biological Setting CRAMER, V OCIATES Page ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Macara at Laurel Review of Final EIS 1. Flora 1. Comment: Review of Appendix B-1 finds that wetland area MT-22 is delineated in the easternmost kettle on the NYSDEC map. The eastern kettle does not contain wetlands however, the central one does. Therefore, in order to clarify the wetlands location the Final EIS should make note of the mapping error in the NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Maps. C. Hydrologic Setting 2. Groundwater Page 38 4. Comment: The comment pertained to soil testing for residual pesticides due to public health concerns related to future residential use. Soil analysis was conducted; however, no supported conclusion with regard to suitability of testing, or public health concern was reached. Analysis should be submitted to the NYS Department of Health via the SCDHS for a determination prior to Final EIS acceptance. With regard to analysis the following is noted. The highest soil concentrations and the human contact area would be expected in the upper 6 inches of soil. Soil samples conducted for the Final EIS were composited from unknown portions of four (4) borings up to a depth of 1.5 feet in depth. These samples may no be representative of health related contaminant levels of upper soils. Appropriate agencies should be conducted for sampling methodology and analysis. The document makes note of high iron and manganese in the range of 38.6 to 54.2 m&/l, but incorrectly compares these levels to a 50 mgll guideline. In fact, the guideline of combined iron and manganese for Class A waters contained in 6 NYCRR Part 703.5 is 0.5 mg/1, indicating that concentrations detected on the site are excessive and warrant further explanation. D. Municipal Setting 4. Traffic Page 41 2. Comment: The comment requested information concerning seasonal increase of traffic volume on area roads. The response indicates that a worst-case scenario was utilized; however, contact with NYSDOT finds that for seasonal traffic based communities, August daily traffic may be as much as 15 percent higher than June traffic. The Traffic Impact Study does not make note of any seasonal variation whatsoever, and does not provide a worst-case analysis as is purported in both the Traffic Impact Study and the proposed Final EIS. IV. ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION C. Hydrologic Setting 2. Groundwater Page 59 1. Comment: The comment requested further information of the impact of the proposed project on the water quality of Laurel Lake. In addition to information contained in the response, the quality of recharge entering the site (particularly nitrogen) should be considered in the context of groundwater-surface water relationships, should certain water years produce a more southerly component of groundwater migration. 3. Sanitary Waste Page 62-73 1. Comment: The applicant has provided additional computations regarding the concentration of nitrogen in site recharge. Review of this section raises several CRAMER, VR SOCIATES Page ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Macari at Laurel Review of Final EIS questions with regard to assumptions and values. The irrigation rate of 10 inches/year noted on Page 67 and in other portions of the document should be referenced. Hughes and Porter (1983) (Land Use and Ground-Water Quality in the Pine Barrens of Southampton) make note of a turf irrigation rate of 5.5 inches/year. In addition, irrigation would be subject to evapotranspiration which does not appear to be included in the calculations. References should also be provided for the pet waste nitrogen based on 0.41 lbs/person equivalent. This section also refers to Appendix E for detailed calculations. Cross reference between the Final EIS text and Appendix E finds that the text refers to a nitrogen fertilizer load of 2.3 lbs/1000 sq ft; however, Appendix E uses 3.51bs/1000 sq ft. In addition, the text refers to a pet nitrogen contribution of 0.411bs/person equivalent, whereas Appendix E uses 0.821b/person. These discrepancies should be clarified so that the document is consistent. In the conclusion regarding nitrogen impact on groundwater, the concentration of nitrogen in recharge should be compared to water quality beneath the site as determined by on-site monitoring, rather than nitrogen from a more distant water source. In addition, Hughes and Porter (1983) (Land Use and Ground-Water Quality in the Pine Barrens of Southampton) provide a statistical basis to determine the potential for a nitrogen in recharge concentration to exceed the 10 mg/1 standard. The project discharge could be considered in this context as an additional means of determining potential impacts. Any changes in the values, assumptions, methods of analysis and determination of impact potential related to concentration of nitrogen in recharge, should be changed in each analysis throughout the document, including Appendices and Alternatives. 2. Comment: The comment requested the background level of nitrogen beneath the site. The response should not assume that groundwater beneath the site is similar to the Captain Kidd water supply,when this is directly contradicted by more accurate and specific on-site data. 9. Comment: The new well sample should be reviewed as compared to the 0.5 mg/l combined iron and manganese guideline. D. Municipal Setting 4. Traffic Page 84-85 1. Comment: The comment pointed out the discrepancy between the traffic study build out evaluation based on 2 years, and the Draft EIS project occupancy schedule based on 5 years. The response indicates It is common to use a two year interval between existing and built conditions". While it may be common to perform analysis based on a two year build out, proper analysis would at to make the build out analysis year consistent with the specific project. In addition, the Traffic Study (Page 4; DEIS Appendix D), indicates that, raffic impact studies are intended to examine the worst case situation". Certainly projecting the growth rate over a longer period of time which is more consistent with the expected build out year would constitute both a more appropriate methodology and a worst case scenario. The response should be modified to address the comment. CRAMER, VR SOCIATES Page ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Macara at Laurel Review of Final EIS 2. Comment: The comment requested mitigation for a degradation of Level of Service from B to C at the intersection of Sound Avenue and Cox Neck Road. The response indicates, "A Level of Service C is very acceptable". The Final EIS should define the Level of Service as regards intersection operational efficiency in support of this statement. V. MITIGATIVE MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION B. Biological Setting 1. Flora Page 92 3. Comment: The comment requested more stringent measures to minimize impact by restricting lot clearing and minimizing lawn areas. The reply did not address this issue, however, it is noted that additional measures could be taken to further reduce impacts. Such measures including: covenanted rear yard buffers, percent of lawn area covenants, etc. should be noted in the Final EIS. C. Hydrologic Setting 2. Groundwater Page 103-106 1. Comment: The nitrogen in recharge should be compared to groundwater nitrogen beneath the site rather than nitrogen in a more distant water source. 2. Comment: The location of the possible future well field site requested by SCWA should be included in the Final EIS. The project is a cluster design, therefore it may be possible to provide sufficient acreage for placement of a well field. In addition, the site is in a core watershed area with high groundwater elevations as compared other areas of the North Fork, and on-site water quality is good with the exception of iron and manganese. The Final EIS should evaluate the feasibility of well field siting in consideration of SCWA elevation and size requirements. 3. Comment: The last sentence in the reply to this comment should be corrected to indicated that sand only could be used for deicing purposes. 3. Sanitary Waste Page 107 1. Comment: Discharge of nitrogen in recharge should be compared to on-site nitrogen levels not nitrogen in a more distant water source. D. Municipal Setting 1. Potable Water Supply Pale 107-117 1. Comment: On-site water quality analysis is available and indicates unsuitable water quality with respect to iron and manganese. The implications of this should be discussed as regards proposed water supply for site in view of Article 4 requirement (4). 3. Zoning/Land Use/Planning/Open Space Page 123-130 3. Comment: The Department of State comments that the Draft EIS should consider the 44 State LWRP policies. One particular comment involved consideration of Transfer of Development Rights to preserve the parcel. The applicant has responded that the project proponent owns other acreage in Southold; however, Southold does not have a TDR program in place. The possibility of utilizing NYS Town Law 281, CRAMER, VOCIATES Page ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Macari at Laurel Review of Final EIS • for a yield shift between non-contiguous parcels owned by the same party should be explored as a means of achieving the same objective. With regard to Policy 23, the response should be amended as necessary based on additional evaluation of cultural resources. With regard to Policy 26, the applicant should discuss the fact that only approximately 50 percent of the parcel contains prime agricultural soil, and the balance of the site contains valuable wetlands and unique geologic features associated with Laurel Lake and its environs. Therefore the appropriateness of preservin&the site for agricultural use in view of other factors must be considered. Trends In farming on the parcel and area should be stated in relation to possible inability to conserve and protect agricultural use of the site. 5. Cultural/Historical/Scenic Resources Page 137 1. Comment: The comment notes the documented archaeological sensitivity of the subject site. Due to the documented sensitivity of the site, additional in concerning the extent and significance of the present findings is necessary before adecjuate site use planning and impact determination can be completed. The applicant may wish to proceed with documentation and recovery of site cultural resources, or provide mitigation through avoidance possible through redesign, in order to maintain identified resources Intact on the site. 3. Comment: The comment indicated that "The DEIS also does not discuss the relationship of the proposed road system to the existing unpaved rights-of-way". Review of the Final EIS finds that this comment has not been responded to. VI. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Page 145 1. Comment: The response to this comment should reflect the findings of further archaeological investigation. VIL ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION Page 145 1. Comment: The consideration of the modified cluster plan should make note of the benefits of this modified cluster which clearly will reduce potential environmental impacts as compared to the proposed project. These benefits include but are not limited to: removal of Lot 18 from contiguous open space area; increase in overall percentage of open space on site; increase in percentage of contipous open space on site; reduction in the concentration of nitrogen In recharge; and, Increase In the setback of private land and developed areas from on-site wetlands. D. Transfer of Development Rights Page 181 1. Comment: Additional analysis regarding this alternative should be provided based upon the non-contiguous 281 concept noted above. X. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Page 184 2. Comment: The comment relates to wildlife impacts due to cumulative development CRAMER, V5 SOCIATES Page ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Macari at Laurel Review of Final EIS noted in the Draft EIS. T'he response relies on public acquisition of lands in the watershed as the only means of mitigation. If acquisition is not feasible what form of contiguous open space habitat could be protected if other land development conformed to open space preservation achieved under the modified cluster for Macari at Laurel. 6. Comment: The comment pertains to the need for comprehensive planning between projects proposed in the area of Laurel Lake. It is noted that the Peconic Homes project includes 45.3 acres located directly adjacent and west of the subject site. Consideration should be given to alignment of contiguous open space between these parcels, and adequate protection of the resources of Laurel Lake and its environs. The comment requests information concerning the Miller property and State land within the cumulative study area, which is not provided in the reply. The status of proposed use of the Miller property should be indicated. This parcel lies between the subject project and Laurel Lake, and therefore, consideration should also be given to alignment of contiguous open space between the site and this parcel, and adequate protection of the resources of Laurel Lake and its environs. In addition, the size and configuration of the NYSDEC lands, Camp Malloy and the McFeely parcel should be determined as related to cumulative impact analysis. 7. Comment: The comment further indicates the need for cumulative impact planning with regard to minimizing impact to Laurel Lake and associated wetlands. It is recognized that the sponsor of the Laurel Lake project is responsible for only one project; however, this project will provide infrastructure, establish development trends, induce growth and set precedent. The cumulative impact analysis is mandated by SEQR and was required in order to provide information concerning the combined effect of development in the area of Laurel Lake. Macari at Laurel is the first significant project to proceed through the EIS process, and therefore will serve as a model for planning and review. It is not sufficient to indicate that other projects are inactive, as it is likely that other projects will become active as Macari proceeds through the review process. The response to the comment on Page 190 provides no useful information for Planning Board consideration in determining cumulative and secondary impacts. The applicant is urged to provide further analysis with regard to positive and negative cumulative impacts as was requested in scoping sessions and review comments on the Draft EIS. This letter constitutes our review of the Final EIS submission for Macari at Laurel. We feel that the applicant has not provided sufficient information in response to comments based on the current submission. This letter is advisory to the Planning Board, and I would be pleased to meet with the Board to discuss any aspect of this letter at your request. If the Board in consideration of this letter is in agreement with our findings, you may wish to forward this correspondence to the applicant to serve as a guide for revision to the Final EIS. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Board with input concerning this project. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Very t ys arles J. Voorhis,CEP,AICP CRAMER, VSOCIATES Pagel ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS o�OgpFFO(�-CO o PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS A SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Oy ® �`F Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold. New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 May 4, 1992 Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. Environmental and Planning consultants 54 N. Country Road Miller Place, New York 11764 RE: Review of Final EIS Macari at Laurel SCTM#1000-121-4-9 Dear Messrs. Cramer and Voorhis: Under separate cover the Planning Board referred the Final EIS to your office for review. The Planning Board has received the $1, 500. 00 review fee from the applicant. Please proceed with your review. The purchase order will be sent to you under separate cover. If there are any questions, please contact Planning Staff. Very truly yours, onluff dv" t Bennett Orlowski, JrAt- Chairman MS LAW OFFICES PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR. 616 ROANOKE AVENUE P.0. BOX 779 RIVERHEAD, NY 11901 (516)727-4900 PETER S. DANOWSKI,JR. FAX(516)727-7451 MICHAEL T.CLIFFORD OF COUNSEL ROBERT F. KOZAKIEWICZ April 30, 1992 Town of Southold Planning Board Office Town Hall , 53095 Main Road P .O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Malor Subdivision for Macari at Laurel - SCTM #1000-121-4-9 Dear Sir or Madam: l-----------T64,closed find check payable to the Town of Southold for --ft ,5000 .00_,-)per your letter of April 14 , 1992 (copy enclosed ) . Kindly authorize your consultant to begin his review of this project at his earliest convenience. Ve truly yours, fS PETER S. DANOWSKI , JR. P SD:gsg Encl s. HAND DELIVERED o�OSOFF01jr G o� y� PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS rn = SCOTTL. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman C9 • �.T` Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. a� Richard G. Ward 1 Town Hall,,53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 April 14, 1992 Peter Danowski, Jr. 616 Roanoke Avenue P.O. Box 779 Riverhead, New York 11901 RE: Major Subdivision for Macari at Laurel SCTM# 1000-121-4-9 Dear Mr. Danowski: The Planning Board has received a cost estimate of $1, 500. 00 from their Environmental Consultant for review of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the above mentioned subdivision. This fee must be paid in full by your client before the Planning Board will authorize their consultant to proceed with the review. Additional review of Final EIS submissions (which may or may not be necessary) , will be completed at a fee of $300. 00 per submission. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Encl. r� CRANIER, V RN CIATES Su1�FrcL EAVIRONMEN = \� G CONSULTANTS PB MS April 9, 1992 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 5309 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Maca:ri at Laurel Review of Final EIS Submission Dear Benny: We are in receipt of thu above noted Final EIS and your later requesting a price quotoation :or r;view of this document. Pll�ase be advised that the document has significant technical content dee to the complex nature o,f the cumulative impact -%;view coupled with the sensitivirf of the parcel. The fee for review of this proposed Final EIS submission will be $1,,00.00. Additional review of Final EIS subrnisslons (which ,toy or ina� not be necessary)), will b completed at a fee of$300.00 per submission. I would --xpect i}tat the review veli w completed in our Offices within a 30-day period. be If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly you- Charles J. Voorhis, CEP, AICP Ls uj�i D 1 1 i 1992 ?�J SOUTHOLD MV?N 4-2 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 %UFFOtt Gym PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS W SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman �� Supervisor George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone 15161 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 April 14, 1992 Peter Danowski, Jr. 616 Roanoke Avenue P.O. Box 779 Riverhead, New York 11901 RE: Major Subdivision for Macari at Laurel SCTM# 1000-121-4-9 Dear Mr. Danowski: The Planning Board has received a cost estimate of $1,500. 00 from their Environmental Consultant for review of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the above mentioned subdivision. This fee must be paid in full by your client before the Planning Board will authorize their consultant to proceed with the review. Additional review of Final EIS submissions (which may or may not be necessary) , will be completed at a fee of $300. 00 per submission. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. lqs Chairman Encl. CRAMEA, VfAAHIOCIATESENVIRONMEN � G CONSULTANTS Nl April 9, 1992 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Maca:i at Laurel Review of Final FIS Submission Dear Benny: We are in receipt of th;; above noted Final ETS and your letter requesting a price quotoation for review of this document. Please be advised that the document has significant technical content due to the complex mature of the cumulative impact %view coupled with the sensitivity of the parcel. The fee for review of this proposed Final EIS submission will be S1„00.00. Additional review of Final EIS subrnlssions (which mayor may not be ncc ssarV), will be completed at a fee of$300.00 per submission. I would expect that the revic w vwr i be completed in. our offices within a 30-day period. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly you Charles J. Voorhis, CEP, AICP Ri i 31992 Li U S00ioLo roves 's4-2 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, N41ILLER PLACE, NY 11764 {516)1 331.1455 00 j�-uoFIcC CRANIER, VR OCICNSULTANTS ENVIRONMENT April 9, 1992 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Maca;.i at Laurel Review of Final EIS Submission Dear Benny: We are in receipt of the above noted Final EIS and your tetter requesting a price quotoationforreview of this document. Please be advised that the document has significant technical content due to the complex nature of the cumulative impact review coupled with the sensitivity of the parcel. The fee for review of this proposed Final EIS submission will be $1,500.00. Additional review of Final EIS subimssions (which may or may not be necessary?I, will be completed at. a fee of$300.00 per submission. I would expect that the review viii be completed in. our offices within a 30-day period. If you have any fuxtb�3r questions, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly you- Charles J, Voorhis, CEP, AICP 1992 s 1J SOUTHOLO TONIN �lf d0AR0 ,.. 54-2 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 P� LAW OFFICES PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR. 1415 V, 616 ROANOKE AVENUE P.O. BOX 779 RIVERHEAD, NY 11901 (516)727-4900 PETER S. DANOWSKI,JR. FAX(516)727-7451 MICHAEL T.CLIFFORD OF COUNSEL ROBERT F. KOZAKIEWICZ April 6 , 1992 Southold Town Planning Board 53095 Main Road Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Re: Macari at Laurel Lake SCTM #1000 - 121 - 4 - 9 Dear Sir or Madam: I recognize your Board has received the Final Environmental Impact Statement from the Clover Corporation. I would ask that the Board act promptly in reviewing same. I would expect that the Board, after reviewing this matter, will issue a written "Findings Statement" . Very tpqly yours, PETER S . DANOWSKI , JR. PSD:asa cc : Young & Young, Surveyors Joseph T. Macari APR - 7 199 I SOUTHOLD TO" PLANNING BOARD 1 �OSOFFO(�-�O o�O,; Gyp CO2 t 2 SCOTT L. HARRIS PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS - Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman �' ® ��` Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. 4JQl �•a0 Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 April 3 , 1992 Charles J. Voorhis Cramer , Voorhis & Associates , Inc- 54 North Country Road Miller Place, New York 11764 RE: Review of Final Environmental Impact Statement Macari at Laurel SCTM#1000-121-4-9 Dear Messrs. Cramer and Voorhis: The Southold Town Planning Board hereby refers the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the above mentioned subdivision to your office for review. Please develop an estimate of what it will cost to undertake the review. If the Planning Board wishes you to proceed with the review, send aThecactual purchasepurchase order will beauthorizing sent through the mail. If there are any questions, please contact Planning Staff . Ver�y truly yours,, / Bennett Orlowski, jr Chairman Encl. r F� ✓ala ✓ Y5 THE CLOVER CORPORATION 225 Main Street, Suite 202 Northport, NY 11768 (516) 754-3415 April 1, 1992 Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Attention: Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Dear Mr. Orlowski: Per your request, enclosed are five copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Macari at Laurel . If we can be of any further assistance, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation by: RAJ:mcb Richard A. J ckso Ph D. President Enclosures cc: P. Danowski J. Macari H. Young * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. i� P oi� - 2 1992 SOUTHOLD] PLANNING BOARD July 12, 1991 List of Comments Received During the Public Comment Period and the Public Hearing on the D.E.I .S. dated March 1991, for Macari at Laurel Comments from Planning Board Review dated July 5 , 1991 Comments from the Planning Board' s Environmental Consultant, Cramer, Voorhis & Associates Review dated July 5, 1991 Comments from Involved Agencies Letter dated July 5, 1991 from Robert DeLuca, Department of Health Services, office of Ecology Letter dated July 5, 1991 from Mohabir Persaud, Department of State Letter dated July 3 , 1991 from Cynthia Sturner, Member of Conservation Advisory Council Letter dated July 9, 1991 from E. J. Rosavitch, P.E. Chief Engineer, Suffolk County Water Authority. Comments from the Public Adeline Lee June 28, 1991 Barbara Sayre June 28, 1991 Ruth Jahier July 8 , 1991 North Fork Envir. Council (Sherry Johnson) July 5, 1991 Karen Gross July 3 , 1991 Transcripts from Public Meetings June 24, 1991 * Draft minutes. To be presented for adoption by Planning Board on July 15, 1991. 1)`! / W" ENB-JUNE 26, 1991 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 4 DRAFT EIS REGION 1—The Southold Town Planning Board, as lead agency, has accepted a draft EIS on the proposed Macari at Laurel. The action involves a 27 single-family detached housing unit development located on a 63.6 acre site on the south side of Sound Avenue (State Truck Rt. 25) between Kirkup Lane and Laurel Lane, Hamlet of Laurel, Town of Southold, Suffolk County. CONTACT: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Southold Town Planning Board, Town Hall, 53095 Main Street, Southold, NY 11971, (516) 765-1938. POSITIVE DECLARATION REGION 1—The NYS Education Department, as lead agency, has determined that the Proposed Marion Carll Farm Classroom may have a significant environmental impact and a draft EIS must be prepared. The action involves the construction of a one room schoolhouse located at 475 Commack Road, Commack, Suffolk County. CONTACT: C.S. Baltzel, NYS Education Department, CEC, Albany, NY 12234. NEGATIVE DECLARATION .Wv REGION 1—The Town of Brookhaven Town Board, as lead agency, has determined that the following proposals will not have significant environmental impacts. 1) The project involves the inception of the Davis Park Medical District, a seasonal community, locatedon Fire Island, south of Patchogue, Suffolk County. 2) The project involves resolutions authorizing the Town of Brookhaven to file a grant application to obtain federal funding for the engineering and construction to rehabilitate runways 15/33 and 6/24, update signage and expand holding aprons at the Brookhaven Airport and to designate an official representative for the Town to act in connection with the Application AIP 3-36-0108-10-91, Town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County, 3) The project involves the construction of trenches and installation of iron pipe water main. Approximately 245 feet of water main are to be installed on Mill Lot Road north from Evergreen, 2,618 feet of water main on Smith Road between Merrick Road and Northern Boulevard, 1,400 fet of water main on Hawkins Avenue between Union and Henry Avenue and on Henry Avenue east of Hawkins, 140 feet on water main on Head of the Neck Road in Bellport and approximately 1,900 feet of water main on Dunton Avenue south of Atlantic Avenue. A total of approximately 6,300 feet of water main is proposed. These are to be funded from Suffolk County Water Authority earned credits. The project is designed to provide potable water to a number of households which currently use private water wells which are contamined with substances including volatile organics and nitrates. The project is located in the Town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County. CONTACT: Department of Planning, Environment and Development, 3233 Route 112, Medford, NY 11763, (516) 451-6455. ENB-JUNE 26, 1991 PAGE 3 COMPLETED APPLICATIONS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS REGION 1 anyuappli application notice in(Region i, contact theinformation followinregarding 1 REGION 1 DEC Bldg. 40, SUNY Campus, Stony Brook, NY 11794 (516)7517900 REGION 1S Suffolk County Health Dept., County Center, Riverhead, NY 11901 (('16)546883319 REGION 1N Nassau Co. Health Dept-, 240 Old Country Rd., Mineola, NY 11501 (516)5353313 Last Filing Date Office SEOf1 NASSAU COUNTY Bill Watson The applicant proposes to reconstruct 56 feet of timber bulkhead within i 18/91 38 888 S. Long Beach Ave. 7 inches of existng bulkhead and raise the elevation 3 feet above the Freeport, NY 11520 existing bulkhead. Dredge 47 cu. y ds. of material from an exissting boatslip (15 ft. by 33 ft.) and place the resulting spoil between the existing and proposed bulkhead. The project is located on Randall Bay Freeport, Town of Hemsptead, Nassau County. SHPA-1 Permit, Tidal Wetlands, Excavation and Fill in Navigable Waters and Water Quality Certification DEC-1-2820-01288/00001-0 CONTACT Marilyn E. Peterson SUFFOLK COUNTY James Olinkiewicz The applicant proposes to construct a 12 ft. by 16 ft, shed in a lawn 2191 PO Box 99 a minimum of 25 ftlandward of the freshwater wetland boundary. Shelter Island, NY 11965 The project site is on the northwest side of Sundee Glen and Worthy Way intersection, Shelter Island, Suffolk County. SHPA-1 Permit. Freshwater Wetlands DEC-1-4732-00060/00001-0 CONTACT: Robert N. Thurber The applicant proposes as part of a drainage improvement project 7/18/91 3B slip-T 655 Main Street including replacement of drainage pipes and re paving roadways, Islip, NY 11751 the applicant proposes to replace existing culvert pipes with box culverts under Brook Avenue and Reddington Streeton the west fork of NYSDEC regulated freshwater wetland Pentaquit Creek and stabilize the creek bank in the area of culverts with riprap.The project is located in er WetlandsrDEC W1 4728 00729/000n of Islip, Suffolk 0-0ty. SHPA-2 CONTACT KarlenFASMu e Babylon-T In order to minimize erosion potential of an unvegetated, unprotected 1/19/91 3A 200 Sunrise Hwy segment of the Corls River,and at the request of the Department,the Lindenhurst, NY 11757 applicant has modified a previously published project description to increase proposed gabion length from 150 ft. to 300 ft., as part of a project that includes dredging of Elda Lake. The project is located at The Phelps Lane Town Park Complex,north side of Phelps Lane,west side of Spangle Drive,east side of Phelps Lane,Town of Babylon,Suffolk County. SHPA-1 Permit: Excavation and Fill in Navigable Waters, Freshwater Wetlands DEC— n 1-4720-00556/00001-0 CONTACT: Karen d Water aCertification A. Munze ��ogpFFO(,�co , PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS rn = SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Op - Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Q Richard G. Ward ! ( �a Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 July 16, 1991 Peter S. Danowski, Jr. 616 Roanoke Avenue P.O. Box 779 Riverhead, New York 11901 RE: Macari at Laurel SCTM#1000-121-4-9 Dear Mr. Danowski: 1991.The public comment period on the Draft DEIS ended July 5, The next step is to prepare a Final DEIS. The Planning Board feels it would be helpful if you prepared a response to the public comments received to date. As lead agency, it is the Planning Board' s responsibility to determine the adequacy and accuracy of the Final EIS. This will provide you with the opportunity to modify the project, conduct the necessary research, and propose mitigation measures which may be appropriate or necessary to address the relevant comments. A list of the written and verbal comments is enclosed along with copies of the actual comments. In preparing these comments, please consider the following: 1 . The Draft EIS need not be reproduced for the Final EIS, but may be incorporated by reference; 2 . All original comment letters and transcripts should be included; 3 . Comments should be identified as to whether they were made at the public hearing or if they were submitted as part of the written record; 4. Comments should be annotated to indicate the source; 5 . Comments should be summarized without detracting from the nature, scope or intent of the comments; 6. A response for each substantive comment must be provided. Responses should be accurate, consistent, and objective, and should be referenced to indicate source material for conclusions (If it is necessary to revise any part of the DEIS, it would be helpful if this was clarified in the response. ) ; 7 . The most encompassing comment in the document should be addressed first in the responses. Subsequent comments that are duplicative can be referenced to a previous response. The Planning Board would like to you take particular care to thoroughly address the following issues in the final impact statement: 1. The value of this property for watershed protection and for public water supply purposes should be examined closely. Reference should be made to the significance of this property' s inclusion in the Central Suffolk Special Groundwater Protection Area. 2 . Alternative development options should be presented. One option that should be presented is a tighter cluster with 30,000 square foot lots and less linear footage of road. Another option is the dedication of land for watershed protection and supply purposes. 3 . A copy of the data that has been requested by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services should be included in the text. 4 . Proposed use(s) of the open space should be set forth. The State Environmental Quality Review Regulations indicate that a Final EIS should be prepared within 45 days after the close of the public hearing; unless it is determined that additional time is necessary to prepare the statement adequately. If additional time is needed to provide an adequate and accurate response, it will not be necessary for you to adhere to the 45 day time frame. Upon receipt of five ( 5) copies of the responses, the Planning Board will review the documentation in a timely fashion for adequacy and accuracy. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours , B tO lowsk�,1�1/!� Chairman Encls. P6 SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY Edward J. Rosavitch, P.E. Administrative Offices:4060 Sunrise Highway,Oakdale. NY 11769-0901 (516)563-0202 Chief Engineer Fax No.: (516)589-5277 July 9 , 1991 Mr. Bennett Orlowski , Jr . Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Macari at Laurel Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr . Orlowski : The Suffolk County Water Authority has reviewed the DEIS for the proposed Macari at Laurel subdivision and offers the following comments for your consideration. In general, the Authority has no objection to residential subdivisions on two acre (R-80) parcels . However , the cluster proposal shown on Plate 1 , which would allow for 27 units on 40 , 000 sq. ft. (min) lots and maintain approximately 33 . 1 acres of open space , appears to be a better opportunity for both the Authority and the Town. The Town will gain by the permanent dedication of open space and the Authority would like to be deeded a parcel large enough for the future construction of a well field. An appropriate parcel for the Authority, based on land surface elevations and the required sanitary protection radius , would require the relocation of the drainage area out of the open space in the northwest corner of the property (See enclosed copy of portion of Plate 1) . The Suffolk County Water Authority has been considering the aquisition of watershed property around Laurel Lake since 1989 . In October and November of that year , the Authority had two appraisals done of the A. T. Holding Co . property referred to on page 1-4 of the DEIS . It is suggested that municipal aquisition of property available in this area would be an investment in both the water supply and the quality of life . 16 -2- The area in question sits almost directly on top of the regional groundwater divide and has a current water table elevation of approximately 6 feet above sea level (DEIS page III-50) . This makes the site , and any other sites nearby, a candidate for aquisition as watershed property and a potential source of supply for the Mattituck area. If you have any questions , please advise . Very truly yours , E.J . Rosavitch, P .E . Chief Engineer EJR:MM cc : Mr . M. A. LoGrande Mr. W. C . Hazlitt Mr . S . R. DasslercP , r 1 6 o /:' < PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS H x SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman �0�,,,r. Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward S ( Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 July 12 , 1991 Charles J. Voorhis Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. 54 North Country Road Miller Place, New York 11764 RE: Macari at Laurel SCTM#1000-121-4-9 Dear Mr. Voorhis: The public comment period on the Draft DEIS ended July 5, 1991. A list of written and verbal comments is enclosed along with copies of the actual comments for your information. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Encls. M July 12 , 1991 List of Comments Received During the Public Comment Period and the Public Hearing on the D.E.I.S. dated March 1991, for Macari at Laurel Comments from Planning Board Review dated July 5, 1991 Comments from the Planning Board' s Environmental Consultant, Cramer, Voorhis & Associates Review dated July 5 , 1991 Comments from Involved Agencies Letter dated July 5 , 1991 from Robert DeLuca, Department of Health Services, Office of Ecology Letter dated July 5 , 1991 from Mohabir Persaud, Department of State Letter dated July 3 , 1991 from Cynthia Sturner, Member of Conservation Advisory Council Letter dated July 9 , 1991 from E. J. Rosavitch, P.E. Chief Engineer, Suffolk County Water Authority. Comments from the Public Adeline Lee June 28 , 1991 Barbara Sayre June 28, 1991 Ruth Jahier July 8, 1991 North Fork Envir. Council (Sherry Johnson) July 5 , 1991 Karen Gross July 3 , 1991 Transcripts from Public Meetings June 24, 1991 * Draft minutes. To be presented for adoption by Planning Board on July 15, 1991. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS r; �' ` SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman J 'l '�..`*„r `�- Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. .,i Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 Planning Board Comments on DEIS For Macari Subdivision July 5, 1991 SUMMARY S-2 It is believed that Kirkup Lane has a base, and is not just a dirt road. S-3 The acronym "MBS" should be defined. S-4 The last sentence in the first paragraph states that topsoil will be stockpiled for "future use" . The proposed location and time of the use of the topsoil should mentioned. II . DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION II-2 There is an inconsistency in the second paragraph. The projected increase in population is based on each home being occupied by 2 . 3 people. Yet, the proposal involves the construction of 3 and 4 bedroom homes. Unless documentation can be provided to support the 2 . 5 persons per house figure, the projected adult and child population should be revised upward to reflect likely occupancy of 3 and 4 bedroom homes. II-4 The projected population noted in the second paragraph should be revised to reflect the proposed construction of 3 and 4 bedroom homes. III . EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING III-56 The last paragraph needs to be updated to reflect recent findings that septic systemt and residential use of fertilizers may be an equally significant source of nitrates. III-58 The third paragraph notes that Well *S 53333 goes down 275 feet from the surface. Table 1 on page III-60 states that the well goes down 74 feet from the surface. Which number is correct? Figure 9 The map does not show clearly the location of the observation well relative to the proposed project. III-65 The second paragraph does not mention that Southold' s zoning code mandates clustering in the R-80 district where the subdivision exceeds 10 acres in area. III-84 Reference is made to the marginal water quality in the general vicinity. Yet, there is no information given as to the quality of the water on the site. III-88 The year, and date of the traffic volume data is neither noted nor referenced. III-96 The second sentence contradicts information presented on page III-97 that inland camps were occupied during cold weather months. The first sentence of the second paragraph is contradicted by statements made on pages III-93 and 94 that artifacts were found on the site. Also, the site sensitivity map referred to in the third paragraph is missing from Appendix B. IV. ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IV-28 If the anticipated population is changed to be consistent with that which would be expected in 3 and 4 bedroom houses, then the figures for septic effluent should be adjusted accordingly. IV-30 What is the background level of nitrogen in the groundwater on the site now? IV-54 Provide documentation to support the statement that the projected population multiplier is consistent with housing units containing 3 and 4 bedrooms. IV-55 Provide documentation to support the multipliers used in second paragraph. IV-56 Given the slump in the real estate market, are stated market values of $275,000 to $'300,000 reasonable? IV-58 The second paragraph refers to am analysis of revenue versus expenses which is not included in the report. V. MITIGATIVE MEASURES V-29 The responses to Recommendations 8, 9 , 10 , and 11 do not address the recommendations. r V-30 The responses to Recommendations 13 and 14 do not address the recommendations. V-47 Documentation to support the first two sentences on this page is not provided. V-56 The last sentence on this page does not take into account fact that Town Code requires permits for construction within 75' of a freshwater wetland. V-62 Documentation in support of paragraph 3 is not provided. V-64 The last sentences of paragraphs 2 and 3 contradict one another. V-65 The second paragraph in the section titled "Taxes and Fiscal Setting" contradicts the statements made on the previous page. VII . ALTERNATIVES VII-3 The No-Action alternative does not include a thorough and in-depth discussion of development of site for public water supply purposes. The value of this site for watershed protection and public water supply cannot be ignored in this environmental review, particularly given the inclusion of this property in the Central Suffolk Special Groundwater Protection Area. There is no discussion of an alternative other than the proposed layout and the standard yield layout. VII-19 The last sentence in the second paragraph refers to the Town of Brookhaven instead of Southold. VII-21 The third paragraph on this page states that the Suffolk County Department of Real Estate has indicated an interest in acquiring the property, but that the owner of the property must initiate the process. Has the owner pursued this option? If so, what has been done. If not, why? The first and second statements made in the fourth paragraph should be documented. VII-22 The paragraph on the transfer of development rights is misleading. The Town has considered implementing such a program, but does not actually have one at this time. VII-23 The Town' s property records show that the applicant owns other property in the nearby vicinity to which development rights could be transferred, should the Town implement such a program. IX. GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS IX-1 The third sentence contradicts earlier statements that the tax revenues that would be collected by this subdivision would not cover the School District' s costs. X. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS X-36 The cumulative traffic impact analysis mistakenly assumes that some proposed subdivisions will have access to both Sound Avenue and State Route 25 . The Planning Board' s overriding concern is with the lack of discussion of the alternatives; one of which is to reserve the land for watershed protection and public water supply; another of which is to propose a tighter cluster design or a reduced density. Realistic assessment of the proposal is hampered by the lack of sufficient information about the existing water quality on the site. Further, there is no discussion as to whether the groundwater on the site would meet with the Suffolk County Department of Health' s new standard for nitrate. r CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS July 5, 1991 tJ J Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Town of Southold Planning Boardlff s 51591 Town Hall, 53095 blain Road v P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Macari at Laurel SCTM #1000-121.4-9 Review of the Draft EIS Dear Denny: We have completed our review of the Draft Environmental L•rpact Statement for the above referenced project, Attached, please find a letter documenting our comments on the report. Please review this information with the Board, and if you are in agreement, please forward same to the applicant to be addressed in the Response to Comments, for inclusion in the Final EIS for this project. If you have any questions regarding any aspect of this project or our review of the Draft EIS, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very tr y y rss,, vu i'op.�"vJ! harles J.Voorhis enc: Review of Draft EIS 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-11455 To: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board From: Cramer, Voorhis and Associates, Inc. Date: July 5, 1991 Re: Macari at Laurel SCTM #1000-121-4-9 Review of the Draft EIS The Draft Environmental impact Statement (Draft EIS), for the project known as Macari at Laurel, was accepted by the. Southold Town Planning Board on June 4, 1991. The document has been circulated to involved agencies and parties of interest, for the purpose of providing comments on the document for use by the decision mating agency in thepreparation of a Final EIS, and ultimately a decision. on the project. In addition, a Public Hearing was held on the Draft EIS on June 24, 1991, in order to provide opportunity for public comment on the project. A co y of the Draft EIS has also been submitted to Cramer, Vcorhis and Associates, Inc. CVA), as consultants to the Plan nina board, for review of the SEt?I2 documentation. his letter constitutes the review of the Draft EIS for N11acari at Laurel. The following comments with regard to content and accuracy of the document are provided: Description of the Pr?po5d Proiect Pace III-I 1i21 U- The first pararaph addresses required permits. The applicant should determine the jurisdiction ofgthe Town Trustees with regard to freshwater wetlands on the subject parcel. Location of wetlands as determined by the Trustees is important for yield determination and site design planning, The wetlands reflected on Plate 1 were delineated b e the Land Use Company. The regulatory boundary of both the Town Trustees and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation should be determined. Page II-3 indicates that, "Indigenous trees and shrubs will beplanted along the proposed inter- development roadway, within the cleared portions or each SuildhW envelope, and elsewhere within the site': There should be a distinction made between mi9ative planting which is proposed as part of the subdivision improvements (i,e. inter-development road and recharge areas), and mitigative planting which may or may not occur on private lots once the parcel`is developed. Additional information including species density, type and at what stage of subdivision approval mitigation will be implemented, is necessary. Page 1I-5 indicates, ':..the Applicant wishes to exercise his right tp build in direct response to demand': We are in agreement that there are a number of ways in which the parcel could be developped; however, it is extremely unlikely that the entire parcel would be developed at one time. Tberefore, it is requested that a phased development propo_al outlining the estimated stages of development be included in the Final EIS. Given the sensitivity of tTie parcel and the importance of proper clearing and drainage control as outlined in the Draft EIS, it is necessary to consider the project implementation schedule as a means of mitigation. \,,r a s CRAMER, V R SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT AN G CONSULTANTS pn e 1 of G . C T N n 41 T P. - T - -In r Nfacarl at laurel Draft LIS Review v r En_.vir=nm EU_t Irn t5 ��� �'�� 1C VI- Unavoidable - � This section should make note of the potential for irrev-Irsible loss of prehistoric resources not currently identified on the project site. on gP I VTi ?4 The nApplicantJ s oul consider aad �modified cluster irivo;ving:S,G�O to 40,000 square �ot '.nts, in order to avoid steep slope areas on Lot 1$, ma:cimize ,vetlan& setbacks, preserve additional forest, old field and edges, expand open space linkages, and possibly avoid areas of documented prehistoric resources. This alternative would fulfill the stated intention of the applicant and further minimize potential significant environmental impacts on this sensitive site. The density of the Yield Alternative should be adiusted as necessary depending upon the final feasible yield determination of the Plain;ng 13oard. Discussions and computations in the Alternative analysis should be adjusted to reflect proper turf fertilization rates and semage nitrogen values, The Land Acquisition Potential alternative should be updated to reflect the status of potential County acquisition. The project site does meet many of the criteria generally applied to sensitive parcels worthy of acquisition as outiinod an Pages VII 22 to VII-24 of the Draft EIS. Cumulative mI paw I4 One of the wii life im acts associated Neith the �lacari at Laurel project is the loss of 44 percent of old field haitat present on the site, with associated stress cn species occupying this habitat potentially including two snarrow Species of Special Concarn. The potential of this impact to be magnified by cumulative development pressures to the vicinity of Laurel Lake should be explored. If this impact appears to be sigrd ir_ant, mitigaticn measures and/or performance standards should be established to apply to projects which are proposed within the study area. The United States Dept, of the Interior, National Wedatids Inventoly and the NYS proposed Freshwater Wetlands Maps identify surface water and vetland features within the study area exclusive of Laurel Lake and the wetlands associated with the site. The Final EIS should explore the cumulative impact of isolating these habitats by ''islands"of development, with proposed measures to link and protect these features and the exchange of,wildlife and resources within the general Laurel Lake area. The subject project along with the Peconic Homes, jacoby and John VcI'eely projects all front on Laurel Lake. TTie impact of the change in land use density, open space value and configuration, and recreational utilization of the lake should be discussed in more detail as related specifically to Laurel Lake. Appropriate limitations apd:restrictions, and design considerations should be outlined in more detail, Thank you for the opportunity to provide theTown of Southold Planning Beard with comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statentlert for Alacari at Laurel, Please do not hesitate to call if there are any questions concerning this review. CRAMER, V 46 A OCIATES ENVIRONMENT `5G CONSULTANTS Page 5 of 5 i �1 � - y 'J O H ?C• _ 1 IJ J .l 1 f•_ J .a 1.. ll l �1 •� Ca •�' ♦ 4.1 11.1 r Macarl at Laurel Draft EiS Review t Mx=ms - Fa u n a r= V-2312Y- 1 The fifteen (15) recommendations excerpted from Robbins, 1979 are valuable tools toward retaining habitat viability. It is suggested that Lot 18 be relocated in order to include the area in the contiguous open space as a means of better conforming to these recommendations. This has the benefit of increasing the buffer from the eastern wetlands feature, reducing impact to steep slope areas, providiina additional old field and forest habitat (with associated ecotones), and providing a wider linkage through the LILCO easement to open space lands to the south. itig to ion Measurec _Polak-W=&P.* V50 SQ x'-52 Page V-50 indicates that water quality within the area is within. "acceptai,le ranges however, Page III-61 indicates that certain pesticides exceed allowable limits. This should be clarified. The fact that total nitrogen in groundwater is 10 irg,/1 and aldicarbs and carbofuran exceed the limit indicates that water treatment will almost certainly be reouired. Treatment techniques are outlined in the Draft EIS; however, the Final EIS should outline the approval process for water source of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services under Article 4 of the Sanitary Code. Viftation Meas rea_ Ciltural Res()ur+-Ps pai&g V-59 ID V-61 The Archaeological investigation included in Appendix S indicates that 30 of 211 shovel probes (14 percent) yielddprehistoric artifacts, The report concludes that there are, 'Two limited areas ofpotentially intact prehistoric sediments...', and goes on to recommend that Further limited-subsurface excavation in order to full, expose specific areas of sediments below the existing plow zone is needed to define rile limits Qi the st°e."The Mitigation Measures section Page V-61 outlines three possible mitiy�ation measures for this documented sensitivit : "The site layout can be modified suc7i that those areas of sensitivity would be preservedyas "open space'. On lots where only ponions centaur arctiaeologicul se,uilirity, strict building envelope covenants can be i,:tposed in order to preserve the sensitive areas. Finally, physical excavation of the sensitive material can remove the arclaaeologieal sensitiv:.,}front the site, gaining tl:e lutowledge of past occupancy in the graces,'. Further mitigation of prehistoric resources is warranted as indicated in the Draft FIS. The prvfessionai archaeologist should contact the New Xork State Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRkIP) c determine the appropriate and acceptable method of mitigation in fulfillment of the State Historic Preservat,on Act and ininimization of imp acts £vr the purpose of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, If options exist based upon contact with the State, the Aplicant should assist in determining the appropriate mitigation, as the alternatives may affect yield, confipratiort, marketability, project scheduling and expenditures. The Final EIS should contain documentation of contact with OPRI&and should outline an adequate means of mitigation of impact upon prehistoric resources. I i • i Measure_M tdn s5c..h.Col Dis ri . P, 14 X7.64 The raft EIS indicates than revenue generated from the project is no sufficient to directly offset the cost to educate a child, stating that other sources of income may be available to offset this deficit thereby minimizing the impact. Contact should be made with the School District to determine the ability to accommodate additional school aged children. CRAMER, V ��,y,i"R�� \ !/ SOCIATES ENVIRONMEN d` 'N1 �JG CONSULTANTS � /� ��, Page 4of5 • s Macari of laurel Drug EIS Review In terms of the description of the proposed project, this section should outline the yield determination which supports 27.lots. Review of Plate 2 finds that Lot 9 contains surface water and wetlands which may cause this lot to fall below the minimum area necessary in the R-80 zoning district. BjdD2:ir ], , chine_ Flora anA III-24 Page IIII-24 indicates that the freshwater wetlands are regulated b"the NYSDi✓C under Article 24. The NYSDEC regulatory boundary should be establis ed in order to provide an accurate means of determining compliance with reg-alations. In addition, the regulatory jurisdiction and involvement of the Town Trustees should be determinPd. FaunaF= 111-,4IQ III-42 Th stat menhe site for the proposed action is not considered a significant earcel of habitat for the Osprey", should be referenced and supported. The document shhould Indicate how the Osprey was observed in connection with the site. Ospreys tend to be surface water feeders occupying habitats in proximity such food sources. The significance of the parcel in this context should be determined. The statement in the first full paragraph on Page II1-38, 'The field investigation failed to reveal any endangered or threatened species ojwildlife, contradicts other information in the Draft EIS which identified the Osprey, a Threatened species, in association with the site. It should also be noted that habitat exists for a number of other Endangered species and Species of Special Concern. The second full paragraph on Page 111-42 indicates that, 77,c wildlife population potential at the site is somewhat limited by the surrounding land usage as i:�ell as recent activities on the site itself."This statement seems to contradict ot�:er information in the Draft I°IS which indicates that the parcel is an old field with forested and wetlands areas omviding diverse habitat and "edge e�ict': In addition, the surrounding area is prima,ny of lbw intensity usage. The refore it s ou d be indicated how these factors Fimit the wildlife population potential on the site. Physical Imoacks -T000l__F_Z_,raohv Pau 1 Lo IV- This section provides a generalized discussion of topographic impacts. Review of Plate I for the proposed development areas of the site finds that 4E. t 18 is most severely constrained with slopes ranging from 10 to 15 percent in the development area. In addition, this lot is proximate to the eastern freshwater wetlands area on the site. Mitigation measures suggested in Section V require implementation, enforcement and monitoring in order to ensure that no impact occurs. Alternative mitigation such as avoidance of this area is suggested. Bioloeil ]. yacts _ 1 r TV�6 L2 IU The site contains significant prime farmland as outlined on Pages I11-12 and I11-13. The loss of this farmland is regarded as an irreversible impact,which should be recognized as such. This is of course balanced with other issues such as potential for lower nitrogen in recharge associated with cessation of farming. The regulatory wetlands boundary must be established befonga ; conclusions rerding, wetlands impacts may be reached. Lot 18 falls within 75 feet of the suggsted -wetlands boundary, and contains steep slopes proximate to this wetlands. Potential for impact of development of this lot upon wetlands is considered high. \X OR ENVI AMER, VONMENPage 2 of 5 T R DS �!/ ` �GCONSULTANTS b ra - c -� .� u .c. c . ., n ., . . .� an •� i — c r. - .— • wa n ld T r. - - 1 n r Macarl at Laurel Draft EiS Review i 1 impart;_Fauns °-x IVB LQ Iv-l8 The Avian Species impact table beginning on Page IV•11 indicates that the proposed project will adversely affect grassland species inc uding warblers and sparrows, including loss of potential habitat for two Species of Special Concern, the grasshopper and Vesper Sparrows. The fact that the proposed pproject will alter 44 percent of the existin'3 Old Fiefd habitat, impacting those species which rely on this habitat, should be further identified as an impact of the proposed project. Lot 18 contains forest, old field and provides an ecotone between these habitats. In addition, this lot is constrained by slopes. The preservation of habitat or, site could be enhanced if this lot were to be relocated. ,r e� p�,s _Groundwater tations for Turf fertilizer appear to be low. The Draft EIS uses 25 lbs./15,000 square feet, or 1.71bs./1,000 square feet. Standard references including the 208 study and the Non-Point Source Management Handbook, indicate that normal turf fertilization rates are in the range of 2.0 to 2.5 lbs./1,000 square, feet. Accurate and realistic turf fertilization rates should be used in the simulation of nitrogen in recharge for the proposed project, cumulative impact evaluations and alternatives. It is acknowledged that aver rates may be achievable if a fertilizer management plan is implemented on the site. References including, Land Use and Groundwater Quality in the Pine Barrens of Southampton. (Hughes and Porter, 1953), and BURBS - A Simulation of the Nitrogen Impact of Residential Development on Groundwater {Hughes and Pacenka, 1985), indicate a nitrogen in wastewater value of 10 lbs./person;day. The, Draft EIS appears to utilize a lesser figure in computations contained on Page TV-34, and in alternatives and cumulative impact evaluations. Accurate and realistic nitrogen in sanitary waste values should be used in the simulation of nitrogen in recharge. Mitigations Measures • Tonoaraphv p �R V�� Page V-5 indicates that,...in oraer to limit much of the potential regrading, the !:Dosing units will be located within the most leve!portions of the site (old field)," As previously indicted, limiting potential grading on Lot 18 is difficult due to 10 to 15 percent slopes within, the building envelop. IlLig Fa4a V-19. The discussion regarding the lack of potential for the rare plant species Cut-leaved Evening- . (Oenothera laciniata) and Dwarf Plantain (Plantago pusilla) contained on Pages V-18 and V-19, appears to be unsupported due to the documented fact that these species prefer dry fields and clearings with sandy soils as indicated in the Draft EIS, The Draft EIS should indicate what efforts were made to identify the presence or absence of these species on the site. Mitigation Measure : Fr sg h JLr 4V_il S1S PamX1_9 SS2I Significant discussion is provided regarding the use of so[i stabilization techniques to minimize potential impact to the freshwater wetlands from adjacent development areas. These mitigation measures cause effort to be expended in implementation, enforcement and monitoring in order to approach some succ,:ss of mitigation. Avoidance of steep slope areas in proximity to wetlands is recommended as mitigation as previously indicated. i OCIATES ENVIRONMENT AC \ G CONSULTANTS Page 3 of 5 J I_I L -" 1 i•1 I -A - 4 ;_ ... ., r•{ '-. R I '.-' E 4: !-i E N I I P - =i A COUNTY OF SUFFOLK �4aLL� PATRICK G. HALPIN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DAVID HARRIS, M.D., M.P.H. COMMISSIONER July S, 1991 Bennett Orlowski,Jr., Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 RE: Subdivision of Joseph Macari at Laurel SCDHS Ref#88-620, Macari-Laurel SCTM # 1000.121-4-9 Dear Mr. Orlowski: The Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) has reviewed the above- referenced Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). In general, we fund the document adequate with respect to its scope. Based on our review, however, we believe the document should be amended to provide additional information regarding alternative development designs, mitigation measures, freshwater wetlands information, and cumulative impacts on Laurel Lake, Also, it is our understanding that funding for public acquisition of the subject parcel has been approved by Suffolk County as part of the Suffolk County Drinking Water Protection Program (Resolution#717-1990). We believe the availability of acquisition funds should be an inportauu consideration in the review of alternatives to this action and should, therefore, be reflected in the document's discussion of the public acquisition alteinlative. We wish to point out that we have no record of positive de,laration for the subject proposal which appears to have been segmented from those actions migunally included as part of the Laurel Lake GEIS declaration of significance. We recommend that the Board consider a recision, or revision of the original positive declaration for the Laurel Lake GEIS and tht preparation of a positive declaration specifically addressing the Macari proposal. We believe the positive declar«tion also should discuss the COUNTY CENTER RIVCRMCA O, N.Y. 11901.9397 -4 1 r t i_: - _ tti '3 . F. c. �_, Li f= - 0 _. Letter to Bennett Orlowski July 5, 1991 Page 2 reasons for seginenting the subject action from the original GEIS declaration. It is our opinion, that this procedural clarification is briportant to the cotnpliatnce requirements of SBQR.A. Details of our comments are provided below. I. Sanitary Code: 1. Our agency received an application for subdivision approval pursuaiit to the requirements of Article VI of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code (SCSC) in August of 1988. It appears that the development can conform to the unit density requirements of Article VI, which require a minimum lot yield of 20,000 square feet per lot in Hydrogeologic Zone IV, Equivalent lot yield refers to gross land area minus the area of roads,recharge basins, and other itrrprovements which may be necessary to the development of the site. 2. It is important to point out that our agency provides for "clustered realty subdivisions ... which consist of one or more relatively undersized parcels, designed in such a mariner as to allow a subs tant zl uni nproved portion of the tract to stated open and uninhabited." (SCSC; Article VI, 760-601(a)) 3. Wlt=ire clustered subdivisions are served by private water supply systems, lot sizes may be reduced to a minitnurn lot sue of 26,000 sq,ft and conform to the water facilities requirements of Article VI. [SCSC; Article VI, 760-608(l)(e)) 4. In Hydrogeologie Zone :d, clustered realty subdivisions must conform to a population density equivalent of a standard residential subdivision wherein all parcels consist of an area of at least 20,000 square feet. 5. The subject proposal was recently reviewed by our agency's Bureau of Wastewater Management. As a result of this review, it has been determined that well data provided to our agency in 1989 has expired, and that 3 wells will have to be resannpled prior to any final deternination by SCDHS pertainirg to the suitability of the proposed water supply, 6. In addition to well data, our agency is awaiting the following additional information from the applicant prior to continuing its review of this proposal, - Public water cost letter from the local water district - Test hole/test wwell locations and details - Neighboring well locations within 150 h of property lines - Wetlands dctertmulation letter from N-YSDEC - SEQIL4 determination from Town -Applicable well covenants ILI Letter to Bennett Orlowski July 5, 1991 Page 3 7. The applicant must comply with the requiremcnts of the SCSC and all relevant construction standards for water supply and sewage disposal systems. Design and flow specifications, subsurface soil conditions, and complete site p.,-,n details are considered fully during the SCDHS review of the application. 8. SCDHS maintains jurisdiction over tae final location of sewage disposal and water supply systems. The applicant, therefore, should not undertake the construction of either system without Health Department approval. Li. Mitigation Measures: 2. We reconunend that conditions to be placed on dedicated open space within the subdivision be clearly -explained in the document. We encourage the Town to require that dedicated open space be preserved in its natural state and protected from any future clearing, construction, or development. We are particularly concerned Y ith dedicated open space adjacent to Laurel Lake. We believe this area has significant potential for ircrcased human use and disturbance after site development, and feel strongly that the appropriate protection of this area should be fully defined in the DMS. Thus, we recorrunend that the document address any future development plans including parking, dock facilities, boat houses, or any access clearing. Although we have no objection to the provision of appropriate access in this area, we believe Strongly, that access must be carefully planned to avoid disturbance of the site's freshwater wetlands and Laurel Lake. We do not believe that this area is an appropriate location for boat storage or parking facilities and recommend that the Town examine the potential long-tenth use of this portion of the site prior to any approval of the proposed plan. Conditions of approval should clearly define the allowable use of this area and provide the appropriate covenants to assure its protection for the future. 2. We support the proposed action's incorporation of recharge areas which are designed to minimize site excavation and structural modification. We would recommend, however, that design details including landscaputg and erosion measures (thrust blocks, headwall details, etc.) be provided for review. 3. The document indicates that the proposed action will incorporate the use of bi digenous woody species for replanting within a "strategic replotting schedule". We support the use of native plantings, and request that additional infonnation describing proposed landscaping species and their replantutg schedule b; incorporated in the document. T ._I L Letter to Bennett Orlowski July 5, 1991 Page 4 UI. Freshwater Wetlands and Surface Waters: 1. Based on the Tentative Freshwater Wetlands Regulatory .Nlaps for Suffolk County, it appears State-regulated freshwater wetlands (1rTT-2 and NTT-22) are located on this site. As indicated in the document(p• 11-1), the subject proposal will be affected by Article 24 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law (Freshwater Wetlands). We recetr,anend that all freshwater wetlands boundary delineations be approved by the NYSDEC and indicated as such on the project survey. In addition, we support full protection of all regulated freshwater wetlands and their adjacent areas on this site. 2. We note that the document's summary of potential cumulative impacts on recreation(p. X- 40)does not include discussion of increased demand on natural resources such as Laurel Lake. Laurel Lake provides a valuable freshwater fishing opportunity accessible to the public through the NYSDEC access point along the Laurel Lake's south shore. Attention to this public resource is important in the consideration of the subject and nearby developments which can place additional pressure on the use and enjoyment of this passive recreational resource. XV. Alternatives: 1. As stated previously, it is our understanding that funding for public acquisition of the subject parcel has been approved by Suffolk County. We support public acquisition for preservation as a use which will provide the best long-tenn protection of this site's natural resources. It is important to consider this parcel's location within a core watershed area in the Town, and the nearby location of Laurel Lake. Full site acquisition will preserve this parcel in its undeveloped state and provide for long- term groundwater, wildlife and open space resources protection without the requixement of increased public services (notably; increased education costs which are outlined in the document). We believe further artention to this alternative is warranted by the approval of funding, and encourage the Town to carefully consider public acquisition as a reasonable alternative. 2. Absent, the acquisition alternative, we believe a more tightlx clustered subdivision design can afford better protection of this site's wildlife habitat, Steep slopes, freshwater wetlwids, and visual aesthetics than that which is provided by the applicant's clustered subdivision design. The clustered subdivision map included in the document was useful to our review. Based on our evaluation, we believe that with minitnum overall modification, a significantly T I I L_ — "_: 1 T'1 O s.< .. _ `5. _. ] i. �: H - I F_ FI 1'1 E.. o--, i. _ F Letter to Bennett Orlowski • July 5, 1991 Page 5 greater degree of contiguous open space, wildlife habitat, and natural groundwater recharge area can be preserved. We have prepared a sketch plan incorporating the following design modifications, which is enclosed for the Town's consideration. - Overall lot size wducdons averaging approximately 30,000 to 35,000 sq ft (no lots are less than 30,000 sq ft) - .Lots 13,14, 15, 16, 17, 18, & 19 are relocated within existing development areas - The separation distance between the closest residential development and Laurel Lake is increased by approximately 200 feet -The separatian distance between residential development and the site's freshwater pond will be increased by approximately 200 feet - Approximately 8 additional acres are provided within the site's southwestern open space area - Open space reconfiguration;will create an open space preserve of approximately 26 contiguous acres along the properties western boundary acres (as proposed, southwestern open space is contained within two discontinuous parcels of approximately 9 acres each ) - Lots 18 and 19 are relocated from within the adjacent area of the site's freshwater pond - 6 additional lots will have open space frontage or views - 1 flag lot (with access between lots 24 c& 25) will be required in the vicinity of the northern "drainage area" - All steep slopes and wetlands will be protected - All views from Sound Avenue will be preserved -The proposed interconnectittg roadway network is retained - SIight relocation of the northern drainage area will be necessary to accon-unodate one residential lot We believe the sensitivity of this site is well documented by its proposed public acquisition, its location within a core watershed protection area, and its proxinity to Laurel Lake. We believe, therefore, that all efforts must be employed to assure the full protection of this site's :many natural resources through the review alternative development designs which minimize the potential negative environmental effects of this action, V. Summary and Conclusions: Based on our review of the DEIS, we fixed that there are outstandutg issues which are not fully addressed in the document. We request, therefore, that an addendum to the DEIS be prepared in response to the stated concerns of our agency. r r f=: +-i r- n - Letter to Bennett Orlowski July 5, 1991 Page 6 We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal. Should your have any questions or require additional utforenation, please feel free, to contact the Office of Ecology at 548-3060. Sincerely, / n � / Robert S. DeLuca Biologist Office of Ecology cc: Vito Matei, P.E. Louise Harrison Stephen Costa, P,F. Prank Panek, NYSDEC Stephen Sanford, NYSDEC Robert Green, NYSDEC enclosure STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE ALBANY. N-Y. 1 223 1-0001 GAIL S.SHAFFER SECRETARY OF STATE July 5, 1991 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Planning Board �'I_ 5 . Town Nall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Attn: Mellissa Spiro Re: S-91-012 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Macari at Laurel Subdivision Town of Southold Dear Mr. Orlowski: Thank you for allowing us to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed major subdivision of Macari at Laurel, Town of Southold, New York. According to 6 NYCRR 617.9 (e) of the regulations which implement the State. Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) , the actions of involved state agencies occurring in or affecting the State' s Coastal area must be consistent with New York State 's Coastal Policies. Based on our review of the DEIS, the Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization of the Department of State submits the following comments. > The DEIS should contain a section which identifies the State ' s coastal policies which are affected by the proposed action. It should address each policy so as to indicate how the proposed action is consistent or can be made to be consistent with the state's coastal policies. Policy #5 - This coastal policy states that new development should be encouraged to locate in areas where there are adequate public services Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. July 5, 1991 Page 2 and facilities essential to such development. In this regard, it will be prudent for the applicant to further explore the options of re-locating the development in areas that are more conducive to such actions. The concept of the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) , even though, the applicant or one of his colleagues does not singly own other property in the school district or in the Town of Southold should be further investigated. The legal ramifications in attempting to apply TDR to jointly held properties may be enormous, but the preservation of this sensitive tract of prime water-shed lands, designated as potential "open space" should be given the greatest consideration. This parcel Of land is invaluable in its potential contribution for the protection, preservation and enhancement of the ground and surface water quality in the area. In order to preserve the environmental values of the subject parcel, the acquisition option that is available through the Suffolk County Department of Real Estate should be further explored. This may involve an offer by the applicant to Suffolk County to sell the property at a free market price. Depending upon the response of Suffolk County, other measures may be perused to preserve the benefits that accrue in keeping this parcel in its present state. Policy #14 states that activities and development shall be undertaken so that there will be no measurable increase in erosion at the site of such activities or development, or at other locations. The DEIS indicates that re-grading will cause slopes to be disturbed and vegetation to be stripped from the area thus increasing the potential for erosion and sedimentation within and without the parcel. The DEIS does explore in enough depth, alternatives to the grading, cutting and filling and the minimum amount of grading that would be necessary in-order to achieve the project ends. What is least the thero ect amount of grading that would be recibired to accomplish project goals. Similarly, the amount of impervious surfaces that will be created from roof-tops, driveways, and the roadway which will increase surface runoff and hence erosion and sedimentation should be analyzed in greater detail to determine if and where impervious surfaces can be reduced Or eliminated. is it Bennett Orlowski, Jr. July 5, 1991 Page 3 absolutely necessary that driveways be constructed of impervious materials or can pervious or semi-pervious ones can be substituted? An analysis of this component can reduce the amount of impervious surfaces and hence the potential for increased erosion and sedimentation. we would like to commend the preparers of the DEIS in the manner in which they addressed the many and varied issues and hope that our comments will be helpful in the preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Sincerely, Mohabir Persaud Coastal Resources Technical Specialist MP/jtb TOTAL P.04 + sSu�FicC ✓S TO: Benett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Southold Planning Board FROM: Cynthia Sturner, Member Conservation Advisory Council RE: DEIS for Macari at Laurel SCTM# 1000-121-4-9 We have reviewed the DEIS for Macari at Laurel Lake and have a couple of concerns on the information presented therein. We have narrowed our concerns to groundwater protection and wetland protection. The project falls within an core watershed area designed by the County as a Special Groundwater Protection Area, and the town has also given this area a Watershed Protection Zone designation. Information about what the recommendations of the County and the town are as to how to best manage this area are not included in the DEIS and therefore an accurate determination of the impacts from the proposed development of this core watershed area is vague and inconclusive. We believe more information on this is needed before making a determination. We believe that the plan alternatives of this proposed development could be expanded to include a tighter cluster of this development in order to achieve the following purposes: eliminate more impervious surfaces and therefore minimize road runoff, consolidate the open space proposed into a bigger block, leaving as open space the areas that are the most environmentally sensitive in terms of groundwater recharge and wetlands protection. While we commend the applicant for leaving a 100' buffer between development and wetlands we would like to know if the drainage pattern of the wetlands at the site will be disturbed with the proposed development. We Have riot found this answer in the DEIS. Since the wetlands contain endang4ed plant species, we would like to see if there is any possibility of further protecting the ponds by shifting development as far away as possible from them. We believe a tighter cluster away from these areas would achieve this. We also would like to take the applicant up on his offer to construct leaching pools for each catch basin in order to prevent any potential overland flow encroachment into the freshwater wetlands. 'y � • Discharge from septic systems in a core watershed area is also a concern. The section on the DEIS describing the impacts associated with effluent discharge seems to indicate their will be impacts that could not be mitigated appropriately. Therefore we would suggest that a groundwater monitoring program to provide early indication of water quality problems should be incorporated into the plan. Thank you for your attention to our concerns. SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY Edward J. Aoeavitch, P.E. Administrative Off ices:4060 Sunrise Hinhway, Oakdale, NY 11769.0901 Chlalt;ngineer (516)553.0202 Fax No.:(516)589.5277 July 9 , 1991 Mr. Bennett Orlowski , Jr. Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re : Macari at Laurel Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Orlowski : The Suffolk County Water Authority has reviewed the DEIS for the proposed Macari at Laurel subdivision and offers the following comments for your consideration. In general , the Authority has no objection to residential subdivisions on two acre (R-80) parcels . however , the cluster proposal shown on Plate 1 , which would allow for 27 units on 40 , 000 sq. ft. (min) lots and maintain approximately 33 . 1 acres of open space , appears to be a better opportunity for both the Authority and the Town, The Town will gain by the permanent dedication of open space and the Authority would like to be deeded a parcel large enough for the future construction of a well field. An appropriate parcel for the Authority, based on land surface elevations and the required sanitary protection radius , would require the relocation of the drainage area out of the open space in the northwest corner of the property (See enclosed copy of portion of Plate 1) , The Suffolk County Water Authority has been considering the aquisi.tion of watershed property around Laurel Lake since 1989 , In October and November of that year , the Authority had two appraisals done of the A. T. Holding Co. property referred to on page 1-4 of the DEIS . It is suggested that municipal aquisition Of property available in this area would be an investment in both the water supply and the quality of life . JUL1 2 'on' The area in question es almost directly on top q the regional groundwater divide and has a current water table elevation of approximately 5 feet above sea level (DEIS page III-50) . This makes the site, and any other sites nearby , a candidate for aquisition as watershed property and a potential source of supply for the Mattituck area. If you have any questions , please advise. Very truly yours , i., .//// EJ. Rosavitch, P.E . Chief Engineer EJR:MM cc : Mr. M. A. LoGrande Mr. W. C . Hazlitt Mr . S . R. DasslerqOP :UL 12 ( I I NY DDT 7615 ICC MC 121454 4i ACCT. -� BONDED& INSURED PRO.NO. M 14, '7 4 THIRD STREET• GARDEN CITY PARK, N.Y. 11040 �t 1 - (516)746.4348 FAX (516) 746-4012 •(212) 291-2220 DATE H CSL oli�� Go .c P H O/I R- ZIP - BILL J G 'a")iti .2-s a�dv.E C.O.D. BILL TOWN�LiJ.vi m AUTHORIZED BY A AUTH ZE By '� 6 �R.e. C.O.D. A RECEIVED.SUBJECT TO THE .,SIFICATIONS AND TARIFFS IN EFFECT ON THE DATE O E�O IL K PRIORITY IMMEDIATE ❑ SCHEDULED ❑ OVERNIGHT m A EXPRESS ❑ MULTIPLE m ElPACKAGE ❑ ENVELOPE CARTON OTHER WEIGHT N.Y,D.O.T. —1 UNLESS A CAFFERENT VALUE IS DECLARED THE SHIPPER HEREBY RELEASES THE PROVE TY TO A VALUE NOT EXCEEDING ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS VALUE ��. IS 100.001 PER SHIPMENT CHARGES FOR ADDITIONAL VALUE DECLARED SHALL BE AT A RATE OF FIFTY CENTS ISOCF PER ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS IS100.0U1. I' SIGNED C PI UP DRIVER DELIVERING DRIVER TIME OF DELIVERY KIM. PIA T », JGH VWTH 977 DA I CO4F1F3DING TOI THE DEILL PA ENT OF TRANBPORTATION £OMM(SS R@GULA NS. !•� . : wI IPRINT A6TNe?¢ THE A80 tJIEN IONE G D E IVED IN GOOD ORDER AT TIME STATED , �J rJ A OP CL ( ,—s2 �rtiC L_ Ca✓v� Ck— -(4 [ Fl✓rte nJLi/c Lvr ��_, 1 SA, c� ou , F v L G i xa t cL /vu`71ac162 Ck/l11"�ZL�Lz-Cz a c0- .'e'c,�, i PPS 4O0kill • �� �rc!'L-rt Lc.. S /�/�//✓/� //v C" GIiG T � l��D T/=L 7d 1v .7'Q, J r/ rt A w.� '$�.•: i� 17 i * Ruth J"ier to P. 0. Bay 542 P� Mattituel:, New YorL 11952 " r JL 11'r '� � rl�nninrr 3ear� , :�-�utr tl,a . .'fir _.. . _ vorIT nuc ILainst arry furtl7ier evelo,)ment tia around L, urel -,ce . Fouses )n tt .acuri tract � Wa will be the inning - how can ,L ._en refuse the ..,,rr. ns oar,- r v eumr, pr�oe_^ties . Orme_ r:�� llo, I have read that the first house on the shore o-.' a lase is the be-,inning of the remise of that lake . -NOw there are lb houses arDund Laurel L. xn.a tt_ey r;ere 'ouilt Before we new much abc)ut or ,) tt environmental ��blerus . de uho live I_er. tri I-o -7c? 1nt� in an ar fon the lake anisurraa:,a_n�_s . nut anott er Zo i0 'SeS nearbv w.)uli be t disr,star. - tur_, 11ir tie land will be s)ld with lace ri,,l-ts . More families, pues'ts, bats - tre lace ccn 't take it . �iun-off fror,. roars, fertilizer on ia.,rns ani gar lens draining into the lace . r1hPt will t i ;pen to our wells and irinxinp; ,,Tater. p 4y'Lt+a ue F,ctve lives,-: here for 11 Te-,rs and see great r u;-es alread'*. Che store of the lane is full deeds , 1riclud111P' the SC'a ].low wstdr. Where, nuch less Ur Lldl ife - f'-W dilehS, saran c',�nets ^e htitched. 'oiit di-e bet'ore maturity, osprey no la ,^er 1'1,,r ovar for fish. 13ullfrors are seldom ; an or heard. ' the rlanr. Ln? hoard faces a unique challenee in that you have it within .*our power to be ira tru- mental in proservi.nr? an asset for posterity that once gone can never be replaced . x t 0 '�.. ¢ « AAA' , ,jccF zy.' 4 41, t ro M �pv 6 s. y 4 f 5:•� d x,. ivr �Mi"mMis+F' r Y � t Y_ Y.t•. °h � y e }' it K ti D40R'1 H FORK IENVIRCHMENTAI COUNCOL Route 25 at Love Lane, PO Box 799, Mattituck, NY 11952 516-298-8880 July 5, 1991 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr . , Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re : Macari at Laurel comments on the DEIS Dear Mr . Orlowski, I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the comments that I made during the public hearing held on the DEIS on June 24, 1991. The two concerns that I requested be thoroughly covered in the FEIS were the site' s location within a "special groundwater protection area" (SGPA) and the possibility of acquisition. The discussion of these two issues in the DEIS was inadequate. The DEIS identify' s the site as being within the Town' s Watershed Protection Area (VII-21) , but fails to mention the state "SGPA" designation or the recommendation of the Long Island Regional Planning Board that this site (and others around Laurel Lake) be open space acquisitions. I have enclosed a copy of the proposed SGPA map for the Laurel Lake watershed area. The FEIS should recognize this recommendation. The FEIS should also go into further discussion concerning Suffolk County' s Clean Drinking Water Protection Program. It should discuss the program's mandate that each town make watershed purchases with their allocation from the 1/4 cent sales tax revenue, the recent action of the Legislature which approved purchases surrounding Laurel Lake and it shd`uld be determined if the Suffolk County Department of Parks, Board of Trustees have already recommended that the Macari parcel be acquired. a non-profit organization for the preservation of land, sea, air and quality of life printed on 100% recycled paper FRESHWATER WETLANDS The DEIS also stated on page III-24 that Land Use Company staff delineated the freshwater wetlands boundary. I would like to request that the DEC be asked to flaq' the boundary according to their criteria and 'thut which over delineation is greater be used for the purposes of mapping this subdivision. FLORA The DEIS states that 7 rare plants have historically been documented as occurring in the vicinity of this subdivision. Discussion as to whether or not they might still be found here is inconclusive. Additional field work , by a Natural Heritage Botanist should be done to determine if any are present on this site. ALTERS The alternative of a tighter cluster, 30,000 square foot lots, and their placement closer to Sound Avenue should be discussed in the FEIS. The Macari site, and Laurel Lake in general, is an extremely sensitive area. There are endangered species present which according to the DEIS will be permanently displaced (page X-11) and rare plant occurrences that may be destroyed by this subdivision. Further, the site is within a watershed protection area and has been targeted for public acquisition. The tax revenues generated by this subdivision will not cover the anticipated costs in education or for other services. Traffic will be increased in an already hazardous area. For these reasons, the North Fork Environmental Council opposes this subdivision. Thank you for considering our comments on the DEIS. I look forward to reviewing the FEIS when it is completed. Sincerely, Sherry Johpson Program Coordinator Enclosures cc Frank Panek , DEC Kevin Law, Div. of Real Estate i - PLAN CENTRAL SUFFOLK SGPA (North) i . ♦ / Y\%. � /. \ fey �.�/•S .\ '`l. 0 v [2 �_ '1.Ail 9 LOCATION MAP DATE: 1-91 U Rcismie', - LUC C�..'7 Paprced Opun Spnce Ac<ai;lian ORlnidenlid - low Cl.,lk, De..I,prtlenf — PLAN — (urrtJmd - Clusf er Hgh Fcplal end Llwler Lm <reld CENTRAL SUFFOLK SGPA (North) . ® Indudrld Oih:R Pre_uvcd ForrzJcrd /-; R_dooa!e Open spa TR (Trmster of De"!:pmenl) P _p Pamase De,/Fcrm Dev_ Rlchl UI::1=s F Ldnd Cluster 'p Red_m Deep OVocaf Fd and Redevelop Uncerwcter lords Frsforic Dislrid a y I ? ♦ 1 ) i i 1 ��j /ice /%v� i/�i/ (�\� ,<� r._..\. �„c V'_•_ � � LJ (� hi� � LOCATION MAP LATE i ^I ••? ti,e. Page 3 For each year of this Program, not less than eight percent (8%) of the total sales and Compensating use,, tax collected for that year shall be used to reduce the County's general property taxes .'or the subsequent fiscal year by being credited to revenues to taxes assessed and collected by the County of within the County. The funds for this Suffolk from Parcels proportion pu annual basis. " {The funds for thirin directpose shall be guaranteed on an order, s subsection shall come, in descending from the following sources: -, (1)' The total sales and Compensating use tax collected in any given year which shall exceed a .seven percent (7%) increase over tare previous year's actual sales and compensating use tax receipts, using the 1988 receipts as the initial base year; had originally beeei ed orasidedisapproved funds, pursuant to SC12-6(C) , which SC12-6; and/or Payments to the Towns in accordance with C12-5 D (3) An equal percentage reduction of payments to the Towns under ( ) , but in no event to exceed twenty percent (20%) Of such payments; (3) . } (4) Any further surplus funds which exist pursuant to SC12-5(E) D- M (a) A "Suffolk County Environmental Trust Fund" fund") is hereby created. A portion of ("trust the funds acquired under this program shall be allocated annually to this trust fund. The monies in this trust fund shall be made available to the Towns dfills, identifying, allocated for the purposes of capping and closing municipal solid waste lan characterizing and remediating toxic and hazardous waste landfills, and for other purposes as provided in SC12-5(4) . These funds shall be based annually, pursuant to the provisions contained in SC12-50, and Towns ofo100,000the oOromore inwing rPopulat onn; dFifteenlars (dollarst capita for the for Towns less than 100,000 in population. Provided, however, that Per capita nlno event shall the annual allocation to the trust fund exceed forty percent (40%) of the total sales and Compensating use tax collected for that year Pursuant to this Article. Payments to the Towns from this trust fund shall be consistent with the above formula as applied to the respective Towns. In the event that this forty percent (40%) limitation comes into effect, then the payments to each Town shall be reduced in proportion to the percentage share each Town would have received if the forty percent (40%) limitation had not been in effect. The formula for annual payments for any given year, to any given Town, may be exceeded for that year if funds are advanced as described in SC12-5D(5) , but the total of any advanced funds, together with any other payments made to the Towns Pursuant to SC12-SD and any related administrative, legal or borrowing costs, may not exceed the estimated share to any given Town over the life of this program, based upon the formulas provided herein. definitions of (b) For Towns where lands are still extant which fit the "Suffolk County Pine Barrens Preserve" or "Suffolk County Water Protection Preserve, " as defined in sections C12-2A and C12-23 of this Article, no less than seventy-five Percent (75%) of their respective allocations shall be used for acquisitions of such lands. Land County, acquisitions made pursuant to this requirement shall be made by the on the recommendation of the relevant Town, in accordance with the provisions contained within SC12-5A. The County shall retain such amounts from the allocations to the respective Towns which are calculated pursuant to SC12-5D(1) (a) above. (2) An "Environmental Trust Fund Review Board" shall be createc and shall be comprised of the County Executive, each of the ten (10) Towr Supervisors, the Commissioner of the County's Department of Healtl Services and the Director of the County's Planning Department, or thei: respective designated representatives . This Review Board shall b, responsible for reviewing requests and making recommendations for th, allocation of monies to the Towns, from the trust fund, for the cappin and closing of municipal solid waste landfills and/or for the identifying characterizing and remediating of toxic and hazardous waste landfills. (3) The Environmental Trust Fund Review Board shall convene a the earliest possible time to prepare an estimate of the monies that shal be available to the trust fund over the life of the program. 1 Approx . Sub o�ect Owner • Acreage Watersh= OWN OF SOUTHAMPTON cont. *SOUTH FORK MORAINE WOODLANDS-GREAT SWAMP AREA 0900-039-01-018 Richeird G. Hendrickson 16 . 6 15 0900-039-01-019 . 1 David B. Schellinger 4 . 3 0900-039-01-020 Catherine Kelly &' Bridget 27 Kelly 0900-039-01-031 . 5 Aubrey V. Vannostrand 23 . 3 0900-039-01-028 . 1 Mary Louise Masin & 2 . 9 James Fahy 0900-039-01-028 . 2 David B . Schellinger 17 . 3 0900-039-01-043 . 1 David B . Schellinger 13 . 9 0900-039-01-044 David B . Schellinger 6 . 0 0900-039-01-042 David B . Schellinger 4 . 0 0900-039-01-045 Unknown 9 , 9 0900-039-01-046 William Mulvihill 6 . 0 0900-039-01-035 Carl Klepper 5 . 1 0900-039-01-037 Robert B . Bear & Peter Schub 5 . 0 0900-039-01-038 Robert B . Bear & Peter Schub 5 . 0 0900-039-01-039 Robert B . Bear & Peter Schub 11 . 2 09CO-039-01-040 William Mulvihill 4 . 3 0900-039-01-041 Robert B . Bear & Peter Schub 5 . 0 -- C900-039-01-015 Robert B . Bear & Peter Schub 11 . 4 *3IRCH CREEK-OWL POND ADDITION 0900-171-01-020 3 . 0 11 0900-171-01-021 2 , 6 Sub Total 5 . 8 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LAUREL LAKE 1000-121-04-8 . 4 Walter & Marilyn Getz 4 . 7 1000-121-04-8 . 3 Barbara Kujawski 4 . 7 1000-121-05-p/o 4 . 1 Michael at Mary Ada:owicz 20 . 1000-122-02-p/o 025 A T Holding Corp . 10 . 4 1000-125-01-013 Harold Avent . 25 1000-125-01-001 Aldri Assoc . 40 . 6 Budget Acres Estimate Sub Total 276 . 65 X%13-70)000, Exhibit B Total ' 5 , 406 . 653 /No,17M c A * Requires Board of Trustee Approval ( K) In the contractual process, proceeds to come out of' 5100 million bond in Phase I NOTE : COSTS ARE FOR BUDGETARY PURPOSES ONLY. APPRAISALS MUST STILL BE ORDER: COMPLETED AND REVIEWED ON MOST PARCEL$ EXHIBIT B-7 s fi Approx . Stab *Tier Acreage Watershed . OF EOUTHOLD Sim r .l Lake , Laurel 0(:0-125-01-014 Nofo .associates a2 12 * '.0!:0-121-04-009 . 1 Joseph T. Macari 64 . 6 " OCCO-121-04-010 . 1 George 0. Guidi 8 . 2 — .0('0-121-03-007 . 1 Peconic Homes Ccrp. 46 . 9 Budget Acres Estimate °- Sub Total 11 . 7 � y ^� Budget Acres Estimate TOTAL TOWN RECOMMENDED PARCELS 1 , 70"0" . c^ f5�{�x1v N 1,p?)roved by Park Trustees `* :.equires Approval from Environmental Trust Fund Iota: COSTS ARE FOP, BUDGETARY PURPOSES ONLY. APPRAISALS MUST STILL BE ORDEREn- , COMPLETED AND REVIEWED ON MOST PARCELS EXHIBIT A-5 P� Karen E. Gross �s 460 Park Avenue New York, New York 10022 July 3 , 1991 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Macari at Laurel Dear Mr. Orlowski and Planning Board Members: I am writing on behalf of the Laurel Lake Property Owners Association (the "Association") , an organization of the owners of property on Laurel Lake and Mark D. Gross, a member of the Association and a homeowner on Laurel Lake, in opposition to the proposed Macari at Laurel project (the "Project") . The homes of Mr. Gross and many of the Association 's members are located adjacent to or near the site of the proposed Project (the "Site") and Laurel Lake, and would be directly affected by the Project. These comments address the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") submitted on behalf of the applicant for the proposed Project. The Project as proposed would irretrievably alter the character of the scenic Laurel Lake area by converting the present tranquil rural landscape, which is designated as open space in the Town' s Master Plan, into a suburban subdivision with a concomitant increase in noise, air pollution and traffic. ' The proposal also threatens to cause the degradation of the water quality of the groundwater, Laurel Lake, a pristine freshwater lake, and its associated wetlands. I le The DEIS fails to completely identify these and other adverse effects of the Project, address mitigative measures and discuss alternatives. The Project requires further study to accurately determine the nature and level of impacts presented by the proposed development, the cumulative impact of it and the other proposals for the environmentally sensitive Laurel Lake area, and alternatives to the Project as proposed. The major areas of concern are addressed below. A. Water Quality The Long Island Regional Planning Board ("LIRPB") has designated the Site as a Special Groundwater Protection Area pursuant to Article 55 of the Environmental Conservation Law. That statute is designed to protect sole source aquifers on Long Island from further groundwater contamination. I understand that the LIRPB has studied the Laurel Lake area and has recommended that the Site remain open space. As reflected in the attached article from Newsday, the Laurel Lake area has been given top priority for acquisition by Suffolk County under the groundwater protection program established by Article 55. A bond resolution to borrow funds for the acquisition of critical aquifer recharge areas, such as the Laurel Lake area, was approved by the County Legislature on June 12 , 1991. It is critical that the DEIS address in depth the LIRPB 's land use recommendations with respect to the Site, the consistency of the proposed Project with those recommendations and the alternative of acquisition by the County under the groundwater protection program. Although the DEIS refers to groundwater quality in the area generally, it fails to specifically analyze groundwater quality on the Site. The DEIS also does not appear to analyze the cumulative effect of nitrogen levels caused by the Project and projected ambient nitrogen levels in the groundwater in the build year for the Project. The DEIS also fails to adequately address mitigation of the impacts of nitrogen from lawn fertilizers and chloride from road salt on the groundwater, private residential wells, wetlands and Laurel Lake. Eutrophication of the Lake as a result of nutrient loading also should be analyzed. Measures to mitigate the adverse impact of fertilizers, such as restrictions on the amount of lawn areas and the prohibition of the use of fertilizers should be discussed. The DEIS also should address mitigative measures and alternatives to road salt, such as limitations on the use of salt, and/or the use of sand or gravel. B. Potential Use of Laurel Lake as a Potable Water Supply The DEIS acknowledges that Laurel Lake is a potential source of drinking water (DEIS at III-57) but does not assess the critical issue of the impact of the Project. on the future use of Laurel Lake as a source of drinking water. .Tfie DEIS should analyze the present water quality of the Lake, the expected impact of the Project alone, and the cumulative impact of it and other projects proposed for the area on the water quality of the Lake. 2 C. Pesticides As the Site was used for farming from 1920 until the early 1980 ' s, both the groundwater and the soil should be tested for residual pesticides. Soil testing is critical for a proposed residential development because children may ingest contaminated soil while playing out-of-doors. D. Wetlands The DEIS does not describe the wetlands on the Site in sufficient detail. Notably, Parts III B. and C. of the DEIS, which address the present biological and hydrological setting, do not contain a section on wetlands. The DEIS should include a map showing New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("NYSDEC") designated wetlands and adjacent areas. It should indicate the activities for which a NYSDEC freshwater wetlands permit may be required and discuss how the proposed Project would satisfy NYSDEC' s regulatory requirements for permit issuance. The DEIS should also indicate whether the wetlands are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps") pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, whether a Corps permit would be required, and if so, how the Project would meet the federal regulatory requirements. The size of a appropriate buffer to protect wetland areas also should be addressed. (The DEIS states that no roadways or houses would be built within 50 feet of wetlands but contains no further analysis. ) (DEIS at V-56 . ) E. Flora and Fauna The DEIS should include more stringent measures to minimize the impact of the Project on existing vegetation and wildlife, as by restricting clearing on the lots, further minimizing lawn areas, and preserving avian habitats and wildlife corridors. The DEIS does not, but should, include the results of a recent on-site field survey and specify the date of that survey. In this regard, the DEIS fails to adequately address the impact of the Project on the wildlife which occupy the wetlands surrounding Laurel Lake. These wetlands are directly connected to the on-site pond adjacent to Laurel Lake. For example, the great blue heron has been observed in the Laurel Lake wetlands, but does not appear to be mentioned in the DEIS. F. Traffic There are numerous deficiencies in the Traffic Study (Appendix D) . The Study does not address variations in traffic volume during the year and the marked increase in traffic during the summer months. In particular, the Study does not state the 3 dates that traffic volume data was collected. Traffic volume data should have been collected during the summer months, when traffic volume is highest. In addition, the projected traffic volume calculations do not include projected traffic from the Miller and Jacoby development proposals, which the Planning Board required to be included in a generic environmental impact statement ("GEIS") for the proposed developments in the Laurel Lake area. The use of a mid-1992 build year is not appropriate in view of the applicant 's proposed five-year construction schedule. Further traffic analysis is required to reflect summer traffic conditions, the impact of the Miller and Jacoby proposals, and a 1996 or later build year. The Traffic Study indicates that the level of service on Sound Avenue and Cox Neck Road would be reduced from B to C if all proposals addressed in the Study are built. The DEIS should address alternatives which would reduce that adverse impact on traffic, including a development with lower density. There are also two errors in the Traffic Study which should be corrected. The location map does not depict the Macari proposal. In addition, Figure 3 presumably shows existing ambient traffic projected to 1992 , and not 1990 as stated on page 13 . G. Erosion and Sediment Control Due to the unavoidable effect of siltation from the proposed regrading activities, the DEIS should include a specific soil erosion and sediment control plan which contains a detailed discussion of mitigative measures which would prevent erosion and protect Laurel Lake and the wetlands from siltation during the proposed 5-year period of construction. H. Scenic Resources The DEIS does not adequately address the visibility of the proposed Project at different times of year from Sound Avenue or the rights-of-way that present residents use for access to their homes. The DEIS also does not discuss the relationship of the proposed road system to the existing unpaved rights-of-way. Alternatives providing for larger buffers along Sound Avenue, the rights-of-way and the proposed road system to screen the project and reduce noise, should be addressed. I. Alternatives A crucial feature of a DEIS is a discussion of alternatives which may reduce the adverse impacts of the project. The DEIS fails miserably in this regard. The only construction alternatives discussed are a 27 lot subdivision and 27 unit cluster development. In addition to the alternative of acquisition by the 4 County (See Item A) , the DEIS should discuss design alternatives which would further mitigate the adverse effects of the Project on flora, fauna, Laurel Lake, wetlands and water quality by increasing buffer areas and maximizing protection of natural areas. The discussion of alternatives should also include a project of smaller magnitude, which would reduce the adverse impacts of the Project on water quality, Laurel Lake, wetlands, flora, fauna, wildlife habitat and traffic conditions. J. Cumulative Impacts The cumulative impacts section of the DEIS does not satisfy the Planning Board's requirement that a GEIS addressing the cumulative impact of all proposed projects for the environmentally sensitive Laurel Lake area be prepared. Ideally, the DEIS should describe the biological setting of all proposed projects, and not simply address cumulative impacts in one abbreviated section. In addition to the lack of detail required for a GEIS, the cumulative impacts section suffers from the following glaring deficiencies. The DEIS fails to include an adequate description or composite map of the other proposed actions. It simply ignores the Miller proposal for the property sandwiched between the wetlands on Laurel Lake and the Macari site. (See DEIS at X-5. ) The cumulative impacts of the Macari and Miller projects on Laurel Lake and the wetlands would be considerable, and should be thoroughly analyzed. In addition, I understand that the McFeely project is proposed for the former Camp Malloy property. The DEIS refers to Camp Malloy in connection with the New York State conservation area as open space which could serve as a wildlife and avian habitat. (DEIS at X-14, X-16. ) If Camp Malloy is indeed slated for development, the cumulative analysis in the DEIS is based on inaccurate information. These omissions and errors in the cumulative impact section must be corrected, and a new analysis performed based on accurate information. The DEIS also fails to analyze the cumulative effect of the Project and the other proposed developments on Laurel Lake or its wetlands. The increased nitrogen concentrations may result in a degradation of water qu ality and the eutrophication of the lake. The DEIS should also discuss the impact that the increase in local population would have on the lake in terms of increased recreational use (i. e. , swimming, boating and fishing) of the Lake. The DEIS also fails to address the cumulative growth inducing aspects of the proposed projects. The influx of 325 residents to the area ma§ increase demand for business services and induce new commercial and retail developments. This secondary impact of the proposed developments should be addressed. 5 K. Conclusion In sum, the Project as proposed should not be approved. Further study and analysis of the impact of the Project, including alternative designs and lower densities, and the cumulative effect of the Project and the numerous other developments proposed for the environmentally sensitive Laurel Lake area is required. Careful and thorough analysis is especially critical with respect to impacts on groundwater quality and the fragile ecosystem of Laurel Lake and the wetlands. Sincerely, Karen E. Gross KEG/HC 6 4TH STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format. PAGE Copyright (c) 1991 Newsday, Inc. ; Newsday June 12 , 1991, Wednesday, NASSAU AND SUFFOLK EDITION SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 7 LENGTH: 812 words HEADLINE: Suffolk to Borrow $ 50M for Pine Barrens BYLINE: By Rick Brand. STAFF WRITER KEYWORD: SUFFOLK COUNTY; LANDMARK; PROGRAM; LEGISLATURE; BUDGET; DEFICIT; PINE BARRENS; REAL ESTATE; LAND; ENVIRONMENT; CONSERVATION; NATURE; NATURE CONSERVANCY BODY: To the cheers and whoops of dozens of environmentalists, the Suffolk legislature yesterday approved the borrowing of the last $ 50 million needed to buy pine barrens under the county's landmark program to acquire sensitive watershed lands. Despite concerns about the county's $ 127 million budget gap for 1991-1992 , lawmakers voted 17-0, with one abstention, to approve the bond resolution after County Executive Patrick Halpin modified the original measure so that no borrowing would take place until Sept. 1. Officials say they expect to develop a plan to resolve the county's fiscal problems by then. "The groundwater protection program is one of the great success stories of Suffolk County, " said Legis. Fred Thiele (R-Sag Harbor) , "and I think we're ready to move ahead because we've covered all the bases to protect the financial integrity of the county. " The vote on the pine barrens money was one of three environmental initiatives legislators acted on. Lawmakers also put aside until Aug. 27 a move to eliminate funding to purchase Robins Island, a 420-acre spit in Peconic Bay. The move came after the Nature Conservancy, a national environmental group, agreed yesterday to pay for an appeal of a federal bankruptcy court decision throwing out the county's $ 9 . 2-million contract for purchase. A growing number of legislators indicated that they were ready to balk at legal bills, which have totaled $ 500, 000 so far. Andrew Walker, director of the Long Island chapter of the Nature Conservancy, said the offer by the organization is "very unusual, but we're willing to take the extraordinary step because we believe there are excellent legal grounds and we believe it is important to preserve Robins Island in its entirety. " The legislature also approved borrowing $ 3 million for the acquisition of six parcels for the county' s $ 69-million open space program - including 5. 4-acres on Ketcham Woods Creek in Babylon, 37 acres on Beaver Dam Creek in Brookhaven and 41 acres in Montauk. PAGE (c) 1991 Newsday, June 12 , 1991 "It's a great day for the environment and the protection of our precious drinking water, " said Halpin. "On one hand, the economy has posed certain problems for the county government, but it also gives a tremendous opportunity to acquire pristine land at affordable prices. " But it was the funding for the pine barrens that brought cheers from more than 40 environmentalists, many carrying signs reading: "Keep it green, Keep it clean, and Now is the time to buy. " The legislature approved the pine barrens money after more than a dozen speakers, emphasizing that more than 80 percent of the public voted twice (in 1987 and in 1988) for the pine barrens program and that the economy is making land available at bargain prices. "I think the people of the county want you to put aside the partisan politics and the fiscal mess, " said Randall Parsons of East Hampton. "This is a sacred cow to the people of this county . . . They want you to nurture it. They want You to fund the program. " Through the program, funded by one-quarter cent on each dollar of the sales tax to the year 2000, the county has already spent $ 92 million of its original $ 100 million bond authorization, acquiring 6, 500 acres of critical water recharge areas throughout the county, mainly in Brookhaven and the East End. The $ 50 million approved yesterday is the last money the county expects to borrow for pine barrens acquisition. The new funding will allow the county to pursue purchases from a list of more than 7 , 200 acres, worth about $ 120 million. Among the top priorities are 250 acres of Warbler Woods in Yaphank, where the county has already bought 300 acres, 120 acres around Laurel Lake in Southold and 300-acre Stony Hill Woods in East Hampton. Legis. Joseph Rizzo (R-Islip Terrace) abstained, saying he wants a new referendum on the program because public sentiment may have changed in light of the downturn in the economy. "We're on the verge of bankruptcy, and shutting down Fridays, " he said. "I think it's time we listen to the public again. " Halpin aides downplayed the fiscal impact, saying the bonds, backed by dedicated sales tax revenues, are viewed in a different light than other obligations. However, they said they agreed to change the proposal because they do not expect to enter the market place to borrow money before September. In other action the legislature: Appointed Babylon Republican Richard Krumholz, 46, to the three-member board of Suffolk Off-Track Betting Corp. Krumholz, who ran against Legis. Sondra Bachety (D-Babylon) two years ago, replaces Gilbert .Stern. Approved an emergency resolution ordering the health department to come up with a plan within 90 days to provide developers with alternatives to denitrification septic tank systems that the state Department of Environmental Conservation says it will no longer approve. GRAPHIC: Newsday Photo by George Argeroplos- Sherry Johnson of the North Fork Environmental Council addresses the legislature June 24, 1991 Planning Board Minutes at Public Hearing on Macari at Laurel SCTM#1000-121-4-9 Mark Gross: My name is Mark Gross I live on Laurel Lake, I 'm a member of the Laurel Lake property owners association. Our attorney has looked over the environmental statement and is going to be sending a letter to the Planning Board, because they feel there are deficiencies in the statement. There are a few points I wanted to mention that concerns me and I 'm sure concerns other members of the Laurel Lake property owners association. One of these is the run off that we are going to be experiencing into Laurel Lake and into the wetlands as a result of this development. There will be fertilizers, conceivably pesticides, salt from the roads and I 'm worried about the quality of the water in the lake and what will happen to the wildlife in the lake, the migratory birds that we get and the wildlife that we have there all year round. I 'm also concerned about the character of the neighborhood and if it will change from a rural neighborhood to a suburban neighborhood. And the loss of open space, and this includes the considerable amount of traffic which we have right now, and will certainly increase when this development goes in. Bennett Orlowski: o.k. I 'd just like to note the public comment Period will run until July 5th. Mark Gross: Yes, we 're aware of that. Bennett Orlowski: o.k. Any other comments? Ray Herfurth: My name is Ray Herfurth, my parents own a piece of Property on Laurel Lake. I 've been coming out to the lake since I was about 4 years old, better than 20 years. I think its a darn crying shame the last real bastion of beautiful land that we have out in this area that attracts a lot people and is not necessarily destroyed, but possibly could be. We recognize everyone here has some background and has looked into the environmental impact but just from a personal standpoint, I 've been coming our here for the beauty and the ability to get away from the big hustle and bustle of the city. I mean if somebody wants to put a development in, let him put it in but not near our lake. That ' s really the comment that I 'd like to make and the feeling I think everyone in the property owner ' s association got and I guess I 'm really asking you as the -board members what I could do personally to prevent this from happening. ? Bennett Orlowski: That's a good question. You can make comments until July 5th, if you have any comments on the environmental impact. Ray Herfurth: It 's not necessarily environmental impact I 'm concerned about, just aesthetically. Bennett Orlowski: Well, that' s all part of it. Have you reviewed the environmental impact? Ray Herfurth: That I have not, I was just made aware of it about 3 days ago to tell you the truth. Bennett Orlowski: Well you can call the office, the libraries so You can take a look at it, get you comments in writing. Judy Greco: I 'm Judy Greco and I live on Laurel Lake and this directly affects me and directly affect my drinking water because these houses will be adjacent to the back of all my property. What I can't believe is that the Town goes to all the trouble of printing up this, (holds up pamphlet) for the libraries, for the post office for the watershed and the environment, and the impact it will have, and tells us about our garbage and what we can do and then can approve something like this. I think, I don't know how you justify printing what we should do and approving this at the same time. Bennett Orlowski: Any other comments? Robert Weintrab(sp) : My name is Robert Weintrab, my mother-in- law, Emaline Lee, lives on Laurel Lake. We had some questions regarding the open space and what your plans were for the open space if this was to be approved. We 're not very clear. Is this to be used by everyone? Will it be public? Bennett Orlowski: Well, the open space right now is a question that the Town Board and this Board is discussing it stays with the owners of the subdivision. , but right now Robert Weintrab(sp) : These 27, if this was approved, these 27 houses would have access to the lake and people would go down to the lake on this right of way and use it. Would there be facilities, bathrooms, parking lot, police, garbage? We would like to address all of these issues it would seem before you just turned lose. . . Bennett Orlowski: Have you reviewed the impact statement? Robert Weintrab: I have. Bennett Orlsowki: o.k. Robert Weintrab(sp) : So we 're very concerned what this is going to do to the lake, to the land around the lake, pollution, garbage who is going to look after facilities? It seems as though there is a small piece of wetlands on the lake and a narrow band on sort of a sloping hill. Are they going to remove that hill to make a parking lot, are they going to. . . it seems as though its not very clear. Bennett Orlowski: Right now the hearing is addressing the impact statement. Mr. Voorhis is here. He ' s our environmental consultant reviewing this. Chic maybe you could just hold it up and show everybody the size of this impact statement that you have a copy of there. Chic Voorhis: There is some information here that may cover that. What Benny indicated is that there really no plan for it at this time. What I could mention just to give a little more information is that any activity adjacent to the lake or the wetlands would still require wetland comments from the Town Trustees as well as the state DEC. This is a wetlands designated under Article 24 of the environmental conservation law. Any activity within 100 feet would require additional permits. There ' s no mention of it. At this time we are not aware of any plans for putting in docks, parking lots or any facilities down in that area. Based on the EIS and based on the known permits that are on file, applications that are on file, so that may help you some. Its something that hasn' t come up; we 're not aware of any plans for it. They would need further permits. Robert Weintraub: Would this be a selling point for the subdivision? Bennett Orlowski: They can' t do that now. They can only do what they show us on the subdivision map; and the impact statement, as Chic says, is addressing that, and that' s what we 're taking about tonight; not the subdivision. Its the draft environmental impact statement. From here we go on to a final before we address the subdivision. Chic Voorhis: Comments will be responded to in writing as far as part of the record. Robert Weintrab: They will be. Audience member: Yes Robert Weintrab: We also wondered who would be looking after this area if these 27 families had access to it. Who would look after it to make sure it remained in the natural state it is in, garbage, litter. Judy Greco: In the spring I take my paper bag and my plastic bags and my truck and I walk up and down picking up the beer cans, the soda cans, the bottles, the old cigarette cartons and I don' t mind doing it because I feel we 're doing it to keep the area the beautiful spot that it is. But if you have 27 more families I mean I 'm one person, how many more families in there are going to be picking up with us? My main concern is the watershed, is really the water. I want to be able to drink the water I have well water. I want to be able to drink the water. I can' t have my grandchildren drink it because of the nitrates I now. I have to buy bottled water. What' s 27 more families in there,. that is really anit igoing to do with ssue as far as I 'm concerned. Thank you. Bennett Orlowski: Any other comments? Ray Herfurth: I just have a quick question for you. You said that any comments in writing to the Board will be addressed and we have until July 5th to do that? And they have to be addressed just to the board? Bennett Orlowski: Yes. And these comments tonight will be addressed also. Sherry Johnson: On behalf of North Fork Environmental Council we Will be providing detailed comments later on this week. But just to get into the record tonight, I like to be sure the draft environmental impact statement and FEIS discussed the issue of County acquisition, which is particularly important, as the legislature recently approved a list that contained this parcel. Also the issue that the recommendations of the special ground water protection areas study be discussed in the FEIS if they weren't in the draft. That's the extent of my comments tonight. Thank you. Bennett Orlowski: Any other comments? M Ann MOWS#' n/f Br4 0,m4 SAVE eRwwd+loeed A/��' Barbaro - 523°0000'E o° / nuwrw VI AM Patricia Sfie/er 1 III ROUND 1/550' aioy e� {f :[algr,ivof w rltt HIw rpu j{Rp II' `y z9 Alf JasePh B I I 'fE MPORARY '?VRN A ; 740 BC 365 �_^� / -nec ro w \ S/° V p r Lk1f ID NOT cIk ` '1G 1.+ 5 :- DSI L°II O R .7 a.. 1 - c--- ` "`O0=, n/f dE, R 5 '1 a K IOtRe dl a Y C S20 53'50"f Of r WWAI` "'' . _ _-I C�' \\ `� r' 496.97 RIGHT -v - \ I nolo 6 bn �, alaols 1 wN 1 , A"!�d R, , G°ir Vb` s Ins 195' e�; 3 �o a. I ln\n wlct 4'M7 cr Fa, °57 p E 5.Z I ____1 - r � ,• 1 - ``\ �R _ 9P68408 - -----44 4 O4 94000 * S.FA _ I - 32000_ \, �RAIWAE���� S.F. -___ _ / 96p \ / P 'v _ 36`- A 1 ' ���``��" f _ t ' r+ 54B°526°"W 210' f /&94' 34 QQ� ` \ ,\' ' I .�. `\ 36 '0j• . + ` LAua WARD LIMIT °F FREOHWA1eR _ i' w ` v il" I • .1 v ` V ISI v 1 ,� THe Leuv JnE °° I i� o v340bO� SF. _ 3RD `v v 1 / '+ I � y�, 14 � I O n/ 0 SOYIv , ,M _ _ - v v A I --- //�+--�-- Barbaro �33n V ,! v 1 I VI A v -A X ` i v 'ly.' N•� - ✓ 1320003S.F 2qT,6° T20E ,v' ,3L"= moi/ _ vv v vv`v v I, I 173q� I I �' / "/ .3a- I I• v - r em $. _ '.'66 \ \\\ \ \\, ` r Rod ,'� \\ \ '' / d r / 2/O ' 1 � , I ^2e•� N\ S0a _ F,'+!�.4 '� \ e' _ ,` //� I I / � ♦ 1 mo,- � 21g0 'P ' ,� 9.. r�1y1 42- - ` - Y ` 36-' 33000tS. F I ,.,':I yy / " , ri 'I OPEN\ 'S)PACE � , 'ma \` ` {., /' / W 'yi, ,1 i I�,', `\ \ 4 Y� c ,0E II ,' (• - 1191 ALRES \ `\` ``" \ \ q h, l I 5 WE AN S ♦ `\ _ I\\ \ ` l°.::1 I O n/f 5> > 1 ` 'It 3'30001 S.F. - - 3e-- ,. $ \ aV 10 I - 32001/1 t S.F. 1 \' tr O ,� 6 '•1,� `y`.� „w, In \ \\ - \ \ ♦ _ \ S ` d O}/("�' Walter B Marilyn Gafr \ L l7' l �' - \\\ \ \\w , ^.`. `�`\ o� j', ' __ - /// ' ' y I\ \OI * I," A - \``\ IIII ' �• I O 300Q _ SIF / •4o rD: v 1, R, h°• ,' ,\ IAIIII IA^ I ,- ISA \\ cI A1A11iS.1`.. '. r�� 1I �2U0 \ \ Itlf AA V r ` ` V 0 M i yr 1/1 , "IAv11Av AIII �;'3i,�'iti'♦+rl Naw ♦ X10 ` Q , '' w v �I el ,w vI I 1 eb v i A] � ..1 ti 3 , "� _ W IAIAIVvA Vv si rl. Iv�I ILII II , I: i tv � w v 2 v 11 �y1.. _ �yv yP R Wa/far Sabal o II' v vvAV v � ' v 1 I Iv I v I 'I 1' 4 a v 'i�. A O A v I V IN ' I /B N3 p IZv v '. / r vII M ' I el 'vv AA v ` ",L,� 16 M �,, , 20 ji2 5 n/! m IvvAvI` I ,y111 IIa I' h� `v,' .IIvvvvA ♦� Iv 1v �ti ynl, l ', , �4. ¢ o `� oolb L_ 292- 5°3320 W. � V3 � 4 a4 vIl . IgVIN V ` V' I','rll ` ` A♦ '330 t y A A r ' bU d4 32000t S.F,' �' \ III \�\ ` ` I\'\. '.w\ tip\,\\ `\ 4 e� 00 S.F. .\ I ♦ \ f+J% I \ L°CAT/bN MAP I ` \<` -_ t ` o \ I :I O *\\ , a�� r\g36 1b P o '1\ L0 ,/ \\` I \T I \(` \`r I '1 1 \ \ ♦ \ ♦ \ o mW i `\ R` 5 `� J OpT S a m II LIME - ' ` .. - \ ` \`` _ i, \ ?, \ \ .\\♦ s' P' S 'l B 9' N/3 5420W ,ply SCALE: / =600 2 \ - _ \\ \ \ \ 1 \` .\ 5a' ` ♦ ♦ /T - / N b C ° 20 47 Ngo 09 OP 0 `P' �°.. \ \ \ _ ,I ) \ \ 33000 t SEF. �` I t7 O' i 66 14y. s4./i b p j,, , az7 / '\ .` `\\\ \\\ \\\i ` �: IVrt: ' 'I \I�Fl` \\ \ \ l T � ' / r' i \� N2000 B`�E"�`-•/OiOwr (CRE3GEM9' YYAy) gob\4 !a 00 r4SI Nq 40 ° E \ , \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ ,rt I '!I \ ) \ .IF I I O - `\ 5215200 \ .\ \ `�'♦ \` ` / I `\ \ I ��. 175' r y \ I7 `/V wI 2rµ1. `L^i 7 0 1(\ / 2.03 /0347 \ \`\\` ,\\♦` \I \\ '✓ - ' \ 32000 t S.F ' IP',,4° 3 0 - 3 f N/3 bg N500 \ �Z N35 332d'W 'i P °y • n o t 1 ,'/' aA \ ( a ---40 O. - _ - --_ \S6 ° T. B. 8 0 ` ___\ - _ _ _ _ -� t id' `\ AI's S,' q4 s mGen - ``�� R \3*1 `> l♦ ;{ 4 t\ \` #`r 33 ,IB ♦ _ _ •\ \ n 4 aft 1 ' 1i l Sl9038100£ 203.6/' `� O �^ /� /� y;9,klw`ARe yIM3'$ ol.• II v , -,ti♦ *I v `I \,, 0'0, 35000-w`S.F. AA�Q/ � EI.I�(e,9pNwApTNe�� � I :` ' • O 30000 3S.F. '/ I ' I 'i NE��LANa'IIbF DI?' o r \ \\ `' 1 n \ ___ ` ` / p 6h :. �\ \� ZL 30000t5.F. oI m `I I ' I . ♦`"t�•� \ \♦ 1♦ 'I \'. " N' a. � 1 � °' 30000 tS.El' O ` 'jl, i l ' 1 I ♦` \`�` ra 1 \ 1. `x - - 'j p � IV = ' NOTE: I ,W � sswhLe r. ae ♦ , `\ . 1 11 II '�'i \��;ti;�\ \ \ ij II �;\I' \\ 1 1/ A �, r. ,� ��`,:. _ _ �71b 66p0 � � Oh ♦ 1 ' I '" 1 I + Ic' 1 o L SUFFOLK AX MAP DIST 1000 SECT/2/BLOCK 4 LfM a ��_ _� � co ' _� � \' II I ^ ili' Iu� I i� \ \\ Y11114/ \\ I \k♦,t\ \r t \',� \ I` ;s,tI \ 4/ /,', r _ Fo 5° \ @ql '/0 g �� ( /."� 1 � 2. ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE\ CAI REFERENCED TO NOVO (MSL 19291 /1!/4° 40'W ` l' LUReI - � __ � _ 11YI1 ���I1'\,'iiI 71 '� �' II I I" 1 'I\ _ ♦ \ h A / � Illi ' r !{ c �°g� ry 20000' `4i �V.O` I - �'1 '' 1 J 1 I I 119"I 'L\ I 1 I I ' ; ' ; 1 I } \ \ LNU ✓ bi I I j / �y O ;i i KITE VATA : • Benjamin'Ja[ombeM+ a I9 / Iii ' I ' 4'I�'\\\ p 1 "' ti \ \" - `I' l ,l'' �, , .J ' �' c•n ,,\ +` I I. TOTAL AREA'= G3 5691 AORE9 It v'111 I ti%r I ♦ ' 2. ZONING V5E OI°iTRIGT' i, F 27 I 2p 34000-t $_F i,r i+ l 1 'I ' Q otf S/4°35'40'E 26000' 32000 ! S.F Ib I / �I r//i II I i F 7. s ♦ - I 4 LENGTH OF ROA7 = OO2 LF / 1 w 05 340001 S.F. , p' _ ' r:, '° 1 \ elt,l` ii \\ \' ', f )V,I 3. TOTAL ND. OF LOy'a 357Y/ h I 1 _ ' / / w vI I'I v v I I I I I 1 1 • / v � / / . , I Ig 3' 'q (/�`�//v/v ' • , ' i ' / 17, ' / ` I IN ' . I \I\ o I I ` '`/ F , u � aq 1 �O• o V VV: G'{I 1 • 190 ' 2 i 1 \\ \\`I� \ I YI f. i w _. ->�: V; <y3 0 �rR O\ \ P4 - I ;r V i 1'\ -ro"' ; \ `\ III\\,I \\R`411� I ' 'V1 0 S/6°/3 0 \ \ 23.00' •'`I M 1 (i. '+ . I 6LV9TER LAL6VLATION N• , ar \ `� �\ I OPEN SPACE I w.•, _V� N" p /� T01AL AREA 63.5691 ALRE°i •` 1 I 26 \ \ 2L2 3 ALR E9 (1 / II ; VS WEILAN7ci AREA ' 1490° ; h.F (03421 ALRES) l I ' 'r `- O /IIIA" `'PONe ' b LIL60 EA°iEMENT AREA = 50760 'IF. 01653 A6RES) • 21 ' I ' 11 I ' ` ' I " ^ o �� 63.5691 - 0.3421 - 1.1653 0.80 < A9.6494 A6REh'l •� 320003 S.F. iI. - --_ ' '� 11 1r1 _ \ I I ' \, ' ` % "\ '// 49.6494 ALRES • 435,P0 °iVFIA6RE 30000 OiF 2703 LOTh /w' y 1 �,•• 1 \ 33000 ! S.F _ _ \ \II '. I �mI I i I It II III I \, \ \ _ i'/ N/ o° • \ \ `\ \ - ___-- _• ``� \ II ' I{ 1 '� 11 II \, • ___T 49.4 \9 1 \ - „ _ _ - \\ \1 I II 11'I 1 m\ \\ `� - - ' - ' '- •f i4el •O 100 .\ �� \`�.�`\\ 111111 11 1� \``\ '`` ; �, � - .' ,__ Il � �I � W ETL ANDS OPEN SPACE O O L.2 r ACRES, ^'Jll'i�'1 1 'I N I�I •\` ` LANowAaA uMIr aR 'V '� \ \� --� 32000_ S.F O `les�.`ReGogwArsa werLAu° I : 43 ; r 22 11 ',,� ,1 ' I I ''11' NN Oev,o NAr ER N I1 `I I ! 11 � , \ . ` yNe L.AN Jae rn. 1 0 • be \ � 32000 t S.F. 44 ♦�O � �OS 1 I1 i ' ' �11 ila�l vl ' v �.vA`I '� n/1 I 0 I ' ,�` ,`�I II i V Geortle 0. Gu/di B Daug/aa MJler / 1� �I1`x'1 W v 'RTI ��vA LI `'e. • n 40 5 l a I'll `I` \ f ` I`1` S 3 \i I N' � 1 taR I 1 �` \ \ � 1 � ,e O FED CLUSTER 30000T0350005FLOTSI MODIFIED. Re.1 \ 1 r ° 1 I ` y I'r w N/0 220 1 AG�� 32000 3 S. F. / \ v, 1 �v y, N>/ Z D 0 Iv \ �7ARA ,� \ �I i 3 O SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN 6° °° 9° _ : ' \;' t; ? PREPARED FOR : e' Edward °' \\ 32000 S F. `` :i='ya N Q \ N W. W.<ssner _ oAl, JOSEPH MACAR/ - \}% � -- -- I _ � , , ,� , ' �-, _- - --- - -- --�N---- ��� AT LAUREL �1.. _ _ �� TOWN OF SOUTHOL D ��tiv o\rI y Yop 3�.aIL - -R/ `NT _ N/3°Oz20'W 2BaD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK o° s,.` P G,. o, r o R 74 is O P //4' _ 232.99 2' -c O a ^W L� E D ROAD N/4°590 " . 26500 2 04 00 6/30 00 0400', II 50. �� 2kgJ n/f Pacbnlc Ha�p s Inc. DATE: FEB. 6, /992 YOUNG 6 YOUNG -SCALE+ /" /00 1 400 OSTRANDER AVE., RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 1 NO. 97-1963 ALDEN W YOUNG, N.Y.S.PE B LS L/4 NO. /2845 I HOWARD W. YOUNG,MYS. L.S. LIC.NO. 12845 MF I .ra Gen ee r' Ue \-t _�_ - li �� a " ' �'F". �`"' '. . ✓a. �.,xx`N*G �� //. ., ^ 11 x"r Dv±witowbWAa °m °38 0 E000„......2C.561 40 519 pM�.r�. v 40000 t6F1 p 40000 Y5F `;' P � #i7 Yy' fir Y0'MY''+✓NWa»b�n+? ,.'41; ` `` \a � ` � l \ 4 _ xin # + A Y it \ea�'k�'x 9 x 49.1 � I .W ��/�i� 4LE � / � o e< „^'�•k �t 1 1Il lipWLy!'f�y / \yVAt 0.�#R'R�d �, r,A � 07000Y F li' nc �2 ldrtlari°fl llr �L ;A 4vyF t v AA NE40ER� ✓ _ _ Sy' `'i� tk)Aii�r ll t#. # Y, 'r zrw ,r qr �1#1 i l �r l3Ai +' r. 11, 4 YMt .weer F .vwu:noN ea �, 19 '�a,#iarr rs j+t�e =• tl � ., # # " - f 1 . tEith+, nma ml rew 1.0 U-N \ n/f N O � I � yxtr�i 1x i<}all # /f1 r { `\ . \ ,wrc r.roN uw �J Ben/amm JnzomdeMb q' / - 4m000 = `7F —.,.(cry fN#6 Rii'C i'C S 1 +s 'i?l ti�i uxs or IH. fumly Nu Nor eAreu 0 r .+o ,urvn°rs lrulo seer or W • n r o _ __ _ _ __ i x ress�o uu sxnSH"',Nux a rYrs-mrrw 1 L.41 R# \l ° 1, i 1AIAD 11.OQPT R 514-35 20000 I 1 ® � ..r'� r , 't"v'+� i'' .'t"ii i i `j,� I l `l ry 42000 Y x w.eNtnu uwumx ICI,11 1I.. l l ANN iq (nl rusoN IM—0- rx[swvq !�ymjty. r .xrrAuo AN ON HIS IWAe TO WE tlnl coWANr GOVeuW.[wAt AGfrKe Ai f 'a` {ik{wM R q r' j� r fit{ �h IT ..jNG INS{INiIOX LISRP X4EOM A10 F b yk { � It Ixt 4SSILNM Of THE YNUING INSINII ♦ k \ t N, 3 X'N t�, Rt e �� {y R Y JI n M�MN, [Y�Wn{Ef Mf HOr wAINBAYt { 19 lwff 9W1 W1nVi1016 Ox SNaSN11x4' 1 l il5 4B 5 / • x` R v !X.> �• b i✓a ♦�' "'Y \ 41000 't hF \ \ 42000 th F.� C wr t1kC F 1x �M� .r v G,k r /w o� at ? +.°A 'k5( *a a d GI' � a \ / 0 i a iek o . 4 4 vh y 1 1 -y,SG41` S t% k*ice l � � C nXi't1 � teR4i�#a.a '" + a ww4ttr G iR3C i kf4 kli w*i ^`- 4, f8! fV.iwNulXh4 xro t v iFa 00 ! II # 1�yi " r 4dirtlaA'X �R� cr a� � m O\1 / ' / � r, i ✓<# � :� yr /L'^"`..^..:. 6 h 410hF ' n 1 � Y `i4 1 vs ♦ a //yam^+ 4 46000 ''-h F. r6 @ _ ,^y eo 1 K. x ` yl Rt s x ♦ k?i . a c„. Vai;, a CSW' l r f{ ♦ � ♦ w ♦ "� °r �' drr 1 r' y� A. / _fix .PRX �4 1 qN, s ex # r, ,y ) ♦ c < r it i, r 1 ' //W°!(/ ✓ WI 23 ,, E° O[SSnK � x � O� �V 4 �� y 4 / 'N' �1' 46,000 t hF N 44000Y N.13 002 ow 8500 i PRO pG 74114' R/GHo 0 Y 2°040OW 232.49 N.30°0400"W EP RGAD 1V14590 26500 6/.00, 54 � I n/f Pecanrc Nem a /nc. Jt1L 16 RI I I I