The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDGEIS SCIS Pub Meeting 1/29/03 July 25, 2003 11. .L.A--.- -1GWvl . !"VII 1'- T13 lIT RECEIVED rilL, /7) .feJ:.O( Attention: South old Town Board AU6 43103 Dear Sirs: Southold Town Clerk Re: CDGEIS) Draft Generic Environmental Imoact Statement - Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy. The Board is to be complimented for establishing and carrying out a comprehensive DEGIS which appears to have done an excellent job of responding to the stated goals relative to Land Use and to Land Well Being. This massive compilation of data can and should be helpful to both the citizenry and the Board in its future planning. The Board wisely establishes a goal (Page S-9) "To preserve and promote a range of housing and business opportunities that support a socio-economically diverse community" - tourism being one of the traditional uses to be enhanced. A key element that is suggested, but not adequately supported, is focus on the WELL BEING OF THE PEOPLE (vs. land) and particularly the ECONOMIC WELL BEING of small business people in an environment that is clearly seasonal for those involved in tourism. The Board is encouraged to study more in depth, those factors which can be predicted to impact upon the economic well being oflocal business people as we take steps to preserve the land. It should be noted that none of the local tourism business people, whether they be restaurateurs, motel owners, bed and breakfast owners, wineries owners or small farm stand owners want to take action which is hurtful to their fellow business owners. Weare in this together, and action taken should benefit the larger good for all of us. QUESTIONS: As noted on page 1-28 & 29 concerning Country Inns: While the goal of promoting land preservation is applauded, what will be the economic impact of creation of such inns upon existing small business in a seasonal economy? In high season, everyone is usually full, but what is the impact from September to May for those businesses that operate all year? If a small business (B & B or restaurant) can not operate profitably all year, what is the probability that they will be driven out of business? Do you have accurate statistics on "occupancy rates"? Can you supply those statistics to us and include the source? Do you have similar statistics for the restaurant business? Might the Board profit by seeking such data from the local North Fork businesses and Associations? ? Don't you believe we need such data before promoting additional inn construction? If wineries become eligible to operate Country Inns which can provide restaurant services, what is likely to be the impact of this upon visitors utilizing other small business services? Will the wineries open craft and gift shops on their property? If the Inns offer meals and lodging will they send their guests to the surrounding areas to visit farms, antique stores, craft and gift shops? What incentives will be given to existing motels to upgrade? Will incentives be provided to existing B & Bs? . Has any thought gone into the impact AFTER the summer season? As it now stands, there are a number of restaurants on the North Fork that close during the winter months. Claudio's and Bistro Blue in Greenport are two examples. Will the Inns do the same? Will all the money spent on the re-vitalization of Greenport have been for naught? Did you know that on a beautiful sunny day in June, one of our top restaurants in Greenport had many empty tables and was not able to pay their expenses that evening? Did you know that the Harvest Inn (an elegant country inn featured in the NY Times, Mar31/2003) had three empty rooms for the 4th of July weekend? Did you consider that the majority of vineyard owners, obviously the one business who would benefit the most from this change, are very wealthy individuals (often not full-time residents of the Town of Southold) who do not need the additional income that these inns will generate? Are you aware that the best business for vineyards at present is the "large wedding receptions" that they host at their wineries from Spring to Fall? Are you aware that the B&B's, hotel/motels and restaurants are not competing for the "large wedding" business? Isn't it logical that if you allow the establishment of "20-room Country Inns" the distribution of income generated by weddings will concentrate on a limited few? You restrict the distance between Country Inns to 1-2 miles "in order to limit the ultimate number possible." How about the distance from existing B&B's/motels/hotels/restaurants? Shouldn't the economic impact on other lodgings/eating establishments be considered when establishing this distance? If development rights have already been sold, will properties be able to have a country inn on the acres where the rights were sold? By what criteria will the maximum number of rooms be determined? What is to be the location/distance/type of land for which the exchanged acreage will be acceptable? How (by what reasoning and formula) will the quantity of exchanged acreage be determined? What is the number of acres and specific location available under A-C, R200 and R80 zoning? What is the potential number of Country Inns that could be built? What is the total number of Country Inns the Town would consider approving? Does approval of Country Inns apply only to land with DR! (development rights intact)? If not, why is this preservation concept being applied on land which is already preserved (DRS)? Is land being protected at the expense ofthose of us who are struggling to make ends meet while we provide needed services to the Town? Is land being preserved by changing agricultural land into commercial zoned areas? Can other methods of conservation be utilized that would not adversely affect the livelihood of so many established local businesses? Are you protecting land at the expense of those who are struggling to make ends meet while we provide needed services to the Town? Can you use methods of conservation that would not adversely affect the livelihood of so many established local businesses? It took Southampton Town 18 months to come to an agreement over similar matters yet Southold is forced to come to a resolution in a couple of weeks. Why isn't more time given to discuss these critical issues? Why is Southold not adopting the model used in California "wine country", the Napa valley, where wineries make and sell wine, restaurants prepare and serve food and lodging facilities such as inns and B&B's provide room accommodations? What is to be the process for study, notification and participation in decisions by interested people of the Town? Thank you for your consideration. THE NORTHFORK BED & BREAKFAST ASSOCIA nON P.O. Box 574, East Marion, New York 11939 Telephone: 631-477-9400 Contact: Sylvia Daley, Co-Chairman Town of Southold, New York - Payment Voucher Vendor Tax lD NUIIlber or Social Security NUIIlber VeruIor Address Vendor Name Kinko's Vendor Telephone NUIIlber 631 232.e500 Vendor Contact 330 Wheeler Road Hauppauge,NY 11788 Invoice NUIIlber Invoice Date Invoice Total Net Purchase Order Discount Amotmt Claimed Number Oesori tion of Goods or Services 84651 6/6/043 10678 196.13 Payee Certification The undersigned (CJaimllnt) (Acting 00 behalf of the above ll8JI1Od claimant) does bereby certifY that the fooogoing claim is lnle and ocrrect, that no part has been peid, exoeptu therein stated, that the balance therein stated is 80tuaIIy due and owing, and that taxes from which the TOM) is exempt are exoluded. Signature Company N.... Title Date Vendor No. Co lea of V. olurne II DGEI 5 black & white co ie Department Certification I hereby certify that the materials above specified have been received by me in good condition without substitution, the services properly performed and that the quantities thereofhave been verified with the exceptions or discrepancies noted, and payment is approved. ~;~z;;;~~~ .1 1.....0;1 1."'...1'......1 11\,Il,1 A+~~l-h,,~\ ~ M~( ~(~ F*1-. ~ ~l) 1 ~(- f<6d?//__ Volume I DGEIS SCIS QUOTE Volume II DGEIS QUOTE Kinko's (631) 232-650G 330 Wheeler Road Hauppauge, NY 11188 Kin~o's ~ 2-6500 330 Whe~l.f Road Hauppauge, . NY 11798 NOT A RECEIPT NOT A RECEIPT QTi"lLIST DISC PRICE AMOUNT QTY ILIST DISC PRICE MOUNT ~525 FS B&W BIB WHITE STD 2050 FS B&W SIS WHITE STn 0.09 0.03:5 0.065 99.13 0.09 0.025 0.065 133.25 FS S&~ SIS WHITE 11 X 11 ~. 165 230 FE S&W SIS WHITE 11 X 17 0.18 0..03 0.15 24.75 0.18 0.03 0.15 34.50 6 DOC CREATION TABS PER TA3 II DOC CREATION TABS PER TAB 1.95 0.00 1.95 11.70 1.95 0.00 1.95 21.45 30 FS B&~ TABS PER TAB 55 Fa ssw TABS PER TAB 0.45 0.00 0.45 13.50 0..01:; 0.00 0.45 Z4.7!i 155 FOLDING PER SHEET 230 FOLDING PER SHEET 0.02 0.00 0.02 3.30 D.02 0.00 0.0, 4.60 165 ND 230 COLLATING HAND .- .- D.10 D. 0 0.10 16.50 0.10 0.00 0.10 23.0G . BIND COnB MIXED VER 1" - 5 BIND COIfS MIXon OVER 1" ./ ~.45 0.00 .45 27.25 5.45 0.00 5,45 27.25 SUB 196.13 TX 1~. 1 TOT 210.54 SUB 268.80 TX 19.23 TOT 288.03 NOT II CEIPT NOT II RECEIPT TOTAL LISCOUNT, f~a.l~ ~UQte No.: 84651 Customer: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Phone: (631) 765-1938 TOTAL DISCOUNT. $43.07 Quote No.: B4650 Customer: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Phone: (631) 765-193B CW 464 RG 3A 06/06/03 18,55 ~isit Wi @ httPlllwuw.kinkos.ccm CW 464 R8 3A 06/00/03 18:55 Vi5it us ~ http://mww.kinkos.com TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Purchase Order # 10677 Tax Exempt # A 163554 Account # . 8. BOlD. 4.500.600 minor subdivision rnoratoriuH1 Date June 9, 2003 I Deliver and send billing to: "I Department Town Attorney Southold Town Hall Address 53095 Route 25 P.O. Rox 1179 q I L Southold, NY 11971-095~ I Vendor Kinko's 330 ilhe~ler I~oad Hi'JUppall~e, h Y 11788 "I L ~ VENDOR "Return this copy and Town of Southold voucher itemized and signed for payment" ITEM QUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT COST TOTAL 5 copies !:lIack & White ;prlnting of DGEIS - Volume 1 $ 268.80 THIS PURCHASE ORDER IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURES OF THE DEPT. HEAD AND THE SUPERVISOR I CERTIFY THAT THERE ARE SUFFICIENT FUNDS AVAILABLE IN)I'HE APPROPRI~TiON .9HARGED /f?lt ! ((.~f'/',;j,;<;;< Depl. Head i {/ I CERTIFY THIS TO BE A JUST AND TRUE PURC ASE ORDER ~-> ~,,- DEPARTMENT'S CERTIFICATION OF GOODS OR SERVICES I certify that the goods or services were received by this De rtment and all except" ns duly noted. :k-~ Title Superviso~ If> -rh!1 Date DEPARTMENT BILLING COpy : Town of Southold, New York - Payment Voucher Vendor Tax ID Number or Social Security Number Vendor Address Vendor Name Kinko's Vendor Telephone Number 631 232-e500 Vendor Contact 330 Wheeler Road Hauppauge, NY 11788 Invoice Number Invoice Date Invoice Total Net Purehase Order Discount Amount Claimed Number Descri tion of Goods or Services 84650 6161043 10677 $268.80 Payee Certification The undersigned (Claimant) (Acting on behalf of the above named claimant) does heIoby certify that the foregoing oIaim is true and oorrect. that no part bas been paid, exoept as thercin stated, that the balance therein stated is actually due and owing. and that taxes Iiom which the Town is exempt are excluded. Signature CmnponyName Title Date Vendor No. Co ies of Volume I DGEIS Department Certification I hereby oertilY that the materials above specified have been received by me in good condition without substitution, the services properly performed and that the quantities tbereofhave been verified with the exceptions or discrepancies noted, and payment is approved. ~:~~~i/~ i"-"-" 07:03pm From-KINKOS T-389 P.OOI/OOI F-700 A+~~(-ti~\ ~ M~( ~;~ ~.~ C!e?l) 'l~(-(<6a-? Volume I KinKO'S (.31) 232-6~QO 330 ~h..l.~ Road Hauppduge, . NT 11788 GElS SCIS QUOTE Volume II DGEIS SCIS QUOTE Kinko's 330 ~heeler Road Hauppauge, NY 11?&8 (631) 232-650G NOT A RECEIF"T NOT A RECEIF'T QTi /Ll ST DISC PRICE AMOUNT on fLIST DISC PRICE MOUNT 1525 FS B&W S/S WHITE STD 2050 FS B&W SIS WHITE STD 0.09 0.0:25 0.065 99.13 0.09 0.025 0.065 133.25 165 FS B&~ S/S WHITE 11 X 1? ",-< 230 FS B&W S/S WHITE 11 X 17 0.18 0..03 0.15 24.75 0.19 0.03 C.15 34.50 6 DOC CREATION TABS PER TA3 11 DOC CREATION TABS PER TAB 2.95 0.00 1.95 11.70 1.95 0.00 1.95 21. 4S 30 FS B&~ TABS pER TAB SS FS B&W TABS PER TAB 0.45 0.00 0.45 13.50 0..45 0.00 0.45 2~. 75 165 FOLDING pER SHEET 230 FOLDING PES SHEET 0.02 0.00 0.02 3.30 0.02 0.00 0.0:: 4.60 165 COLLmNG HAND 230 COLLATING HRND 0.10 0.00 0.10 16.50 0.10 0.00 0.10 23.00 5 BIND COnB MIXED OVER I" 5 BIND COHB MIXED OVER I" ;;.~5 0.00 5.45 27.25 . 0 5.~5 27.25 SL'B 196.13 TX 1~.41 TOT 210.5~ SUB 268.80 TX 19.23 TOT 28B.03 NOT A RECEIPT A RECE1PT Ouote ~Io. I 84650 CustoNer: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PhOne: (631) 765-1938 "uote No.: 84651 Customer: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Phone I (631) 765-1938 TOTAL DISCOUNT: $43.07 CW ~6~ RG 3A 06/06/03 IB:55 Visit U5 ~ http://uuw.kinkos.,om TOTA~ DISCOUNT, $58.15 CW 464 RG 3A 06/06/03 IB:~5 Vi.it us ij http://www.kinkos..cm TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Purchase Order # 10678 Tax Exempt # A 163554 Account # 13.8020. If. 500.600 minor subdivision moratorium Date JUI1f' 9, 1003 I Deliver and send billing to: Department Town.A tCxlrney Southold Town Address 53095 Rout" 35 L P.O. Box 1179 Southol1l, NY I I Vendor Kinko's 330 Wheeler Hauppauge, I ! 'e!ll Road NY 11788 11971-095~ L ~ VENDOR ..c.. ** Return this copy and Town of Southold voucher itemized and signed for payment** ITEM QUANTITY DESCR IPTlON UNIT COST TOTAL 5 cOfJies t..., Buick & Whl~ ~rrntlng of DGI!lS - Volume 2' $ 196.13 THIS PURCHASE ORDER IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURES OF THE DEPT. HEAD AND THE SUPERVISOR I CERTIFY THAT THERE ARE SUFFICIENT FUNDS AVAILABLE IN ;THE APPROPRI~N CHARGED ULU-/>i//':...,Yz: Depl. Head DEPARTMENT'S CERTIFICATION OF GOODS OR SERVICES I certify that the goods or services were received by this Department and all exceptions duly noted. ~7?~J~ ~J(~M/ Igne ""'fttle I CERTIFY THIS TO BE A JU T AND TRUE PURCHASE ORDER /c'?(I,,-- Supervisor ( 6 ~4tJ Dlte nF.p~RTMF.NT BILLING COpy , IllLLINGPf-RlOD , ADYEImSER/CUENTNAt.4E 06/05/2003 I SOUTHOLD TOWN ATTORNEY-LGL n TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 'UNA.PI'LIEOAMOUNT , TERNSOFPAYNfNT 84.66 I I Net due unnn receint " CURRENT " 300AYS llOOAYS 90 DAYS 120 DAYS > nODAY5 I I I I I . IIILLfDACCOUNT NAME AND "'ODRES5 . I\t:MITTANCEAOCllIESS 7700 SOUTHOLD TOWN ATTORNEY-LGL TIMES / REVIEW NEWSPAPERS I VOUCHER + AFFIDAVIT 7785 MAIN ROAD 1 06/05/2003 GREG Y AKABOSKI P.O. BOX 1500 . IIIUJHG1ACeOUIfT__ 2~9208 POBOX 1179 Manituck, NY 11952 , ADYPI118ERI CLIEIIT__ Southold, NY 11971 (631)298-3200 259208 TIMES / REVIEW NEWSPAPERS 7785 Main Road. P.O. Box 1500 Mattituck, NY 11952 16311298.3200 ADVERTISING INVOICE Federal Tax ID 132921229 ------------------------------------ ---..---.----------------.----- PLEASE DETACH AND RETURN UPPER PORTION WITH YOUR REMfITANCE NEWSPAPfR Rl!fEIIENCf 12 13 1. DESCRlPnON-GlliER COMMENTS I CH_S :M PUlILlCAnON SEe LOCATlONI DlSTJlUIOTION 15 SAUSlZl! PAGE 18 IIIUfDUNITS NET AMOUNT 06/05/2003 206190 #2741,EIS HRNG,204L@.415,IX SUFF TIMES LEGAL AD 1 1.000 84.66 84.66 II'urYI:11t I' 1\/-' I "I !U'!i. I ! U i JUN - 9 2003 " t ' , L I I lCy.-.NA. 16HNr-v',,-~ ~ rnv~"r"'\i'-~('lr' .I r- - --". ~~~(HD _.~._-_.- STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT AGING OF PAST tJU( AMOUNTS Pay this amount ~ , 84.661 " CUflRl!NT " 3OD"'V$ IlOD"'V$ 90 DAYS CURllENT PAST DUE 'UNAPPLIEDAMoUNT 23 TOT"'lAMDvNTDUE 84.66 TIMES' REVIEW NEWSPAPERS 1785 Mal.. RuII, P.O. Bu 1500 M.nItICk. IY "ISZ [131)21"3%00 ThB IIBWS.RB~iBW The Suffolk Times ThB North Shore Sun Shelter Island Reporter Wine Press .. 2'i INVOICE 10 IIWNGPfAloo ADVERl1~EA INfollMATloN IIlllNGACCoUI<TNUMllEA AOVEATlSEA/CLlENTMlMIlfA "'DVERl1SEA/CLlENTNAME 7700 06/0512003 259208 259208 SOUTHOLD TOWN ATTORNEY-LGL ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER , Town Hail, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 sou tholdtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTH OLD February 11,2003 The attached written comments on the "Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement" with respect to the "Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy" which were the subject of a public scoping hearing held at 7:30 p.m. January 29, 2003 were received by the Southold Town Clerk from the following persons prior to the close of business on February 10,2003: 1. North Fork Environmental Council, Gwen Schroeder, Coordinator 2. Long Island Fann Bureau, Inc., Becky Wiseman, Associate Director 3. Aytug Unaldi, Re: solar design solutions 4. William W. Esseks, Esq. representing fanners (1/29/03) 5. James A. Richter, R.A., Town Engineer 6. Michael1. Domino, Co-Chair Southold Town Tree Committee 7. Paul & Maureen Grippa, Old Sound Stables, 1100 CR 48, Mattituck, NY 11952 8. Edward C. Booth, 17135 Soundview Avenue, Southold, NY 11971 9. Peconic Land Trust, Timothy 1. Caufield, Vice-President 10. Southold Town Land Preservation Committee 11. William W. Esseks, Esq. 108 East Main St., PO Box 279, Riverhead, NY 11901 (2/10/03) ~Q~J ElJt~th~: Neville--n-- Southold Town Clerk Attachments (11) ~ . . ESSEKS, HEF"TER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW 108 EAST MAIN STREET P. O. Box 279 RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901-0279 WILLIAM W. ESSEKS MARCIA Z. HEFTER STEPHEN R. ANGEL ..JANE ANN R. KRATZ JOHN M. WAGNER (631) 369-1700 WATER MILL OFFtCE MONTAUK HIGHWAY P. O. Box 570 WATER MIL.L, N.Y. 11976 (631) 726-6633 TnECOPIER NUMBER (631) 369-2065 WILLIAM POWER MALONEY CARMEL.A M. 01 T ALIA ANTHONY' C. PASCA NICA B. STRUNK February 10, 2003 RECEIVED FEB 1 0 2003 Town Board Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Southald Tawa a.rt Re: "Scoping" Hearing Held on January 29, 2002 for Proposed Generic Environmental Impact Statement ("GElS") Dear Town Board Members: On behalf of certain farmersllandowners, I addressed the Town Board on Wednesday, January 29,2003. At that time, I stated that I would be writing to confirm my objections to certain aspects ofthe SEQRA process for the proposed Generic Environmental Impact Statement ("GElS"). . My first objection is that the Environmental Assessment Form ("EAF"), the "SEQRA Positive Declaration," and the "Draft Scope" all improperly state the SEQRA "action" as the "evaluation and where appropriate implementation" of "recommended planning and program tools and measures" described in some 20 disparate "studies" or "plans" prepared over the 20 years between 1982 and 2002. My second objection is that the "Draft Scope" document improperly includes sections that are only appropriate in a "final" scope. My third objection is that the "Draft Scope" improperly seeks to exclude consideration of the economic impacts of the proposed activity. My fourth objection is that the "Mitigative Strategies" listed as "Alternatives" in the "Draft Scope" are, in fact, not proper "alternatives" to the proposed activity. The foregoing objections are discussed at length hereunder. . . ESSEKS, HEF"TER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW February 10, 2003 Page 2 I. The Prooosed Generic Environmental Imoact Statement ("GElS") Does Not Seek to Review a Prooer "Action" A generic environmental impact statement ("GElS"), as authorized pursuant to the SEQRA regulations at 6 NYCRR Section 617.10(a)(1), (2), or (3), contemplates the review of specific "actions." Such "actions" are specifically defined in 6 NYCRR Section 617.2(b). The "action" purportedly identified by the Town Board in the Environmental Assessment Form ("EAP"), the "SEQRA Positive Declaration," and the "Draft Scope" for the proposed activities (see, e.g., at Pages 1 and 2 of the "SEQRA Positive Declaration," dated January 7, 2003), does not, in fact, constitute an "action" as defined pursuant to 6 NYCRR Section 617.2(b). The only definition of a SEQRA "action" that might be applicable to the proposed .activities described in the Environmental Assessment Form ("EAP"), the "SEQRA Positive Declaration," and the "Draft Scope" is set forth in subdivision "2" of 6 NYCRR Section 617 .2(b). That subdivision includes "agency planning and policy making activities that may affect the environment and commit the agency to a definite course of future decisions." The activities articulated in, for example, the "Description of Action" in the aforesaid "Positive Declaration" merely propose the "evaluation" and "where appropriate implementation" of an unspecified "plan and program tools and measures" set forth in some 20 diffuse and diverse planning studies that have been conducted over a 20-year period. Nothing in the "Description of Action" involves any definitive activity that "commits the agency [i.e., the Town Board] to a definite course of future decisions," as is required to meet the definition of an "action" under 6 NYCRR Section 617.2(b)(2). A GElS may be undertaken, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Section 617.10(a)(4), to assess the environmental impacts of: "an entire program or plan having wide application or restricting the range offuture alternative policies or projects, including new or significant changes to existing land use plans, development plans, zoning regulations or agency comprehensive resource management plans." , . . ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW February 10, 2003 Page 3 However, the Town Board's proposed GElS does not set out to assess the effects of any actual "program" or "plan." Rather, the only activity this is now proposed involves the mere formulation of a policy or plan. Such preliminary planning activity, which does not commit the Town to any particular plan or "definite course of future decisions," is neither a proper "action" nor a proper subject for a GElS. The Town Board should not misrepresent, as I submit it has, that the proposed GElS is to review "actions" (for example, the 20 "plans" listed on Pages I and 2 of the January 7,2003 "Positive Declaration"). That statement is in error and should not be perpetuated. To not correct the error is to mislead the public and risk the integrity of the SEQRA process. If the Town Board wishes to conduct a proper process, it must first inform the public of its intended action. 2. The "Draft Scope" Improperlv Includes Sections That Are Only Appropriate in a "Final" Scope The SEQRA regulations, at 6 NYCRR Section 6l7.8(b), specifically provide that the content of a "draft scope" should include the items identified in paragraphs "I" through "5" of 6 NYCRR Section 617.8(f). It is clear, from reading 6 NYCRR Sections 617.8(b) and 617.8(f) together, that the last two items (i.e., paragraphs "6" and "7") of 6 NYCRR Section 617.8(f) are to be included in a "final" scope, but not in a "draft" scope. These. two items include "an identification of the information/data that should be included in an appendix. . ." and "those prominent issues that were raised during scoping and determined to be not relevant or not environmentally significant or that have been adequately addressed in a prior environmental review" (emphasis added). The "Draft Scope" prepared for the Town Board improperly includes sections entitled "Information to Be Included in Appendices" and "Issues Deemed Not Relevant, Not Environmentally Significant or Adequately Addressed in a Prior Environmental Review." As explained above, these sections, which cover the information described in paragraphs "6" and "7" of 6 NYCRR Section 617.8(f), are not appropriate in a purported "draft" scope. The section ofthe "Draft Scope" entitled "Issues Deemed Not Relevant, Not Environmentally Significant or Adequately Addressed in a Prior Environmental Review," which purports to preclude discussion in the GElS of certain economic impacts of the proposed activities, is particularly objectionable. One could not possibly identify issues "raised during scoping" as irrelevant or insignificant before the scoping process has even been conducted. It appears that , . . ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW February 10,2003 Page 4 the said section was included in the "Draft Scope" in an improper attempt to avoid comprehensive analysis in the GElS of the adverse economic effects of the Town's purported "Implementation Strategy" on the Town's land values, existing commercial enterprises, existing agricultural operations, and other matters. 3. The "Draft Scope" Improperly Seeks to Exclude Consideration of the Economic Impacts of the Propose~ Activitv The section of the "Draft Scope" entitled "Issues Deemed Not Relevant, Not Environmentally Significant or Adequately Addressed in a Prior Environmental Review," which appears at Page 7 of the "Draft Scope," states that the GElS will not contain any economic analysis. This preliminary "pre-scoping" limitation on the extent of the environmental review for the Town Board's proposed activity is improper and ignores potentially-significant adverse environmental impacts that may result if the Town formulates and ultimately evaluates a program or plan that incorporates substantial development restrictions, such as five-acre zomng. At least since the Court of Appeals' decision in Chinese Staff and Workers Association v. State of New York 68 N.Y.2d 359,509 N.Y.S.2d 499 (1986), review of the economic impacts of proposed zoning changes is relevant and, in fact, required under SEQRA. As discussed by the East Hampton Supervisor, whose Town has experienced the effects of upzoning, including, but not limited to, the exclusionary effects of such a policy, the Town Board, before it undertakes such a dramatic change in the zoning status of the Town, must examine, inter ali!!, the myriad economic issues and consequences that will flow from such a change. 4. The "Mitigative Stratel!:ies" Listed as "Alternatives" in the "Scooing" Resolution Are Not Prooer "Alternatives" to the Prooosed Activitv The SEQRA regulations, at 6 NYCRR Section 617.8(f), require that a "scope" for a proposed activity include, among other things, "the reasonable alternatives to be considered." The "Draft Scope" includes, at Page 6 thereof, a purported alternative called "Mitigative Strategies. " Examination of the so-called "Mitigative Strategies" reveals, however, that they are not alternatives at all, but merely another list of planning goals (i.e., provide for land preservation including open space & farmland, maintain & enhance rural & cultural character, preserve the Town's natural environment, provide a sound socio-economic environment for residents & . . . ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW February 10, 2003 Page 5 businesses, and ensure adequate transportation infrastructure). There is a material difference between such planning aspirations and actual "alternatives" to a proposed action. Very truly yours .w~ kIt"'~" William W. Esseks WWE:lac cc: Town Supervisor Town Clerk . . TO: Moratorium Planning Team RECEIVED FROM: Land Preservation Committee rES 1 0 2003 DATE: February 10, 2003 RE: Soutbold Town (lerl Coordination and Implementation Strategy Input: January 17, 2003 Request for Input The Land Preservation Committee offers the following input: ~ The Committee feels that given the commitment of the community (prior preservation bonds, Community Preservation Fund), that it is critical that whatever implementation tools, laws or policies are proposed, that they are reviewed to ensure that they are not counter productive to, or have the potential to undermine the existing preservation programs. ~ The Committee does not support the creation of implementation tools, laws or policies that have the potential to limit the current or future agricultural operations on restricted or un-restricted agricultural lands. ~ The Committee supports code language defining and clarifying the Conservation Subdivision process. ~ The Committee faces an issue in regard to the subdivision of farms into smaller farm parcels (both prior to and during the preservation process). The Committee is looking to set policy in regard to whether or not subdivision should be allowed, and if so, if a minimum farm parcel size should be established. ~ The Committee supports implementation of the existing Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy. The Committee would like to reserve the right to make additional comments in the future. . PECONIC LAN~RUST . - 296 Hampton Road, P.O. Box 1776, Southampton, NY 11969 (631) 283-3195 E"c (631) 204-0711 www.peconidandrrust.org RECEIVED FEB 1 0 2003 ~outhold Town CIeri February 6, 2003 Southold Town Board Members C/O Town Clerk Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road POBox 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Scope of the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) that is being used in connection with the Town's Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Dear Members of the Town Board: The Peconic Land Trust appreciates the opportunity to provide input into the DGEIS scoping process that the Town of South old is undertaking to develop its Comprehensive Implementation Strategy. We feel that we can contribute to the work of the Moratorium Planning Team and the Town of South old in this process, based on the Trust's nearly 20 years of experience in working with the five East End towns and landowners in realizing their conservation goals. Much of that experience is expressed in several of the studies under review, which were prepared with the assistance ofthe Peconic Land Trust including: the Southold Town Farm and Farmland Preservation Strategy, the Blue Ribbon Commission for a Rural Southold, and the Community Preservation Project Plan. The Trust supports the Town's overall goal of preserving at least 80% of its existing undeveloped land and reducing residential density by at least 60%. In developing the implementation tools to achieve these goals, the Town must consider the potential impact that any of them may have on landowners and in particular on farmers and farmland owners. So much of what we wish to preserve in Southold Town, in its rural character and natural beauty, depends critically on open space and farmland protection. Without careful planning and consideration of the potential environmental and economic impacts of the strategies adopted, we will certainly fall short of achieving our goals and may cause serious damage to those segments of the community that form the basis for land preservation. ~ . . In response to the invitation for input to the scoping process, the Peconic Land Trust offers the following comments and recommendations: . The Moratorium Plauning Team should specify the term "working landscapes" as used in the first goal stated in the SEQRA Positive Declaration: Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft Generic EIS, Determination of Significance (January 7,2003). A basic goal identified from the plans and studies under review is to "preserve land including open space, recreation and working landscapes." While the references to land that is open space or used for recreation are very clear, the term "working landscapes" is oblique and lacks meaning for the purpose of the proposed action. We suggest that this term be replaced by the term "farmland and land used for agricultural purposes." This would enhance the work of the Team in the following ways: (a) It would allow the focus of the Town's stated goal to be consistent with the specific subject and meaning ofrecommendations for farmland preservation found in several ofthe studies and initiatives under review, in particular the South old Town Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy (1999), and the Community Preservation Project Plan. (b) It would allow for the recognition ofthe direct counection between the preservation of farmland and the preservation of the business of farming and agricultural activity, since one cannot be achieved without the other. (c) For this reason, it would identify as entirely appropriate within the scope of the proposed action the analysis of the economic impact of any ofthe implementation tools on the business of farmiM that may be recommended to the Town Board. This rejects nItrrow interpretation oftokl SEQRA guidelines as presented on page 7 as to the relevance of economic analysis to the scope of review as expressed in the Draft Scope for the DGEIS (January 7, 2003). (d) It would be consistent with the Town's Preservation of Agricultural Lands code (Chapter 25 of the Southold Town Code) which specifically defines the preservation of Agricultural Lands and Agricultural Production as in the "public interest" and a "proper public purpose". . ~ The Moratorium Planning Team should evaluate how effective the existing zoning codes have been in achieving the Town's goals in preserving open space and farmland. The Town must undertake a comprehensive assessment of the actual record of farmland and open space development under existing codes in order to establish a real basis for determining whether other tools such as upzoning are needed. The Trust's review of recent trends in subdivisions in the Town of Southold over the past six years reveals that the existing codes are achieving on average II-acre density (better than twice the reduction in density that would be achieved by an upzoning to 5 acres). In 2002 alone, average density on farmland and open 2 . . space subdivisions was 30 acres. The Moratorium Planning Team must show that 5-acre upzoning is justified and that it would provide results that are potentially better than those results achieved under existing code. . The Moratorium Planning Team should develop an implementation strategy that relies on incentive zoning tools as a more effective approach to land preservation and assess their potential for achieving preservation goals. Elements of this strategy should include the following: (a) Conservation Opportunities Subdivisions (COS)---The Town would expedite the approval of subdivisions on farmland and open space parcels that protect at least 80% of the parcel and reduce the residential density by at least 60%. A COS would be automatically classified as a Type II action under SEQRA and be subject to an expedited review. (b) The Town should classifY standard subdivisions automatically as Type I actions under SEQRA and subject to more rigorous environmental impact regulations and reviews. This would act as a strong disincentive to major subdivisions. (c) Planned Development District for Farmland and Open Space (pDD)--- Landowners would be entitled to significant zoning incentives by rezoning to a PDD. Landowners would make a commitment through a term conservation easement to maintain their land in agricultural production or undeveloped for a minimum term, unless during that time they submit a Conservation Opportunities Subdivision. The Town would have the right of first refusal to purchase the property or development rights at the end of the term or at any time during the term. If the Town is unsuccessful in reaching a mutual agreement with the landowner, then the landowner is entitled to subdivide based on the zoning stipulated in the terms of the contract establishing the PDD. This is potentially a very powerful incentive to landowners who want the security provided by the term easement. The Town benefits from the preservation of the farmland or open space for the term while allowing time to build sufficient reserves to make an effective offer to the landowner. The effectiveness of the PDD as an incentive and as a conservation tool lies in the way in which the terms and conditions of the easement allow the landowner to exit the PDD and to engage the Town in the possibility of sale of development rights. . The Moratorium Planning Team should consider the use of restrictive zoning measures only if such measures are consistent with and complimentary to the effective preservation strategies in place. Restrictive zoning recommendations, such as upzoning to 5-acre density, should be viewed as a measure of last resort. With regard to the 5-acre zoning implementation tool, it is the Town's responsibility to evaluate the economic impact on the agricultural sector of the Town and assess the effect 3 . . . of upzoning in creating a number of adverse conditions that work against preservation goals in the following ways: (a) Upzoning causes an immediate loss of equity value for farmers and constrains their capacity to borrow against that value to support production needs and continue farming. (b) Upzoning creates undue risk and uncertainty for landowners, creating pressure to develop instead offacing additional losses. ( c) Upzoning subverts the use of other conservation tools such as the sale of development rights or the donation of land or conservation easements to the Town or private trusts. . The Moratorium Planning Team should consider the implementation of incentive zoning strategies in light of the community's commitment of resources to achieve preservation goals. The overwhelming support for the extension ofthe Community Preservation Fund in the last election is a clear demonstration of the community's commitment to the goals ofland preservation. This mandate provides the capacity that is essential to pursuing incentive-based strategies for land preservation. The Town now has the opportunity and the means to achieve preservation goals without putting the agricultural community or other landowners in jeopardy. We recommend that the Town provide a thorough analysis of the amount of voluntary preservation that is reasonably likely to be achieved over the next 10-20 years with specific reference to all of the available tools: Town funds, CPF funds, County funds, State and Federal Funds, and Private Conservation efforts. Thank you for your efforts and consideration of these comments. Sincerely, <]~~field Vice President 4 .' .' ,. . . /~ Town Clerk Elizabeth Neville Town Hall, Southold 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 17135 Soundview Ave Southold, NY 11971 Jan 30, 2003 RECEIVED FEB 1 0 2003 Conunents on Public Hearing of Jan 30, 2003; Draft Scope ofDGEIS Solthold ToWII Clerk I attended the session on January 30 and read the document, especially the last page where about 40 line items of possible actions are listed. Apparently the document should have descnbed some or all of these actions in detail so that the audience could discuss the scope of a particular action. Instead we were invited to conunent in general and the discussion largely dealt with pros and cons of the first line item, upzoning. Aside from whether or not we wasted our time as stated by the counsel for the farmers, I ask the Town Board to initiate some actions not explicitly listed in the 40 lines. PLANNING PROCESS: ZONING 5 Acre Upzoning Please determine as accurately as posSIble who will bear the financial burden of land preservation and how much it will cost them over the next decade. Find the burden to the tax payer as follows: first set your goal for land conservation ( 75% or 8(010), make your best guess about the appreciation of land values; estimate the fraction of the fium and open space that will come up for sale over the next decade; and provide from this a rough estimate of the money required for preservation given two zoning options; 2 acres and 5 acres. The second step is to determine the current and future funds available or likely from all sources; real estate transfer taxes, private bond issues. county, state, federal and private sources. John Holzapfel attempted this for the BRC, but lacked the profussionaI input from real estate people, bankers, and land trust people that you have available. This will give an estimate of the likely tax burden, if any. 2. Find the burden on land owners in the event of upzoning as follows; divide up the AC and R80 land by acreage. Determine the appraised value of the real estate in event of2 acre and 5 acre zoning. Even better would be to estimate the net of sale after all costs are paid, such as roads, services, agents, capital gains etc. then find out the average losses in equity as a function oflot size. Spread sheets exist for this sort of thing . . . Determine the number oflots per parcel. For example; Lot Size 3.9 A. 5.9 A. 7.9 A. 9.9 A. 14.9 A. 19.9 A. 39.9 A. 99.9 A. Lots (2A.) I 2 3 4 7 9 19 49 Lots (SA) I 1 1 1 2 3 7 19 Obtain data on the number oflots in each acreage bin. For example, there are about 300 lots in the 5-10 acres non agricultural category. Estimate the monetary yield fur 2 and 5 acre zoning and the loss of equity in each acreage bin multiplied by the number oflots in each bin. The sum of these will be the burden on the property owners. From the table above it seems likely that owners of 6-12 acre parcels will suffer the largest relative burden while the large land owners will suffer the largest absolute burden. Assuming a 2 acre lot is worth $200,000 and a 5 acre lot is worth $350,000, a 9.9 acre owner would suffer a loss of$8oo,000-$350,000= $450,000. Assuming 100 owners are near this acreage, the burden is $45 million. At 99.9 acres, the loss is $9,800,000-6,650,000= $3,150,000 per owner, and if there were only 10 owners the burden is $31.5 million. Although the assumptions may be inaccurate, the point is that the equity burden of upzoning can vary widely with acreage. The monetary effeets of upzoning should be clearly understood before putting it into effeet. 3.The relative financial burdens should be understood as a matter of equity. Assume that 60% of 10,000 acres is to be preserved at $30,000/acre, the cost would be $180 million. About 1/3 of recent preservation costs come from private sources, so $120 million should be left to be covered. There is $10 million now available from transfer taxes and over 17 years there should be $70 million from that source, leaving $50 million to be covered. Federal, state and county sources can reasonably be expected to pay for at least half of that, leaving $25 million to come from tax-payers. With 10,000 tax-payers this amounts to $2,500 each spread over 10 years. This is a modest amount compared to the hundreds of thousands of dollars which the land owners must contribute if the upzoning is put into effect. It is possible that NO extra taxes will be required, and if there are, it seems to me that the cost is fur exceeded by the benefits from low population density. Mine are rough estimates. The amounts may be less, perhaps more. Better figures should be obtained and presented to the citizens before an upzone is effected. 4. A study of the financial effects of increased population density should be made and reasonable estimates made of the cost of increased population compared to the cost of land preservation. If there are 10,000 acres on the table, what would be the 20 year tax costs with 2 acre zoning, 5 acre zoning and 10 acre density from conservation subdivisions? We have heard a lot of ill-informed anxiety about the high tax costs, but what would they actually be? The single and separate small lots would have to be included in the estimate. Supposing we are talking about 5,000, 2,000 and 1,000 new fumilies with 2 children each, what would it cost to put the children through school? How does that compare with cost ofbuying development rights? This information must be made available to the public before decisions are made on land preservation. Tree Preservation Ordinance .. . . 'The proposal is to limit tree cutting. Before adopting the proposed ordinance, the Town should establish the need for it. 'The case is not made in the draft ordinance, which just states that we need to have a lot of trees. To establish the need, a base line for tree coverage should be established from early aerial photographs (eg 1938) compared with current photographs. There have been a lot of houses put up in the woods since 1938 with some tree loss, but then a lot of furm land has been lost and trees planted around homes, so it is not clear whether we are losing or gaining trees. The ordinance is flawed in its lack of specifics. If enacted, it should encourage the control exotic and trash trees, such as mulberry, wild cherry, Norway maple, and ailanthus. It should specifY what is meant by thinning; typica1ly this would be a distance between trees which is twice the diameter of the mature tree branches. It should place an upper limit on the tree diameter which can be cut without need for approval, such as 6" at breast height. It should permit the clear cutting of faRow land that is being returned to agricuhura1 or scenic vista use. EDUCATIONI ENFORCEMENT Natural Evironment ; Coastal Erosion Control I recommend action on bulk-heading following that of Southampton. I refer to the article in the Long Island section of the NY Times, Sunday, Feb 2 where the town is preventing bulk-heading in front of homes because the result is the remoWt of beach to create impassable conditions at high water and increasing the erosion at nearby homes. 'The littoral drift of the sand is interrupted by the bulk-heading which eventually projects well out from the shore as the adjacent properties erode. INTERAGENCY INITIATIVES Emergency Preparedness There is a plan at County level to prepare for an emergency caused by the isolation of Long Island in the event of bridges being cut. The Town should also have a plan for this contingency; providing for a month's supply of water, food, fuel and medicine. 'The same plan is needed for disasters at Millstone and Plum Island. Thank you for your consideration of these actions. Very truly yours, C-' () r;7 A l--r.lwDJ'.cl( r~ \~ Edward C. Boo~ " . . . Paul & Maureen M. Grippa Old Sound Stables 1100 County Road 48 Mattituck, NY 11952-3104 631-298-5501 January 30, 2003 RECEIVED Southold Town Board Members Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 FEB 1 0 2003 Southard Town C/erl Dear Southold Town Board Members; My husband and I were in attendance at last evening's meeting to hear and comment on the "Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy - Action Classification, Intent to Assume Lead Agency Status, Intent to Require an Environmental Impact Statement, and Receipt and Circulation of Draft Scope of the DGEIS". Thank you for the invitation to present feedback, opinions and comments - involving the town's people makes for good and responsible government. Our comments and feedback are as follows: . We do not believe it is moral for the Town Board to shift land equity from the farmers to the home owners. The farm properties have been passed down through generations or purchased with this value. Southold should continue the Purchase ofthe Development Rights Program which has successfully provided II acre zonmg. . Southold Town Board Members have the responsibility to research and respond to the legal challenges presented by the attorney, Bill Essex. . The information presented is not in a digestible format for the public's review and comments. . The Economic Impact of each and every component must be calculated and incorporated based on the current accumulated and future basis in the recommendations. . The comments of the Supervisor of East Hampton were of the utmost importance. Southold Town cannot afford to make the same mistakes as evidenced on the South Fork. All major initiatives require discussions with other townships on their success or failure and overall impact on the people, environment and economy. Must provide similar testimony from actual townships where these initiatives have been successful, especially when co-mingling so many initiatives with potentially opposing outcomes. . We concur with the comment of Dr. Tom Samuels, it is evident all of the previous unapproved, unacceptable initiatives/studies for the past 20 years have been co- mingled for possible passage this time. The tax payers will be very suspect of this . "" . . approach - if it was not acceptable before what has changed to make a difference now. . The comments, questions and resources suggested by Betty Wiseman of the Long Island Farm Bureau, Inc. must be addressed to the satisfaction not only to the Town Board but also the Town's People. Please keep us advised on the forthcoming meetings addressing this initiative. Sincerely yours, ~~~ A~~j./~ Paul Grippa Maureen M. Grippa Cc: Elizabeth A. Neville, Southold Town Clerk . . fl3 -r;;:;. To: Southold Town Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Moratorium Planning Team From: Southold Town Tree Committee Re: Code revision RECEIVED Dear Sirs: FEB - 7 2003 Enclosed please find copies of the following: 1. March 18, 2002 draft of the tree code proposal. 2. July 2, 2002 Tree Committee (TC) report to the Town Board. 3. TC minutes Oct. 11,2000 to Sept. 18,2002. 4. Jan. 14,2002 agenda ofTC meeting with Supervisor Horton. 5. Dec. 16,2002 agenda Transportation Commission meeting. 6. Digital photographs of LIP A pruning-practices/clear cutting. South old Town CIeri Careful inspection of the above will show there are five primary areas of concern that the TC has put forward. Support includes but is not limited to the planning Department, Senior Environmental Planner, Transportation Commission, NFEC, Bay Keeper Kevin McAllister, Audobon Society, etc. Opposition rests with two local realtors and the Southold Business Alliance whose self- interest has held back progress in this area. The issues are as follows: 1. To enact legislation to restrict clear cutting on the 2000 plus single and separate vacant residential lots not protected by subdivisions or commercial property codes. 2. To establish protocol for LIP A, DOT, cablevision, etc., concerning pruning, tree removallreplacement within Town right of ways and along Scenic Highways. 3. Burial of transmission lines. 4. Protection oflandmark trees catalogued in the book Trees of South old Town and listed in the Planning Department database. S. Employing a certified arborist to enforce codes pertinent to trees, or creating a new position to protect and manage natural resources. In conclusion the TC has a great responsibility for protecting valuable natural resources - tourism is one ml\ior industry that benefits-but lacks a code, authority, or enforcement powers. Councilmen Richter, Moore, and Wickham have expressed conditional support for these measures. We are hopeful that your team can incorporate these into the code, and convince a fourth number of the board to move this agenda forward. We are available to answer any questions concerning the above, --~~ Michael J. Domirfo, Co-Chair '" . . -DRAFT- March 18,2002 TREES, GRADING AND LAND CLEARING 1-1 Legislative intent. The tangible benefits that trees provide include but are not limited to: barriers to soil erosion, decrease surface runoff, protect environmentally sensitive areas, decrease municipal costs, increase the value of improved and unimproved real property. It is this Town Board's intent and desire to enhance the aesthetic qualities of lands within the town attributable to existing natural vegetation and to preserve the rural character of the town. 1-2 Approval required for clearing and grading. No person, firm or corporation or entity shall cut down, destroy or remove natural vegetation and/or trees or in any way clear or grade any vacant parcel of land or any undivided parcel of land, without first having obtained the written approval of the Building Department. The Building Department shall have the authority to waive this requirement. This chapter permits normal maintenance activities, it' including pruning and thinning of natural vegetation, and/or landscape vegetation and/or the removal of diseased or dead trees and/or other vegetation. 1-3 Definitions As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated: NATURAL VEGETATION - Existing and naturally occurring indigenous vegetation which grows and is maintained without need of irrigation or applications offertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or other substances. UNDIVIDED PARCEL OF LAND - Any area of land, which has not been divided into lots on a filed subdivision map, also known as "described property." LANDSCAPE VEGETATION - 1-4 Approval Procedure A. A clearing permit issued upon approval by the Building Department shall be required for the removal of any natural vegetation, including but not limited to trees, or in any way clearing or grading of any vacant parcel or any undivided parcel of land. -1- .' . . B. The Clearing Standards set forth at Table 1 herein shall apply with respect to all parcels of 10,000 square feet or larger. Parcels with an area less than 10,000 square feet shall be subject to clearing limits as shall be detennined by the Building Department. C. Administration. This chapter shall be administered by the Building Department which shall have the authority to promulgate rules and regulations for the effective administration ofthis chapter consistent with the legislative intent of this chapter. The Building Department shall have the authority to delegate the administration of this chapter to its departmental personnel. D. Application; issuance of permit. (1) Every applicant for a permit required by this chapter shall submit an application to the Planning Board on such form as may be prescribed by the Building Department. Said application shall include the following information unless, waived by the Building Department: (a) The name and address of the applicant and owner, ifnot the same. (b) The purpose of the proposed tree or vegetation removal or grading activity. (c) The site of the proposed activity. (d) A site disturhance plan ofthe premises subject to the application clearly indicating the following: [1] An outline of existing wooded areas and naturally vegetated areas on the site with proposed changes. . [2] The location of all improvements, if any, on the subject property. [3] A topographical survey (one-inch-equals-twenty- foot scale) where grading is proposed. [4] The location of existing trees which exceed four inches in diameter as measured four and one half feet above the base of the trunk. -2- " . . , (2) In acting upon the application, the Building Department shall take into account the following criteria and considerations: (a) The location, type and size ofthe tree(s) and/or vegetation to be removed. (b) The condition of the tree(s) and other vegetation with respect to disease and potential for creating hazardous conditions. (c) The proximity of the tree(s) and other vegetation to existing or proposed structures and utility appurtenances. (d) The need for the site clearing and removal of vegetation or grading and tree(s) as proposed. (e) The environmental effect of the proposed clearing and/or grading. (f) Any of the considerations enumerated in the legislative intent of this chapter. (3) The Building Department shall refer the application to a certified arborist or an Advisory Committee for appropriate review and advisement (4) The Building Departement shall evaluate the considerations set forth in this section and any other criteria as the Building Department deems appropriate, as well as the advice and recommendations ofthe certified arborist or Advisory Committee. (5) The Building Department shall advise the applicant, in writing, of its decision on the application and, upon the favorable determination of such application, shall issue a permit therefore, with conditions if any. E. Prior to the granting or withholding of approval, the Building Department shall perform a site inspection to evaluate the trees, shrubs, natural vegetation, drainage and other physical conditions existing on the property and adjacent property. The Building Department shall approve the application upon a finding that the cutting, destruction, removal, clearing or grading to be permitted would not impair the growth and development of the remaining trees, shrubs and other vegetation on the property of the -3- :~ " '. . . , applicant, would not impair existing drainage patterns, would not cause soil erosion and/or impair the stability of the land, would not significantly lessen property values in the neighborhood and would not substantially impair the aesthetic values ofthe area. The Building Department shall be guided, by the intent ofthis chapter as set forth in 1-1. The Building Department shall have the authority to require reasonable conditions, in order to effectuate the purpose of this chapter, to the grant of approval hereunder. Failure to comply with such conditions shall be a violation of this chapter. F. The Buildifug Department shall render a written decision granting or denying the application within 60 ofthe date of the application and, as appropriate, shall issue the permit. The decision and permit shall contain the conditions, if any, of the approval or shall contain the reasons for disapproval if the application is denied. G. The applicant shall have 30 days from the date of disaproval to appeal the decision of the Building Department. The applicant shall appeal a disaproval to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). H. The Zoning Board of Appeals, in any case, may on its own motion approve, reverse, disapprove or modifY and approve, the authorization and approval of the Building Department. The ZBA may return the matter to the Building Department for further consideration. 1-5 Exemptions. A. Surveying and soil investigating activities. (1) Destruction or removal of trees or other natural vegetation incidental to surveying and soil investigation activities shall not be undertaken for any parcel of property of any size unless such destruction or removal is in conformity with a clearing plan approved by the Planning Board pursuant to the provisions contained hereunder. (2) Prior to destruction or removal of trees or other natural vegetation incidental to surveying and soil investigation activities, the property owner, or designee, shall apply to the Building Department for permission to remove or destroy trees or other vegetation in order to undertake said activities. No trees or natural vegetation may be destroyed or removed except in conformity with an approved clearing plan. -4- " . . , (3) Said application shall be accompanied by a topographical map of the site; in addition, the Building Department may require an aerial photograph. In the event that the applicant is applying for approval to construct test holes for soil analyses and groundwater monitoring, the applicant shall provide a map from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services indicating their approved test hole and well sites. The applicant shall indicate on the topographical map and on the aerial photograph the boundaries of the site and the extent of clearing needed for the surveying and soil investigation activities. (4) The fee for said application shall be $50 for each existing or proposed residential lot and $150 per nonresidential lot. (5) The application shall be on such form and contain such information as may be required by the Building Department, and, in approving said application, the Building Department may limit the amount of tree and vegetation destruction or removal contemplated by the applicant. B. Any person doing business as a public utility subject to the jurisdiction of the New York State Public Service Commission and any duly constituted public agency authorized to provide utility services shall not be exempt from this chapter. C. In the event that building permits have not been issued for any previously approved subdivision map(s) or site plan, this chapter shall apply, and no building permit shall be issued until all applicable provisions ofthis chapter have been complied therewith. 1-6 Enforcement, The certified arborist or code enforcement officer for the Town of Southold shall enforce this chapter. -5- "' , " . . . 1-7 Applicability This chapter shall not apply to any agency of the Town of South old or to any person, firm or corporation working under the direction of the Town 1-8 Penalties for Offenses Each violation ofthis chapter shall be punishable by a penalty or fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than 15 days, or both. In addition, any person, firm, corporation or entity violating this chapter may be required by the Building Department to replace each and every tree and/or natural vegetation cut, destroyed or removed and/or replace the original grading of the parcel of land upon which such violation occurred. Tree replacement will follow tree replacement Density Formula as outlined in "Tree City Bulletin No. 31 of the The National Arbor Day Foundation as annexed hereto and made a part hereof. It shall be considered a separate and distinct offense on each day during which or on which a violation occurs or continues. Second Draft draft 8/30/00 -6- . TREES. GAADING. ~\\i Table 1 . CLEARING STANOA~OS StandardS ",cluCle bOilclinQ loll. roaO-. oralr\8ge and olMr imprOvemenl' \ :....---... _-=;-~--j--~~~--=-::::= I . -..-~ _::: i:::' ::+=-~r :r~": r--- :----- _ 22 iliiO"-' -052 =t fafnI\ 6O'llo-..-..--- ,;.... .-r- ..' -. ..... ..... .. "'.. ,,,. - , ,.. ,., . ..... ... ,...""'..".... -WOO," _ __ --....-r-.. ,~~j@iO , ..,...,"""'" - / OIItI\c:t UtI! ~~II~ ) l.and u.. categOry \.Q! ,1"8 commerOa\ and IndUtlri" 0 QtM< Of mil\lll use -As per 8xlatl0ll SOU\tlO1r:I Town coda .----- " _..-.......-~_.-.- ~.- _......~.-.. _.......H--.....-.---.--..-... of ,It. or ondOnoor-d ......". ..----- __..0.--.... .\. _..... 0" ...--~..---_. __--t---..------..-.--...-..--- I ~-_. ----------.---- ,'-'~ ..~..__...__......._,._.,._-,.".,,.~--. ,"-' .,...-'-- ._- . __...._---....----4------.-...---- , -' ..",-.,-- ---i -- \ \ . . Tree ('.nmmittl'-l: r~ to the T.own Boar-d 7IfJ2ID2 ronceraing tree <:odepl"\p"~aJ~ The Tree Committee of Southold Town has written this statement to advise the town abootthepropGSed TreeCOOe_ The TreeCnmm;tree wasfurmedin 19&5.andit.~o.iot~ of seven members. We are all volunteers whose applications for membership on the .cnmmittee have been .appl".oved. a public hearing.and a v.ot.eby the T.own Boar-d- When there is an opening on the Committee, the Town Clerk advertises the vacancy and so1icitu...."mes <<.om the public, ~o.nts.are iat.ervieweG by a member .of the boar-d and the committee chair (s). Presumably those who complete the process are qualified to participate in our l.oGal goVe.fJUJ1"nt This past November Craig Richter and I iat.ervieweG both applicants; Amy Martin became our newest member. She joined a diverse, talented, W-GlJP that feels "nnf1deat that.aay pr.oposal it. puts furth -deserves serious ~ Copies of the proposal were provided to Supervisor Horton and each Board Member by the T.own Clerk at my -direction 00 three separate oc.r.o.innq. Copies for the ~al public were on file at the Clerk's office for nearly two years. We've spoken to the Supervisor, .as wdl.as Boar-d Members iDdivlduaJly and in gr-oups about the <:ode_ At this point no one should be confused about the details. Why do we need a tree <:ode at this time? In addition to our traditional responsibilities, the Committee has undertaken the goal of becoming a "Tree Town". Thebe.ne.fit~.ofbe.illgn.,o.igpore.d a "Tree T.own" include greater eligibility for Stat.e.and Federal grant funds. One of the requirements of becoming a "Tree Town" is having a Tree Pr.ot.ec.tion Statute in pl.a.ce. The Cn=ittee began thispr.ocess .over twelve yeacs ag.o under the guidance of the former Chairman, Ed Dart. In 1998, he asked members of the ('.omm;tt"e to revise the oki Tree Code, with input <<{lffi the Planning DepartmeaL The Committee also noticed an increase in new construction. We realized that efforts to mcrease the number .of trees in Southold were more than.offset by the clearing.of.one building lot. Think of the biomass lost by the recent illegal clearing of commercial pr.operty neac the landfill versus our eIfurts to plant and maintain a few .dozea street trees annually. Our Marcl118 pr.oposal seeks to establish a review process that will prevent clear cutting of vacant residential land. Statutes are already in place which give the Town juri.,lictioo .over the clearing and landscaping .of sub-divisions, .developed land.and commercial properties. While enforcement is always an issue it does not belong in this .djVJ]~~ The pr.oposal pr.ovides for up to ninety pe.r.ceat clearing.of small lots and fifty percent clearing oflots over one acre. This provides an ample building envelope for pht'~ .of the house, .driveway, pool, t.elmis court, gazebo, etc. Furthermore, under the proposed code, the Planning Board will have the authority to grant exemptions. No one loses any pr.operty ~ After moving in the new homeowner roald legally cut every tree without a permit. Thebeaefm to the T.ownbeyood m.i"taining the aesthetic quaJity.ofthe land, include but are not limited to, reduced runoff, fewer unsightly storm water recharge basins, pr.ot.ec.tion.of the bays.and aquifers, soil conservation, .and preservation.of our rural environment. The general public benefits, tourism remains viable, landscapers and other l.oGal oo8i"esses gain; municipal. costs go down. The ecooomic v.a1ue.of proteaillg trees is also supported by a plethora of studies which detail the fact that electric and heating bills are lowered, inti-astrud.ure rosts are reduced by millions.of dollars, and air quaJity is . . maintained, if not improved. Average home value is increased by a minimum of fifteen percent, when trees grace the property. While benefits accrue to the general public, the Costs of complying with the code would be less than one tenth of one percent of the development of a typical pr~. Although a survey includes topographic information and tree locations might be required under the pmpo.sedcode., a developer ill' realtor anticipating lmge pnt..ntia! profits would not be deterred by this miniscule cost. Preserving trees saves the town money; doesn't raise taxes~ We .aoo't fmd this ~vedy restrictive, or idealistic. It's pragmatic, besides being the right thing to do. Preservation d {lUI' rural way d life is supported by the majority of those living in this town as pr~ven by the recent election. The NFEC, the Audubon Society, the average Southolder sees the need fur some sort of a tree"COde.: In addition reams ofscientifieevidence and facts are on our side. A small minority guided by self-interest wants to make this a debate about property rigbts~.r"""'" there are no facts to supporttheOOstmctiolld{lUl' trees. The members of the tree committee urge you to adopt the tree code proposal submitted March 1.&, 2002. It is time t-o move off the mack {}R this issue. -- . . . Southold Town Tree Committee MINUTES October 11, 2000 6:30 p.m. Present: Mike Domino, Co-Chair Tom Stevenson Jim Glover Dan Catullo Sally Steiner Martha Jones, Secretary Absent: Mike Shannon, Co-Chair Robert Kassner Dan Catullo and Jim Glover have spent hours these past few weeks, visiting spots to plant memorial street trees. Main St., Southold is now pretty much planted out. Dan talked to Tim Coffey and they are looking at the end of October, or early November for planting. Martha gave Dan signed purchase order and Dan will place tree order tomorrow. Mike Domino reported on the September 24 meeting in Orient with LIPA and NYSDOT. They showed residents 21 maps indicating trees to be removed, from East Marion to Orient. Only 12 residents showed up. (They had many questions re: underground cable - which was not what the meeting was about). At the end of the meeting, they came to the realization that the trees will continue to be trimmed and most likely die. If individual property owners agree, new trees will be planted 10' back from the original spot, and may be on their property. Mike Domino read the Supervisor's memo re: tree legislation too heavy handed. Sally Steiner spoke with Ms. Cochran, indicating that we have been working on the legislation 2 years, and have looked at many codes of various towns. Port Jeff has wonderful trees - and have had a statute in place for 25 years. Ms. Cochran felt the town couldn't enforce the code as written. Sally suggested that as the Tree Committee didn't know what to revise, we'd take our chances with the Code Committee. Sally will attend next Code Committee meeting with Mike Domino. Next meeting - Wednesday, November 8, 2000 at 6:30 p.m. in the conference room. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Martha A. Jones Secretary ,e . Southold Town Tree Committee MINUTES November 8, 2000 6:30 p.m. Present: Mike Shannon, Co-Chair Tom Stevenson Jim Glover Dan Catullo Sally Steiner Martha Jones, Secretary Absent: Mike Domino, Co-Chair Robert Kassner Tomorrow Dan and Jim will plant 3 evergreens, but Northeast Nurseries is hesitant to dig other trees because of the draught and late onset of frost. We will need to order bronze plaques from DeFriest in December for Spring 2001 placement. Martha will compile list of names and dates and forward to Dan this week. We have had several calls the last few weeks about dead Memorial Street Trees. Dan went out and inspected them, but they did not seem to be dead. However, it was discussed and decided to put a 2 year limit on replacement of these trees. The Tree Committee's book "The Trees of Southold" is now completed and is on sale in the Town Clerk's office. Joe Lizewski attended this month's meeting regarding the tree legislation. He said the Town Board should be writing this legislation, not the Tree Committee, as the Board represents the people. We would have more luck getting the law passed if it was not so heavy handed. He also felt that the law should be the venue of the Building Department and not the Planning Board. The Building Department follows the law. It doesn't interpret, it just acts. The Planning Board is subjective. Sally responded that the Tree Committee initiated the law, but the Town Board gave us authority to draft the statute. Tree Committee's all over the country do the same thing. The Town Board doesn't have to adopt it. There are two trees on Depot Lane that have been destroyed by LIPA pruning. Joe has offered to take them down and will pay for a Memorial Street Tree. Damon Rallis at the Traveler Watchman talked to Jim and offered the Tree Committee space to respond to the Business Alliance's comments on the tree legislation. The Tree Committee will respond. . . Southold Town Tree Committee MINUTES March 14,2001 6:30 p.m. Present: Mike Domino, Co-Chair Mike Shannon, Co-Chair Tom Stevenson Robert Kassner Jim Glover Dan Catullo Martha Jones, Secretary Absent: Sally Steiner Mike D. spoke to Mary Wilson about the progress of the tree legislation, and to see if she needed any clarification on anything. She is working on it and will send us a copy when revisions are completed. Jean Cochran gave Mike D. a copy of a letter written by attorney Bill Goggins and read by Dave Cichanowicz at the March 13th Town Board meeting, regarding alleged threats made to the Southold Business Alliance, by a tree committee member's spouse, involving the tree legislation. Martha to get a copy of the minutes when they are available. Mike D. spoke to all the elementary school principals last week informing them of our annual Arbor Day poster contest and distribution of Norway spruce seedlings to all 4th and 5th grades. Mike S. ordered 1000 seedlings from Strathmeyer Forests. They should arrive one week before Arbor Day. Martha will run labels on the computer and committee members will get together on an informal basis and affix them to the bagged seedlings. Tom Stevenson to take over remaining Arbor Day details, as "the Mike's. plates are full. On March 9th, Mike D. and Mike S. met with Bob Berner from LIPA, and Rich Gass and Chris Cotton from DOT re: Orient project, to find new locations for the 75 trees taken down. No permit process with the DOT will be necessary. LIPA put out to bid. Planting to start in 6 weeks. Discussed February 28 letter from Joseph Snellenburg, re: replacement of his late wife's Memorial Street tree that was knocked down by an unknown motorist. Dan will inform Martha when he has found a Japanese Flowering Cherry, before responding to letter. Tree Committee will supply labor, but because of the danger of setting a precedent, we must ask Mr. Snellenburg to offset the cost of the tree. . '. Southold Town Tree Committee MINUTES September 5, 2001 6:30 p.m. Present: Mike Domino, Co-Chair Dan Catullo Sally Steiner Martha Jones, Secretary Jim Glover Absent: Mike Shannon, Co-Chair Tom Stevenson Mike D. spoke to Bill Moore about the tree legislation, and was told that the Code Committee will be getting back to work on it soon. Dan C. ordered 27 trees for the 2001 Memorial Tree planting -- 4 of which are to replace dead trees from the 2000 planting -- the most recent being the Mountain Silverbell at Our Lady of Mercy. . Mike D. got our water tank and pump from the Highway Department and got it in running order. Dan C. and Jim G. are to go out the 3rd week in September to locate sites for the fall planting. We are starting to lO$e somi!~Ii"'he older Sugar Maples along Mt. Beulah Rd. Ed Dart had been replacing them, and it is the plan of the Tree Committee to replace 2 each year. . Next meeting - Wednesday, October 3, 2001 at 6:30 p.m. in the conference room. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Martha A. Jones Secretary \ \ 1 \ . '. Southold Town Tree Committee MINUTES October 3, 2001 6:30 p.m. Present: Mike Domino, Co-Chair Mike Shannon, Co-Chair Dan Catullo Jim Glover Martha Jones, Secretary Absent: Sally Steiner Tom Stevenson Dan ordered four trees from Bissett Nursery. Jim will pick up. The Tree Committee (TC) will respond to a political mailing from Joe Lizewski, that includes erroneous information regarding the tree legislation. Mike D. spoke again with Bill Moore about the tree legislation and was told it was being 'put on the front burner". The TC has not yet determined how many trees will be sent to Fisher's Island. Dan was in contact with Tim Coffey regarding our fall planting. Tim could not give him a definite date. The TC will mulch and water. Jim to inquire at landfill about mulch. Dan suggestecf'ftie TC send a thank you letter to Northeast Nurseries for their donation of a weeping cherry tree. . TC will plant a memorial tree for long time member Robert Kassner, in appreciation for his many years of service. Next meeting - Wednesday, November 7, 2001 at 6:30 p.m., in the conference room at Town Hall. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Martha A. Jones Secretary .' . Southold Town Tree Committee MINUTES November 7,2001 6:30 p.m. Present: Mike Domino, Co-Chair Mike Shannon, Co-Chair Dan Catullo Jim Glover Sally Steiner Tom Stevenson Amy Martin Martha Jones, Secretary New member Amy Martin attended her first meeting. Residents Phil and Elaine Goldman also attended this meeting. Dan and Jim planted 2 sugar maples on Mt. Beulah Rd. - with the cooperation of some local residents, who promised to keep them watered. Dan, Jim and Mike D. removed stakes and wires from some of the more established trees. In the future, these stakes and wires need to be removed after the first year of planting. Dan and Mike D. met with the Superintendent of Southold Schools, Dr. Gallagher for permission to plant the Radich memorial tree on school grounds. Mike D. also called George Hubbard of the Village of Greenport to request a planting spot near the Greek Orthodox Church or Townsend Manor for a memorial tree planting, which he affirmed. Dan reported that Northeast NursEfSieJ. does not want to dig trees yet as they have not dropped all their leaves. Maybe tkt. 15 or 16. Will try to coordinate with Tim Coffey. Jim will call Jim Bunchuck at the Landfill to arrange for mulch. He also will bring to Jim B.'s attention that the Tree Committee was charged for disposing of stakes and wires that were removed from established trees. Dan arranged with the Park Commissioner for the Houghton memorial tree to be planted in the Veteran's Memorial Park in Mattituck. . . Southold Town Tree Committee MINUTES December 5, 2001 6:30 p.m. Present: Mike Domino, Co-Chair Dan Catullo Jim Glover Sally Steiner Tom Stevenson Amy Martin Martha Jones, Secretary Absent: Mike Shannon, Co-Chair NOTE: Correct paragraph 6 of November's minutes to read: Dan reported that Northeast Nurseries does not want to dig trees yet as they have not dropped all their leaves. Maybe Nov. 15 or 16. Will try to coordinate with Tim Coffey. The committee discussed placing an ad in the local papers encouraging Town residents to purchase the Tree Book as a holiday gift. As the Town Board doesn't meet again until Dec. 18, we will send a letter to the Supervisor, asking her to fast track the request. Mike D. congratulated Jim and Dan on this year's successful Memorial Tree planting, which took place on November 19th. They did a great job selecting sites and coordinating with nearby residents for care of the tree. Mike D. has a meeting with John Cushman on Dec. 10. He will ask for approval to put future tree purchases out to bid. Mike D. told assistant Town Attorney, Mary Wilson, that the Tree Committee is re- visiting the original version of the tree code, as the highly revised one was..never approved. Tom suggested we try to get resident input in the form of a referendum vote. Amy distributed copies of the City of Mercer Island's tree code. Next meeting - Wednesday, January 23, 2002 at 6:30 p.m., in the conference room at Town Hall. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Martha A. Jones Secretary . . , Southold Town Tree Committee MINUTES January 10, 2001 6:30 p.m. Present: Mike Domino, Co-Chair Mike Shannon, Co-Chair Tom Stevenson Sally Steiner Martha Jones, Secretary Absent: Jim Glover Dan Catullo Robert Kassner Dan has ordered bronze plaques from DeFriest. Mike D., Mike 5., Bob and Sally attended the Code Committee meeting on January 4 to outline changes to the tree legislation. The Tree Committee is more interested in saving percentage of trees on lot than surveying and marking each tree. Only trees 14" in diameter would be marked on a survey. Bill Moore suggested there be no site plan approval. We outlined confusion between Town Attorney's office and the Planning Board as well as need to upgrade enforcement, as there is nothing in code to prohibit commercial property from being clear cut before site plan is applied for, or protect parcels with non-conforming use. Mike D. met with Jean Cochran on Monday. Bill Moore will be working with Mary Wilson on the conflict in Chapter's 100-250 and 100-254 of the town code, with regard to the tree legislation, and Mike encouraged the Supervisor to expedite the process. The Tree Committee is ready for a public hearing. Nationwide, the Planning Board or Building Department enforces tree codes. The Planning Board sent Mike D. a book on planning ordinances, which recommends all fees collected should go to the tree committee. Bill Moore pointed out that drainage and land contour could be addressed in dry well legislation, which might be easier to implement and enforce than contour ordinance. Mike D. filed a complaint with the Building Department about a tree that was cut down on the Stepnoski property in Cutchogue. . . . Southold Town Tree Committee MINUTES January 23, 2002 6:30 p.m. Present: Mike Domino, Co-Chair Mike Shannon, Co-Chair Dan Catullo Sally Steiner Tom Stevenson Amy Martin Martha Jones, Secretary Absent: Jim Glover Mike D. and Mike S. met with Josh Horton on January 14th to discuss concerns about working with the Highway Department pertaining to the use of a tanker truck to water newly planted trees and their cooperation regarding the transportation of treeS to Fishers Island. Also, the need for notification by outside agencies such as LIPA, DOT, and Cablevision prior to the pruning of town trees; and the clarification of protocol concerning our advisory role in dealing with these agencies, as well as town residents. On the subject of the tree code, the Supervisor said he didn't know how he felt about it yet, but would speak to the Town Board at the next meeting following January 15th. Mike and Amy will attend the January 29th Town Board meeting. The Supervisor agreed also, to entertain discussion of a concert or fundraiser if details were submitted in writing. The committee discussed the need for educating town residents about the tree code, with a possible column in the Traveler, an article in the town newsletter, and/or with information on the website. Amy and Sally will get together within the next few weeks to review the code. The subject was brought up again about putting the tree code before the town residents in the form of a referendum. Ed Dart informed the Tree Committee about 30 or 40 disease resistant elm trees that the committee had planted, while he was Chairman, at an "undisclosed local nursery." Sally will call Ed to get more information. Martha reminded the committee that it was time to order the memorial tree plaques from DeFriest, and asked for authorization to submit the order, which was granted. Also at this meeting, Supervisor Horton gave the chairmen a copy of a letter he received from Mr. Honerkamp, who was upset about his memorial tree not yet being , . . Present: Southold Town Tree Committee MINUTES February 20, 2002 6:30 P.m. Mike Domino, CO-Chair Jim Glover Dan Catullo Absent: ''''<kn1s Phil """ 80;'" Sa,,,,,,,, ,tt"""" 'h, ....,"Y. Sally Steiner Tom Stevenson Amy Martin Martha Jones, Secretary Mike Shannon, CO-Chair "'ke O. · "'ke s. ... w"h ...,.,."." lion"" " F'b,,,,",, 5' """ "isonsed "....... .""'" w"h High.." 5_,,,,_ p.,. .....,'. ...'" f... '0"" wide ""- for LIPA. OOT. Cobl..""". <t,. -""'" P....,"'. ".""" of ''-S. 'he - '<>do. /ooph"" i. ""'''''' 'Od". _ -.itt.. _ F,'._ "" meeting with letter to SUpervisor Horton. ......- -.'''' OOd. ","mitt.. _"", w"h J,h. Po_iii. __ Amy and Sally to develop new tree Code proposal. ....,"'" "pi" 'f ,..,.,. 5_..... ""'" .... " OOT.LIPA. Coblow.."" eTC. -""'" ...'" 10 """fy "' '" ""Y """" "" ""'- "ike O. ..... w"h Th. OepuTy S.p",,,,,,,.,,, '" 5,"'....,,"" wh, "",,, '" ..... ,,_. d'_ W'''king '....,"" " d.""p '.... OOd", boi", .,,, P"'"'''' " f<>rei", LIP A " b"Y lines. '.".".,,,, tho, "'ke s. hod ''''''''' 1000 . t2 . 24' """wor 'J""'" f... A,ho, Oay <0,....".. "'Ii...., '''p,,,,,,, A"..III 7". T.... Co",",'tt.. wm Ii"", "bog """ label SOmetime soon (April lB-22?) after receipt. -"" >h" .....'Iio hod ''''''''' p...." ,," "- p.,,, fO" ....,,,., T,,=. "'Illy ""ke " Ed Do" -""'''' .1. ".., wli"h "" """"""y" 0"" WII,,,,,,,,., """""". E"", -, "" ""'... Sally........'" f,""",."" ',F, ASAP. T,"" A........" f.d, Pco<", i, 0< 'i.,,, '..... Iio""., .... ob,."",,,,,,, . . , Southold Town Tree Committee MINUTES May 22, 2002 6:30 p.m. Present: Mike Domino, Co-Chair Mike Shannon, Co-Chair Sally Steiner Dan Catullo Tom Stevenson Amy Martin Martha Jones, Secretary Absent: Jim Glover Attendees: Phil & Elaine Goldman Victor Brown Mike D. distributed copies of the proposed tree legislation, revised by Mark Terry, a member of the Planning Board staff. Revisions were discussed. Victor Brown informed the TC that LIPA is very responsive to any kind of contact with the Town, and has been notifying the Town prior to any tree pruning. Supervisor Horton is interested in the Tree Legislation and Mr. Brown offered to assist the TC on enacting it. Town Planner Valerie Scopaz is also interested in working with us. Mike D & Dan placed the Memorial Tree plaques, and Mike will put up the brass name plates in Town Hall next week. Mike D. contacted LIPA. Bob Berner is not with Keyspan anymore. The trees planted in Orient and East Marion are doing very well. The one year contract is almost up with Tower Landscaping, and they need to replace 5 or 6 trees. Mike S. to go and check. Mike D. spoke with Tom Wickham about temporary permission to plant street trees for future use by the TC, on Town land. Tom didn't see a problem, as long as no soil was removed and no ruts or ditches were left after trees were dug. The TC discussed potting 100 Norway Spruce for future use, and contact Pete Harris about putting on Town property by the Highway Dept. where there is water. over -'Y . . f Southold Town Tree Committee MINUTES September 18, 2002 6:30 p.m. Present: Mike Domino, Co-Chair Mike Shannon, Co-Chair Sally Steiner' Amy Martin Dan Catullo Tom Stevenson Jim Glover Martha Jones, Secretary Attendees: Phil & Elaine Goldman Mike D. found the Tree Committee's pruning equipment at the Highway Department. The pruning shears and compressor are now in his basement. Dan and Mike D. and Victor L'Eplattenier from the Planning Board office met, at the NYSDOTs request, to inspect the trees that the DOT wants to prune and/or remove, on Love Lane in Mattituck. They agreed that one tree should be removed, and two should be pruned. Rich Gass from DOT called Mike D. and said that they want to remove all the trees, regardless of their input. Mike asked him to put it in writing; which we have not received as yet. Sally thought the situation should be handled through the Highway Department, not the Tree Committee. The tree code is at Q standstill. Tom Wickham suggested we drop it, as the cutting of trees will be incorporated into the 6-month moratorium. Tom S. suggested one final letter to the editor. Mike S. distributed copies of a memo he wrote to Josh Horton. Sally said the issue is the non-resportsiveness of the Town Board and we should re- thirtk the effectiveness of the Tree Committee. We should start to work on a referendum and bring the issue directly to the people. Amy suggested a 'Saving Southold Town TreesH Power Point program at the school, and that we coordinate with other Towns. Mike D. suggested holding an informational event at the Borghese Vineyard. He also reported that Valerie Scopaz suggested we irtcorporate the tree legislation into the Planning process. Ed Dart contacted us regarding re- joining the Tree Committee; and that we should concentrate on getting the Elm trees out of Briarcliff - possibly by digging .' . From: Tree Committee of South old Town To: Josh Horton Re: January 14, 2002 meeting Immediately after the November election we invited all candidates - elect to an open meeting. We anticipated procedural changes after January, 2002. The purpose of todays meeting remains the same - to clarify direction and establish a working relationship. Our position simply stated is this: rural meams farmland, woodlots, and tree lined streets. Developmental pressure threatens Southold and only by working together can residents hope to preserve the rural character of our town. We are a non-political diverse talented group. Cooperatively, we freely donate thousands of man hours of labor creating a cost-effective committee. Memorial tree donations exceed our annual budget by a factor of5. We have a great deal of work ahead of us this spring but want to be certain of our mission. We need clarification of areas of responsibility concerning the highway department, Fishers Island, the planning department, LIP A, cablevision, etc. We need direction concerning the proposed tree code begun in the late 80's and put furth again after assurances by the previous administration that preservation was a board goal. We did not and do not wish to waste valuahle time on dead issues. In conclusion we welcome the opportunity to work with you and the new board and thereby request input and direction. Mike Domino Mike Shannon Co-Chair Tree Committee Southold Town . . SOUTHOLD TRANSPORTATION OOMMISSION Town Hall 53095 Main Road Sou1hoId, NY U911;.ll959 l'I1one(&31)7M.1938 Fax(631J 76..3I~6 AGENDA FOR DECEMBER 16, 2002 MEETING: . Cox Lane & County Road 4& - Commission'~ 1212/02 response . l!ecoIlic Landing TraffIc - CommissiQn's 12/2/02 response . R~ew ofTown C~oss~oa_@ . MTAlLIRR - Commission's 12/2/02 response . Review afLIPA & DOT Tree Removal Practices . SEEDS Update . Seaview Trails Update . Forming of Steering & Advisory Committees for Rte 25 Gateway Bridge . ~ppointm,mt to thG Commission . Old I!1lsi.1l~ . New Business . Adjonnunent .. 7/3 74 /J1'lMer /YH,o . JOSHUA Y. HORTON SUPERVISOR TOWN HAll - 53095 MAIN ROAD JAMES A. RICHTER, R.A. ENGINEER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971 Fax. (51~EeEi\lfb Tel. (516) -765 -1560 FES - 6 2003 OFFICE OF THE ENGINEER TOWN OF SOUTH OLD Soulhold Town CIeri Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 February 5, 2003 Re: Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Scope - DGEIS Dear Mrs. Neville: As per your request, I have reviewed the documents contained in the Draft Scope of the DGEIS and offer the following comments: Item 1. Item 2. Item 3. Full Environmental Assessment Form: In the SEQR document "Appendix A" on page ~ of Q, Item #17 indicates that "no Sewer Districts are Present." within the Town. The Village of Greenport has a Sewer District and it extends out beyond the Village boundaries within the Town of Southold. (Peconic Landing, San Simeon Nursing Home, 7th Street, Wiggins Street, etc.) Preservation of the Town's Natural Environment: Land clearing codes need to be addressed. Currently, if a property owner states that he wishes to farm or plant vineyards on wooded parcels of land, he is allowed to do so without any further review. If he changes his mind after he completes the clearing, there is no penalty. Should statements by owners or their intentions to "Farm" property be regulated to contain a guarantee for a minimum duration of time or obligate a self-imposed moratorium from development? Maintain and Enhance Rural and Cultural Character: Parking of commercial vehicles within the Town owned Right-of-Ways has become a problem in some areas. Whenever commercial & residential properties coexist there is the potential for the placement of large vehicles, containers and/or equipment on the shoulder areas of Town Roads for extended periods of time. This would also be true for properties adjacent to private roads. Problems concerning sight distances and traffic hazards can currently be rectified through the Transportation committee and the Police Department. However, the visual esthetics of this problem are not addressed by current Town Code and there appears to be no way of returning to the Planning Department for additional review once the problem has become evident. Page 1 of f. 'I . . Elizabeth A. Neville (Cont.) Re: Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Scope - DGEIS February 5, 2003 Page 2. of 2. Item 4. Ensure Adequate Transportation Infrastructure: Drainage systems within existing Town Road systems are becoming severely overburdened by additional development. Commercial development currently does require drainage under site plan review but the Code never addresses individual homes, driveways or parking lots that do not fall under Planning Board review. The Town Code should require the installation of drainage structures for ALL development or hardening of existing surfaces and should be made a requirement of construction before obtaining Building Permits. It should also be noted that existing watercourses which may meander through or across private property can't or should not be stopped or diverted in an entirely new direction effecting adjacent property that had not been previously effected. Any run-off generated by development within watershed areas that discharge directly into tidal or fresh water wetlands should be given a high priority for containment. Town Road Excavation Permits are currently addressed on an individual site basis. Town Code could be written to require permits for all work within town roadways. Issuance of these permits would acknowledge who is responsible for the work and to provide a more stringent standard for reconstruction of the effected road system. It continues to become increasingly more difficult to prevent utility contractors from damaging road surfaces, curbing, drainage structures and other street related construction items. I also can't stress the point enough about what happens every time the electric company decides to "TRIM" Street Trees along one of our Scenic Byways. To be honest, I am not exactly sure what type of input you wanted with regard to this matter. I hope that my concerns are of some assistance to you in achieving the ultimate goals of the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy. If you have any questions regarding the above, I would be only too happy to meet and discuss the issues personally. Sincerely, James A. Richter, R.A. cc: Peter Harris (Superintendent of Highways) ^ 1, . . SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD RECEIVED tj~ JAN 2 9 2003 January 29,2003 SEORA "SCOPING" HEARING Southold Town C1erl Facts/Issues to Be Analvzed in the SEORA Process: 1. Number of acres currently in agriculture 2. Number of acres currently zoned residential and vacant in ownership of 10 acres or less. 3. Number of acres currently zoned residential and vacant in ownership of more than 10 acres. 4. A. Will re-zoning the vacant agriculture lands and/or the vacant lands zoned for residential purposes have an effect on the value of lands now improved with residential structures, and if so, in what respect? B. Will the re-zoning reduce or increase the existing and potential number of affordable housing units? C. Will the re-zoning have an effect of (i) reducing the value of the existing vacant unsubdivided acreage, and, if so, to what extent, or (ii) increasing the value of parcels improved with residential structures and single and separate building lots, and, if so, to what extent? D. Will the re-zoning have an effect on the average or median age of the year-round population in Southold, by (i) reducing the number of dwelling units available for ,- . . development and sale and/or (ii) making dwelling units unaffordable by young people? E. Will the re-zoning increase the real estate taxes for the existing improved residential parcels due to (i) escalating values of these parcels from no new lots coming on the market and/or (ii) decreased value of the re-zoned property? F. What will be the effect upon the value of existing homes if the re-zoning is adopted and a ceiling or cap is thus placed on the future population of the Town? G. What effect will the re-zoning have on the ability of the Town to provide housing for: 1) Young people 2) People (e.g., seniors) on fixed incomes 3) Tradespeople (electricians, carpenters, gardeners, etc.) 4) Teachers 5) Police and fire persons 6) Municipal employees H. Will an up-zoning trigger need for town-wide reassessments of existing residential parcels and single and separate building lots to: a) reflect their rising values in the face of reduced supply of new vacant building parcels and 2 . , . . . b) ensure that ever-rising Town costs of government are borne by the fixed number of residential and commercial parcels after any re-zoning that prevents new residential parcels from joining the tax base. I. If no reassessment to cover the foregoing, then upward change in tax rate will be necessary to keep government functioning. 5. The Town is zoned into the following uses: A. Governmental B. Industrial C. Commercial D. Agricultural/conservation E. Residential The government lands can be increased by Town fiat. The commercial and industrial lands are mostly developed and are subject to repeated demands by residential property owners that they be up-zoned to reduce areas of commercial and industrial development. The residentially-zoned areas that are improved with residences (one-family and multifamily) are not affected by future re-zoning and will, with the passage of time, increase in value because of lack of competition from new vacant parcels coming on market. Future development of the currently-improved residential parcels will be tear- downs, followed by construction of larger, more expensive residential structures which, over .3 . . time, will lead to gentrification of the Town, displacement of existing low/moderate income and worker populations, and consequent increased traffic from tradespeople, government workers, etc., commuting to Town (e.g., South Fork). The vacant agricultural properties and the vacant residential acreage sites are subject to: I) the present zoning 2) any proposed up-zoning and 3) any subsequent up-zoning in 2005-2008 that occurs after initial up-zoning that may possibly be proposed at the end of the planning process. The foregoing and the present study - which may result in up-zoning proposals - indicate that a farmer must now protect its land values or, with the passage of time, have his land effectively sterilized. The frustration of the Town's residential property owners with the vagaries of traffic, as well as the influx of owners of new, larger homes, will result in pressure to re-zone all remaining vacant land to try to maintain the then perceived ambience of the Town. Given current development patterns, there will be nothing to re-zone in 5 years, 10 years or 15 years other than the remaining farmlands. Why should the farmer stay in business today? 6. Zoning contracts between the Town and the farmers are unenforceable and beyond the 4 . . power of the Town. Agreements to maintain present zoning in the future are beyond the power ofthe Town absent a State constitutional amendment. Every farmer needs to protect his or her assets the way residential owners are protecting their real property values. Technical Problems with this Hearing: · A Positive Declaration can only be issued for an "Action." · 6 NYCRR Section 617.2(b) defines "Actions" as (1) Projects or physical activities, such as construction or other activities that may affect the environment by changing the use, appearance or condition of any natural resource or structure, that: (i) Are directly undertaken by an agency; or (ii) Involve funding by an agency; or (iii) Require one or more modified approvals from an agency or agencies; (2) Agency planning and policy-making activities that may affect the environment and commit the agency to a definite course of future decisions; (3) Adoption of agency rules, regulations and procedures, including local laws, codes, ordinances, executive orders and resolutions that may affect the environment; and (4) Any combination of the above. · The definition of "actiori" that is most relevant to this matter is found in 6 NYCRR Section 617.2(b)(2). However, the purported "action," which is the proposed adoption of the Town of South old Comprehensive Implementation Strategy, does not meet the 5 .' . . definition of "action" as it does not "..,commit the agency to a definite course of future decisions." The said "Implementation Strategy" is merely a list of goals compiled in 19 separate documents. · The Town of Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy does not exist - accordingly, an "action" does not exist. If an action does not exist, a SEQRA process cannot be conducted, and a Generic Environmental Impact Statement cannot be prepared · The Draft Scope includes an alternative that is termed "Mitigative Strategies," However, this is not an alternative at all. It merely appears to be yet another list of planning goals (i.e., Provide for Land Preservation Including Open Space & Farmland, Maintain & Enhance Rural & Cultural Character, Preserve the Town's Natural Environment, Provide a Sound Socio-Economic Environment for Residents & Businesses, Ensure Adequate Transportation Infrastructure.). · The Draft Scope improperly includes sections that are only to be included in a Final Scope (see 6 NYCRR Section 617.8(b) and (t). What is most objectionable is that the Draft Scope includes a section on "Issues Deemed Not Relevant, Not Environmentally Significant or Adequately Addressed in a Prior Environmental Review." One could not possibly identify issues raised during the scoping process that are irrelevant or insignificant before the scoping process is conducted. That section was apparently included in an improper attempt to avoid the necessity for a comprehensive analysis of the effect of the Town's 6 . . purported "Implementation Strategy" on the value of land, commercial enterprises within the Town, the agricultural community, etc. Esseks, Hefter and Angel Attorneys for More Than 10 Farmers 108 East Main Street P.O. Box 279 Riverhead, New York 11901 7 RECEIVE!> q~ JAN 2 9 2003 C> C '" '" 1ii g c '" 0 .Q c: :r ..... '5.S! ro 3 ~<<io(/) c:cCl)<>6Q .Q)~o(f$<( :g~~'5u c a.'- ..f::; mE~~ '0 > "- en ~~ ~Ul II) Cl> N .... =a... iUM c .... ::l~ DIM :l!2. ~~ II. - ;! 0", ~(f')E OC~8 (fJ >-.~ ffiz .~ I-:t-='"iij ~:;;:@) Don <(Q.,& o:::n:: a:~f:! CDCJ)..!!! "'_ 0 ~ZVl n~ .en fi~ -en ~_. c.o ::J ---: ,-,." J\: I", I SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR 1J l;; 0 z ~ , R 93% -- -- >u'~ . C~"-= GENERAL- DESCRIPTION Four individual units are attached to form a typical townhouse building_ Each individual unit contains three bedrooms. two baths, living-dining room with Franklin stove (efficient heating with low-draft opera- tion), kitchen-famJly room, . SOLAR HEATING SYSTEI1 Jrnrrn . :. i.~M -,- '. -~ . Four townhouses share a common solar heating and solar . domestic hot-water preheating,system ~ns1st1ng of a ln8xpens1ve, single-glazed. water type collector. faming the 45 south roof of the house; a central 6OOO-gallon insulated steel storage tank' buried in the ground near the row of houses, and associated pumps. piping. valves. con- trols and insulation. The-collection cycle 1.5 as fol. lows: when a sensor registers that any collector in the row is 10" wal"ller than another sensor in the middle of the tank the ci rculating pump goes on and pumps water through - the collector. Collection ceases and the col- lector is drained when the collector cools. relative to the tank. or when the middle of the tank reaches ZOO"F.' The house heating cycle is as follows:. -when the thermo- stat in any house in the/row drops below 70oF. the- house heating circulator, pumps water frOlllthe top of the tank through the baseboard convectors. of the house and back to the storage tank. If the water, in the tank-;; is too cool to satisfy the demand. the system continues' to run. while an independent system of electric base- boards with individual tliennostats provides additional heat. Although the hot~ater-systen might stay on for considerable periods. the,pump uses veryltttle elec- tricity. Sooner or later the solar heating w11l Silthfy the house demand and the System will beg-1,n- to cycle again~ FRONT. ELEVATION REAR ElEVATIOtl Het heated area: 1650 sq.ft, (13,OOO c.f.) Gross area: 1690 sq. ft. Estimated 1975 bulldinq cost, excluding land. site . improvements, and fees: MINIH~4 AVERAGE f3r.500 142.500 Heat loss: 9,650 BTU/DEGREE DAY / UNIT 8.4 BTU/HR-SF @ DESIGN TEMPERATURE DTU Col~ected by Solar System: 55.7 RTU/YEAR/UNIT Matera'ls: Foundation and Slab on Grade: poured concrete (10" wallsl Walls: 2x4 studs sheathed w. 5/8" plywood, 1/2" gyp bd interior, 2x6 studs @ end walls. Floors: Wood joists with 5/8" plywoud subfloo!", 3/B" underlayment, and carpet. eei 1 i ngs: 112" gyp. bd. Roof: Composition shingles on 5/8" plywood sheathing over wood rafters. Windows: Double.glazed double-hung with wood frames. Patio doors: Double-glazed, ~eatherstripped Exterior doors: 1 3/4 wood. weatherstr1pped. with metals torm door." Thermal 1nsulation: R-ll fiberglass' batts in wal1s.R-19 in attic. under collector. and tnend walls of building. SECTION ~ . R1.7 R13.4 $ Domestic hot water ,15 supplied.to each house by a conventional hot-water heater. with the ..in feedwater pipe run th-rough 136 feet of 3/4. copper tubing. or In equivalent hellt exchanger. 1~ the conmon storage tank. , It would be po,1b.le to meter1ndtvidual unit usage if tnd , " t111ng 15 desired. I \--t:< ~ .,-. MAIN PIPING TO I FROM SHARED STORE 4- SERVING SEVERAL ~ HOUSES BURIED SHARED STORAGE TANK 38 , \ --"";;;".'"' - " . "'~~ ,. _-.c ~ , , ,,"t I "J i ~'i ., ,. ~ :% " , ,nnfng the nsulated w I :;.~~;" ;ii 'lIter',;:t' ,D'f 1- :1' to i ..~;' ~-. .. ,nk les' 1 .r sfY r, n HEAT SUPPLIED DURING A TYPICAL YEAR 22 J A SON 106 BTU 20 IB 16 14 12 10 B 6 4 2 SPACE HEAT 0 00f! HW 2 1 o J F M A M J . J............ ..'. '. --" . MISCELLANEOUS "'" filii!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!::!!!!:!!!;;);;:;!!:;!!!:;!!::!!!ii:::!!!!::::!:!:ii::::::0ffi~:r::::::::: - ::~~~:; ~ :H.:.~:Wf:::tl::I:!:::!!::;1:!!1:!1!!!:!:!!!!!:!~!!:!:!:!:!:!::!!::!!:!!::!::!!!!:l1!~;!!:!!;:!!!!;!: PERFORMANCE ." \' This system was designed tomaxfmize the'a~unt of solar heating within the constraints of a marketable and bu11d- 'able design. The resulting system reduces' the auxiliary " heat used by 87 percent when compared to the identical house without solar heating (the'Non-Solar'Townhouse), and .by 93 per~ent when compared to the Improved Cape, which 1s about 12 percent larger. (The perfonnance'option chart to the- right compares the Solar Townhouse with the Non-Solar Townhouse.) The basic design has no basement. but other- 'e' .,~,wise resembles 1n constructio~{the Improved Cape. '., ,'.~, .~oi-':~s with every design. lowerirHfthe thermostat to a 650F .average prOduces a,large,incr~ase in performance. in this ~;'~ case reducln!} the auxiliary ,heat ,by an addition 6 percent. :to 93 percent. Reducing the size,of collector would prob- . ably not change the operating:c~s~ of the house very much. ;_,,,,,but would increase the auxiliary .heat consumption. In- "creasing the size was not po'~s1.ble with the design shown. ":,','" ::'Using 6" studs Wfith R-19 insulation for theexter10r walls , , .' '; appears_ to payor itself: a 'was,te water heat., re:covery "I' ":~ystem 15 not quite as goodapbuy.' primarily because it ';'! .. requires construction of a, special pH 'onder the floor. or ':,an ejector pump-to raise the,waste, water back to first- ,;r:>~.'(rT_f,loor ,Jevel.: ancf;~ does ,not~pro'vid~,:enoUgh he'at' l:~~r.!,l_.~.'~~ co. ..JnP. !~a.t~ '..Or,;th,1$. iCOH'~~H.~.,4;1.~ "~ :i"1i~~f~,! ,J"iIjj';~',,1~"I'~(:~J~li"'1~ "i~ " ,_; /tJ~~~~~" J"":r~f::~,r, 'a~1s ',"k'l":~','~~:ff .tf: r"""~ ", ,;; 'f-' ",,--, -., ., , - - Because the store is a centrally located tank for four ilot- tached houses. the cost of the tank per gallon is $ubstan- thlly less than individual tanks. This is partly offset by increased piping. but serves to decrease the overall system cost. larger tanks cost correspondingly less per gallon. so that doubling the size of the store, despite a small performance increase, could be ilon attractive, option. It is IIIOre sensible. however, to provide two tanks. to allow one to shut down for repair or examination. and the cost per year indicated at right reflects the latter usumptlon. Because of the low overall heat loss of the townhouse. and the potential economies of a shared store and pos. s101y shared pumps and controls. the townhouse seems to be a sensible building type to heat with solar energy. It appears to be economically attractive and architectur~ ally feasible to produce townhouses which are largely heated by solar energy. and within certain limits to re- late them in a site plan to reasonably high densities. Further studies need to be undertaken tc '/~)Il':tl<l're the pos- sible densities in a non.solar heated townhouse develop- ment with those achievable with~the additional restraint of co'rrect solar or1entation. 't>J.. br'.~ PARAMETERS ~15GA1. <nr NET J' COLLECTOR AREA @ SOX EFFIC.. .... SIZE OF STOOE HOUSE HEAT LOSS 9,650 BTU/DAY OF ~ WATER HEAT DEMAND 100 GALL~S/DAY , MISCELLANEOUS HEAT SUPPLY 120.000 BTU/DAY CD HEATPllILITY 11.500 OTU/DAY o~ MINIHilII DELIVERY TEMPERATURE 50 OF YEARLY TOTALS (10 BTU) .D()I1llI ~PACE HJ. JOJAl.. im. SOLAR 23.5 32.2 55.7 'CQ AUXILIARY 3.9 4.1 B.O '.., MISCEllANEOUS 35.0 35.0 SOUTH WINDOWS 12.4 12.4 STORE lOSS 0 -.JL TOTAl v:4 au IIT.T HEAT lOSS TABLE .BTUlHR',SFI70~f j1l!UQbL~f. SLAB (It GRADE NA 700 EXTERIOR WAllS I 62 950 OPENINGS . 25 2,500 ATTIC AND ROOF 1:53 900 INFILTRATION NA 2.750 I-lUMIDIFlCATION NA 1,250 1/2 END WAll 1.02 ----600. TOTAl B.42' 9.650 STORE TEMPERATURE OOoF J lOOoF ~O~ _ JASONDJFMAMJJ PERFORM.\IlCE OPTION C~PARISOH WITM TOWNHOUSE . AUXILIARY HEAT COST OF COST OF SAVED 'OPTION . S<l.AR HJ!AT 100BTUIY. L. lL!!L $/I06BTU.YR 54.7 .:87 600 .11.0(. Basi cHouse lower Thennostat. to 650 Average Double Size of Store Add 75 IF Con....ector Waste Water Heat Recovery System 6" Exterior Walls wi ' R-19 Insulation Reduce Collector 20% Reduce Collector 4~ Reduce Insu-lation on Store + 3.8 93 n.c. 10.25 + 1.6 90 + 50 11.50 + 0.6 .Ba . 60 12.00 ,+ 3.1 92. . 75 11.75 + 1.3 a9 +.20 11.00, - 4.3 80 .60 10.75" -10.8. 70 ,.. -120 ~1.00 a2 - 25 11.25 , 3.6. COST ESTIMATE MINlltJM ': . . AVERAGE Basic Unit (inc)uding ng $5.500 shilore of solar system cost) , . 37.500 . 42,500 ,< . .. .t..,,;, 1i;~ .,\:';' , . :.,: ~il >, ,;,';. ,',. .t en o - Q) ... 'f} ~ ::J ::T o C en CD . I en ::T Q) ... CD Q, ~ - CD ... > . .~ .. ~ II CO CA) ~ ,,-, 39' " "~3' SOLAR TOWNHOUSE ~= ~ f~Q) / SHARED WATER SYSTEM JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER ,:(J) ..,;,~;~:::---- f' , " \ oW .FlOOR AREA 1.650 SQUARE FEET CLUIAIIi: "AIII:IIIIUlI >>""lIle.. tt""T GIU..~ Io. \llIlHl~ , 1....., .w COllECTOR AREA / UNIT 715 SQUARE FEET "' w ~,.. :0'1.11_ "'". 1lU".' '1,01111. .CD An' ,.... IllIlU IiOIoAII .... "I~ "/U:. ..... -. .u. -. ':(J) STc.R'~-;.SIZE I UNIT 1.500 GAlS / UNIT -.............. ......_-... -..---.......-............-............... ,.. o ?lIn,o . . . . . . 01..- ~_. SOUTII W IIlooW B6 SQUARE FEET ". no 1S150 . . . .. . " '.,) I~ll (Q '" 1141SI!loO . . .. " . , III... HOUSE HEAT lOSS 9.650 BTU/DAY OF ". IH "'150 . . . . . . III". ::::J ... "'?lIISO . naDO . . . . nlAl)O hi". FO ... 0",150 . ..... . . . . ~6l>OU I... THERMOSTAT 70 ,.. .3:1 '~I50 . 19300 . . . " l'Ialldll;' .n .5lnuo . . . . . . :II'" WATER HEAT DEMAND 100 GAllENS/DAY ". 155Ut!lO . . . . . . Ol'#e. lo.U 15. nno . . . . . . Oil) MISCELLANEOUS HEAT 120.000 BTU/DAY 111. IOlnno " . . , , . 01"''' 1"" 1"nl50 . . . . . . :1...1 50 U.. .11 15150 . IUOO , , . , ."4Ual.... COLLECTOR EFFICIENCV S ..69 141 "150 , ..~ . . . . ".:.oI..U BTU/OAY OF. un 191 UliW , . , , , , OI...J STORE lOSS TO HOUSE 0 1616 .30 "ISO . , . . . . 01'1') .... l...nl50 . ..... . . . . 19:1001'111 .' STORE lOSS TO ENVIR / UNIT 250 .BTU/OAY ~F I'.' .... nllO , , ...,so . . . . ..."su .... .... 191 nl!lO , ..... . . . , ..6001..... STORE ENVIR. TEMP. 50 OF 1065 1611515:1 . ...~ . . . , q"l>Q .... .166 H"nno . ;'160CI " , " " :JoIWl"'I". BTU/OAY OF al66 Itl nno . ..... . . . . .......0..." HEATABIllTY 11.500 23." 10' 1t15ll . :nfOO . , , , ilIliOOOU.. '.15 119.15150 . " . , " . al'lv MINIMUM DElIVERYTEHP. 80 FO 8511 lIa15l50 . . . . . . ClIIII .664 o UI5:I ;'0 "... . . . . ,,"ao I." toq)uter run was based on "per-unit" values 116a o ,i'l5o ,. "aDO . " . . 1~1IO;I .-,. for parameters. .... OUIIO ;,0 1'11103 , , . " nKQllI.. Collectol' area, store size, and store loss to env~ronment .... 1,.n1SO '. , , . . , :.II',. ~" IHnl511 . . , . . . 31"11 were calr.uhted for 4-untt townhouse building and divided ... "150 . . by 4 to !'btain "per-unit" values used in run. YEARLY TOTALS (I06BTU) UTI al1'5t5O , . . . . 0.". DO" ...,f SPACE NT ,TOTAL :1,,'0 al75150 . . . . . Ol'liao 35" 'n TSIIO . . . . . UII. SOLAR 23.5 32.2 5S.7 .." .., nno g . , . . 0111" AUXIlIARY 3.9 4.1 8.0 "" '''''ISO . . . . OIYI> 31n noli niso . .. . . . 01". MISCEllANEOUS 3S.0 35.0 .... IUfSlSO . , . . ~ ,"" . ., tI u. SOUTH WI flDOWS 12.4 12.4 .... 191'1'5110 ...., . . " . ... I.... "169. '.571150 .... . . . . ""101"11 STORE lOSS 0 0 .." :In TSI50' . . . . . UIU TOTAL zr.4 83.7 1lI.1' 4:110 :14. TS150. . . .. . . lIln .... an 71110 . . . . . Ol'la .." IUTSI50 . . . . , . . II UII .... ....'1'&150 . . . . . 011111. This is a day-by-day printout of the house pei"tor. .'.1:1 n. nlso 675SO . . " . ns!lO 1911 t' .... ".15ISO It,'OO . . . 0;' ',,",001'111 mance for the year 1958. A quick scan of the .9.. a:l'l''I'515O 5'9'00 . . , . ""0lI h';' ~.. :1M "ISO m.. . . . . " ... printout shows the general qualitative performallce 511" ""ISO ..... . . . "-0 .."SO Ut. oL the systenw.those times in the year when auxw 5111 :1'1'1 "ISO . i" . . . ~ 0 " . 01'11 .... ''''1'5110 ..~ . . . .0:' ..50 h':I i1iary water heat. auxiliary space heat. solar .. " ." 1'5150 ...~ . . . ... ..... ... space heat. etc. are required. This informiltioll .55'" "'S1"SO 5"~ ~i . . .' .. ..nOOhlO .... 11"110 ..~ . . . :.>. '.NUI ts sUllmarized on the preceding pages. but is "'1 IIfSlSO ...~ . . . '''1001'1':1' presented here in full to enable the interested .... It'UI" ..... . . . II'!". "'-.0 I." 59.1' 1"'5150 ...!to . .. , . . aM.., ... reader to interpret the data for himself. .... I" uno f1l1UO. . . ':; . . nllOlI 1'6 61" ~u ,.1100 I . . , , . 01'" ..,,' Col. I: ttuntter of day. starting July 1 , . .... 41!l75IM . ..... . , ';""0 . ...ItOtlI"., Col. 2: Mean daily temperature .$" 40175110_ /11 n_ . . ., . '. nlKoU u, Co1. 3: Daily insolation on vertical south-fadng surface .66. n'15H,O . 51900- . . .. . "'''1Ia1'l1> .". .19 uno . ..... . , . . .6OCI11O.. Col. 4: Solar contribution to water heating '8.' at'15no . ..... . , . . U'>>U I"" Co1. 5: Auxiliary contribution to water,heating 6969 HtI75I5O . ..~ . , .. . "6!tOIIIO tol. 6: Miscellaneous contribution to space heating ".. IUf$l5O . ..... ,. . . . . It6foUU.... 1159 ". nlSo . 106150. . . " . IMISOIlo.:t tol. 1: South window contribution to spdce heating .... 131"50 j!;O 106ll1oO "' " . . .. 106I!tO I~;;' Col. 8: Solar contribution to space heating through 1355 "' nUll . .- ~,.. . ':"" " . u.'so I..... 'olin ..u'''11O "'-'11 ,- -~ . " .. 'I..-oW I".. conduction losses from the store , 15S9 43.nl$O . ~ 0 106ISO, . . '.;' . . 1061\011 Ii!> Co1. 9: Solar contribution to space heating through ".. :151 "ISO )', . m.. .. . .. " . 111lUl11,. nil ',,:t4 nuo , Inot! ' ',U " " ". '''':..)1,11..." normal dtstrtbutlon ,.... 131""0 '0 ""Utl "'0 . . " !MI'OOI'l" Col. 10: Auxtliary contribution to spaCI heating "" OltlaG .;0 ,..... ;.0 . 114no 0, l"''I'lI'' I,UI Co1. 11: Totll space heating .... o nuo 0110000 .' . I.no 0.1"'''0 nil .... o nuo 'OltoooO. , . ..... " n....,.....I!>.. Col. 12: Stor.e teroperature It ~ of the day .. "51' UII nno 0110000 Ul03 , . 0.13610:.1 IU un IU1'SI" ..- ..~ .. . . 11111_"'" HI "'0 :lHnlllS \, 3 ..... , . ,. . , ".loU..I;l" for complete I.plan.tion of the printout. SI. PP. 44-47 Un ,"71711": I ..... , . !g , ''''t.l11lI a.u 31a nno , ,un " . " , .).)'" I~" for discussion of parameters. Stt pp. 50-67 "'.6 "U'l'611lO . ..... . " " " "..w h", 1J8" :IllllSl50 . . . . . " U II. For discussion of small error in weather data for days 1954 0"150 011100311 . . :.4"010 1I.1!>"........101 .... lallUlloO o 11D03~ 3"''''. " l>Itat. " 1I111a:ial"'. 354-365. see p. 47. '11.0 "'''150 o tWOO3 "~1I . . " UWUU lu .. .,)'1;400. ~...~ . . .O._~!.Li 40 iik~:~if,i;11:\\~~;~:'f~:~:.~~i[";;;"';'.~~:~"]I~~ :5:~~~~j~~~i~~~!:!:~:::~t:~~~~:~~~~::~:~i~:~t;i~iS~E~E~ii~iS: ~~~~=;.?~g~==~8;:;:;:~~:::~~::; ~tt:~:tt::~::~:~:~::~tt:::~~t ;~;==========S666666uu6.~..... M-O.G~.~.U~-O.~~.~.WM_W~&~~..W t~:::t::g::t::~~:8t~::~g::~:~: ~. &~~:;~g:~~=.~G~&;3~:t:= 3~:g e :;:~t~~ = ~~: ~:~-.'.' .... ~ _ w~~~~w.w~~~ .ww~.w.. -OWW.O-.WO.~~..WW~-._~W_~-UU.<<O~.OOOG.W~_._DUOOO.._DW_~.O=O.. ;O:~OOOO~;:t:z=~r~~O~~~:~=~tDO ;i:!~~:i~~!~~tg;~~::!~!!:g:~;~ii~i5~~~EE~!:e======:E=====~E=~ :i:3====::====~~:~=:!i::::=::= ':~:~:::;~~=:~X~:b~~tZ:~e;::~~;tt:~gttStS:~:gggggg:gttg>>g~gg! t~::=tgBZ'tgtggggggtgg~~ggggg! ..;.I,.._...,;....."'~""............................................ ..' ...._. ~O.....~............~-~~-.~~........~O..bO~....... ... .....0 .. ~ ~ ~!tt:. ~~:~::;:~~::i~~~~;:!!i:~~~~~:~~~:~looooooi~~oooooo!oooooo:oo:-::;i=ooooooocooooooooooooooooo ~~~.iii~i!i~~ii~i~~iiii~~!iiiiEi~i~ii!iil-I-!i-l-iii~~I-!il-I-I-I-~~!i-- 0080000g8080g08020000000800008 g8008gD g g.gg" gg g'gD .0000000 0000 O!OOUO~OOOOO~OOOU 0000 0 0 0 00 0 00 - ---- -- - - - ;-,g~::~;:;~:~;~;:ftt;S:;~ t: .: ":a:::~~~:"'::~!et"::~:::~~~ ;=: ..eo.-.o...~_ot~~~~~t....ti._...oooo 'i-~i."~:~.:.::iii~~.;=~~ii!i! o go80~ggoggg".g 88S".!8gggegg g ogggoo08000gg08000Zgooooo800 -- - - - -- - I: : ;~~:i:; =e~ ::~~.: ~ :~ ~ g::~~tj _ ;-: ::::=: ._ ~"'o.0~....~o_00000_3_0"'.._..~...ot - - - - . ...-... .-... ~-..... ! '~! . ~~~i~ ~!;$ ~i5t~ .0~.00oot~.ogo030o...ooooo.og...oo "'-. ~~e~o~:~ooo~ocooooooo~...ooooooo S:;ii!igt~~~;i!~::E:~s~;5 ~:~; :~~:~ti...t:=:!tr:~~:t~~~~: :~-~ "'OO~'.":.-~o...e"..K'.".~"O,oto -~ 00000000000000000000000000000 oooooaooocooooeooooooOOOOOOOc~ " ..--- -- -- -- -- - --- .- - ~;~~ttt~:: s::~ ~: Ig~~~; ;~~.::~f~t:~q~~ ~~;. t ~~r tx~:~:~~;. ~~e~ ~~ :€~~:~ ~e~~~~~:=~...~!~~. :~~t : f:~ ~~.O~M-~~O~OO~~O-C~O~A'OC"'~.~_~O~.o~oc_~~cooo~oo~~oooo~OO.~C t. :~ ~;;~~i~~ g~ I. ..~ ~ acw~~,o_ 0_ . ~-.. o'~.o.~w ~~ ,.~cco~w~o~cocw..c~'o~wc~oo~_occ cccccc~oooo~ce~oooococoocooooocococo~oooeoco~cccooccooOOCOCec ~S!!iii!!~~!~i$!!!~!!~~!ff!~~~S!~!!lf~~!~~5~;;~2i~~!!!12~~~~~~~;;;~~!i;!i;E,;!i!I;'~:~!~i!~; ;~~~Wt~~f~t~~ro~~tc~~:~~~t~~t;cro~~8t~t~t~3t~g~~~~~cg~~t~~c~~v:tS~~~~~k~~~~:~~~~t~~t~~tCt~: CCOo~o[ooucc~cceecooecocooooc .colccoccc60ccooooccec~ocooooo ~oo~cuc~olo~otogcc~gtoocco~clt ----- ---- - - ----- --------------------------- ----- ------------------------------ ~~~~=.~:~c:~~:t~~~:;t~:;~~;~:v.~~:tt~:=:3o~~~t~:~:~~:~~~!~:o t~~~~~:~:::~t~~~~:::::~:l~:~:! !!~!2!!!!!!!!!~e!!f!!!!!e!!!!! ~;~~~~~~~t~~~~t~~~~~tttt~=:~kt !!5!;!E!:!e~R!!!!!!!!!!!;= ';;;:~~!!!!!!!!~::::::::=i::~:1!! i p tt~~~~:a;0..:;:8~:;;lt~:::~ ~~t~t=:~~t:=;::~~~~:;::;~~==.;: ii!~~! . ..'" o~a~0:~:~ooo~i~ooo!:!!::;5!0=:.. .0:;i8:o5Ei!oi!!:5E;o05i:~i .=000oQ~io:E;ooooo;;5!i!or:~;:o ill v ~~~..t.~:-w~~~~...t~~~~~~~~~.:..... .:.=="i~.~'t~.:.~"''''~.~...~t ---~~~.......~--~..~.tt~..~=~rtt~= ~ :==g~~a~...:::::~~~:~:::::::~~:~t .=:.~: ==~.-~~.==~~~~=3!=~. ~.~!~...':.;=..:~~C,S.~!B:;:~t-~!..~~:~:~ SSg...~!~=::g=:!~KggSgSg!=.~=:t =~o5t.g:::t::;:t:Q=:=~t:~e ~&~-.._=~i....o~_-9..w......W...~o.K := . =;::3;~- ..~~; o.~=~~~ _tt~=: ~::~ :;.=.===~!=;~.. .:t=x~=*~=~::tl=~.;I=~I;S~~!;'l!~ ~==;~~;i .;~~ - .===~:;~ ...... ~c-tgX.t.l~o.V.--:& .=~-tKO..-gt~O~;~~.~=&::_~~s:..~= :~ oOo_~..5:... o:..oooooooo=.~......... =~~t;:oo~:;;.t~:::~:..=;g.. a~;M~~:::.w~:i.;..~....~.~_.o~..uu iiiiijliliiijilllijijlllil -lliiliiiilllllliijllliJjjlllli i~ =.. ~; -.. =z.~~~ ::.~i :t~ S: ..- .t: ~:a..t a::!: : &! looooo~!c;::ooo~o:!:~!:o;~;~_o: . I{~ '.. ...= pooooooooooooooooooooooo~o o~ooooooooocoocoooooooooooooooo : r :=-~ i!t : ; ::0;.1; I!! !. ,.- 'ID Ie-; Ililllliiijilliliiljiiiiilllli ~- - --- -- . _00 w.._ ~ow o--~-oco~-I w... .cc. ~~o -o._w~._~ 0 ~~t :c:~ ~~: ~.~r:~"~..: o.~.o.o-rOOg~_.ouo~lw....r~.o~ .:t.c!S i;iei: i;"!ii~ ====;t! ~G.=% 5~r~ ..~.~O... ~~_g~ o:~e:.o~fc.oZ~~f_;:oo..~.o ooooooo~ocoooooooooccooooooooo C.:~.:;~~:~=;o~.=:o~w==-...!-;.. "~li..c...o~~,&~r.~.~.o.KI.J~:w. if::8:gi!ggg~itg~~!::~:!!;:~i~. 1--!~:~:~ew"':~~=~IDI=;rtl; ~C&~~~:~::~i::.:f~.Vt~K-=~ tt'.w"'~.~_"g._..q_.to..c:.. OSCq~...o.._. O__.....oo~.... -_e__.. --.-.-K...-"~el; .. ...C-ti~'" (=.~~!O~w=..... 0 - :::~:~=~ :"~:~";:?~=~i: I 000.gg.wow~000.~0~otww~6c~.~. -.. ....... , - ;:~:: :~:! i ig&:oococcot~'(ooooooooooooouo is. oooococo:gooccooooooocoooo!ooo~ . : : \ ~ :. ... . . - oooooooeoc~ooooooc..ooooco~ =~~!i~~kl:~~~~::r~i~i!rt!;iSt~; ~l-'-~'l...lt....g'_.'.!g~'_.'t. ~(c8ogocc~ccgt3gcggcogoo!8&g~! '~k~~~~:I%:ttg;l:t::&t:l%'~ t~tf~~t=~=:~::~.w~~5itf!!f~i~i!:; ~S"~I.~~Og.~-u..ooo...t.wwr. ~~.'c.;~~.._~~ . ~~~o~.cl Igigl~g~~~ig~ggiiAl~tig~~gi iigggii~tg~ifgg~~~gg~~io6o~,gg . ;;~~~;ii;i;~E~g~i:~:;:S~~~,c~:~~~~E~~i:f:~~~:ii~i:e2i;~~~~ ~------ ------------------- c::t~tt~~:~t:~~~~:::~~g~~:c:~cg f!~~!~!I!~~~~!!~~r~l~!~!!~~~~~ ::!: :!:::: ~:~::::: r:-::!:g:: ::::=::: :a:: =~ t! Httt~~W~M.....~.eeeeee~~ee~~tiH~ .W..-D-.~O~....~_~~.~....W._o_.~.U .~~~~..............~....~........................~~ -...--..~.~~~..._....oo......wo.....~..~~ . ..Z::~IJ'~~8=:==: : :.. ~; ~~..=;::: ."c:-:: ::; t~ OOboooaoaoaoto.Q~.WOQ"'."~,,_~o ~~o-.o..=_-""~o.~._~....oo~_..o_ ~:::::::::~:~:::~:~::::::=:::~~:::~::::::::::;=:::=:t~:::::~! g~ s.i si i ~ g!i i i i ~ i g i i i gig gig i i i z!~ ~ i g ~ i i i i g g i i i ii i is i i ii! i is ii i i i i s !s OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQ~:oooooo ~ " titHltilnllll'IU1111111111IE~~~=!!:'" rp W._O_.~._.~__CG.~~....~~_ :-t~;a ...tt~.::=t::::~:~:~r~~~~::=~:~:~-c~~ :- :':" ........- "-"~:"".8 ....as... .s.l oo~:::eo~~:..=::~oow!vo:::ooc'c :::::::;:::~E:~~~~~!!;!=:!i5~:! iiiiiiiiiii!~gg~!!gg~:!g:~...I:~ . .. :=;: l . _ v::::. >- oouoooooooooooootoOOO~OQ~.."'O a Illiiliiililliiiiilllllli!ill!:~ ;!'r . tEtlE~:!=~~ i!i :" ~ oo:clzoooilssggl;oot:ro.....cooi~~ ... :.~ . : . -- U D...OgOOOCOOcgooocec.cCl . .ucoc~C~C~gOOgO~WC~~O~gCW~ooO~ OOOOgOOOOOOGoooocooo~ooooooo~OwOOOOOgO _ :_~ . - - ---- ~ . -- cc~tt.:-.;.~:a:~ :!t i; t ~~I: : t:2=:~ E :S;ti ;. . ~:j:!&~:.;_~:::: ~ .. t Kg.~ - .~.~~. 0 ..-~ - .~VCg'~G~~..CI. 00 :oocooooooo;~:-oO~Gto~~=~c.~~6~t~o080cooocooccc....~~..~~ iE! :-- cecoucooocoooooooooceco~ococcc ooocoooooooooocoooooooooooooco~oooocooccooooocooooooooocccc~t_ . - - 1- _......cw...,.IlCC.WIl< lie ----- - ~- ~-~--- ---------- --.~---~.-EI~llc~ ticlc~---~;~;=;~ ~~.~l~ ~..._.w t- il!t!~=rti:~;l~li :.~i;i.5~~~I&.!r~!~~f~~=~;~;iti;i.!~':',~E 1;'iiii.~;.~at"=i'.I_; ;it:.~., . DD!I[i[lffl~!!i~~~"ztZtzZg~tt"!8~'~~Zg..Il,.z~~gg'8i.s!Ei.l. ~~~~:~::~~;~~~:~:~:~:~_~~~~~~". if i i iSiiiitiit~5 i'~:: i: ~E; ~ 5:- :::: s ~;i F:: 5 ~ iii i:~: :S: :i: E:tt ~==i: c t: ~ :~:~:l :: ::lZ~t: ~ ~:..... t___ OOOOOOGOOOoooooooooooooooouao :~:t:~:BP.E:i;:&f ~~::~ti:l-i:- '.~ II: ...go - ._.~ -c~Xcoc 0 ccgZgg~!gogBgg~g~~oSgggBt8 gg i!Bi~ii~i~~=~~~iiii=ii~iii.~ii- gg~gg~ggg.gSSg8!g8glgg88888gg ~ f : ~: ! ~:$;:: ~~! t_ o8o~ooZcguZoo~c::~lo;Zoc:g:og= ! ~;~ ;: cooooocoooco~~ooowoogooggog~o m CC.OCOCgCOOOOOOCCOCC.OOWOC.CCOOO -- '0 c :- IP :'-t-;:; :~-8Ft it!" ::'" . o n -i o '" l"T1 "" :~ f ~ , . , . .. : ~ I> ~ :z o <: l"T1 m l"T1 "" :~ it ". , .. :t: : '" .[~ :~C' i ~ ::'t; :t,. r~ I,! f~~ :t-C' : ~, . C l"T1 n l"T1 :;::. '" l"T1 "" . . . . , ii ". c.. > :z c > "" -< . t r ..... . E. l"T1 '" "" c:: > "" -< . :;:: . > . "" . n ::I: . . . . Ii . ~ V> >0 .".!; C::"" ':"""-i s;~ -<::I: o c:: c..V> c::l"T1 :z l"T1 E . . . . . V> ::I: > "" l"T1 C :E > -i l"T1 "" V> .-< -V> -i l"T1 :!: . . . -, . . g(ouJl'..~ ~ ON LONG ISLAND lonG Islanb ~aQm BUQ€aU, Inc. 104 Edwards Avenue, Calverton, NY 11933 Phone: (631) 727-3777 Fax: (631) 727-3721 TO: Joshua Horton, Supervisor Southold Town Board Southold Town Clerk Southold Town Attorney RECEIVED t1J.v1"":'~ JAN 2 9 2003 FROM: Becky Wiseman, Associate Director Long Island Farm Bureau Soulhold Town Clert DATE: January 29, 2003 Draft Scope Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement RE: As the 'voice of commercial agriculture' Long Island Farm Bureau's foremost responsibility is to review, and provide comment on legislative changes that may negatively impact the agricultural industry. It is important that Southold Town's draft generic environmental impact statement (DGEIS) recognizes the economic impact of the agricultura1 industry. Agriculture is New York's largest industry. Suffolk County leads the industry in market value of agricultural products sold. As well as employing over 10,000 people agriculture provides the landscape and scenic beauty that makes Tourism Long Island's largest industry with over $2 billion in revenues annually. Of grave concern to Long Island Farm Bureau is what appears to be a decided shift in Southold Town's goals. The Town's stated goal is, "to preserve land including farmland, open space, recreation and working landscapes", but our perception is the Town wants to preserve farmland only for its open space, recreational and aesthetic value. We are deeply concerned that the foundation of the farming industry is at stake. If the business of farming is sacrificed to open vistas, then Southold Town's rural integrity will be lost forever. The historic and cultural tradition of farming dates back to the 1600's. Very few places in our country have this unique and irreplaceable asset. We urge you not to abandon your past principles and policy commitments to the Town's agricultural industry, as are recorded in the 20 documents reviewed by the moratorium team. Long Island Farm Bureau is requesting that the following issues and answers be included in the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement, as the Town of Southold moves forward in drafting its Comprehensive Implementation Strategy. 1.) In the event ofa change in zoning. What is the economic impact: a. On production agriculture? b. Land value and equity? c. Farm businesses? 2.) In the event of a change in zoning to decrease density, what is the impact on existing private and public preservation programs? 3.) 'Open Farmland' Long Island Farm Bureau requests that 'farm' be defined according to New York State Ag & Markets Law section 301 as amended. . . 4.) 'Buildings on PDR land' Long Island Farm Bureau opposes any undermining of Purchase ufDevelopment Rights program. We would ask the Town to consider NYS Ag & Markets 305-a # l.a. "Local governments, when exercising their powers to enact and administer comprehensive plans and local laws, ordinances, rules or regulations, shall exercise these powers in such manner as may realize the policy and goals set forth in this article, and shall not unreasonably restrict or regulate farm operations within agricultural district in contravention of the purposes of this article unless it can be shown that the public health or safety is threatened." Greenhouse, barns, fencing, etc are all necessary tools and normal components of the farming business. 5.) 'Mobile Home housing' Long Island Farm Bureau requests farm worker housing be considered under the affordable housing policy. 6.) 'Monitoring Program' As the Rural Incentive District is reviewed and codified, a monitoring program of land preservation and development must be included. Please note that this was a goal Long Island Farm Bureau had requested be completed during the Town's tenn of moratoria. As decisions are made by the Town of South old to implement policy that has the powerful ability to impact agriculture for future generations, it behooves the public and elected officials to turn to other examples and resources for guidance. . Town of SouthamDtoD Final Generic Environmental ImDact Statement: "The Town understands that maintaining the economics of farming is key to preserving farmland. The initiatives pursed by the Town are not strictly for preservatioo of open space, but rather to preserve and protect farmland as a viable agricultural industry." . THE CA TO REVIEW OF BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENT fall. 2002 Has Zoning Hurt Affordable Housing? "In the nation's tightest housing markets, land-use regulation contributes heavily to high housing costs." Page 30 CONCLUSION: "If policy advocates are interested in reducing housing costs, they would do well to start with zoning refonn." . Michael Caracciolo. Suffolk County T .....;.lator "Farming requires a critical mass of activity to sustain the infrastructure of related business on which it depends. Despite all of our accomplishments, we must do more." · Nathan L Rudl!ers. Commissioner New York State DeDartment of Amculture and Markets "Suffolk County leaders understand that profitable farmers keep land in production, viable farms maintain open space, protected open space sustains a healthy environment, and a sound environment with a balance of rural and urban uses maintains the highest quality of life. Innovative, incentive-based approaches to protecting farmland can help strengthen these key relationships." Long Island Farm Bureau understands according to page 7 of the scoping document, that under SEQRA the economic -analysis on business operations is not appropriate for analysis in an environmental impact statement. But understanding this as a public policy goal we feel the economic impact on a major industry in Southold Town must be considered. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment. . . - . . Neville, Elizabeth From: Sent: To: Subject: Gwynn Schroeder [gwynneds@optonline.net] Wednesday, January 29, 2003 5:00 PM e.neville@town.southold.ny.us NFEC comments for SCIS Scope RECEIVED -..5: 00;0'" . ?,IN ~ he"l'iIll'J JAN 2 9 2003 i[] CommentsScopeSCJ D.doc (33 KB) Dear Betty, Soulhold Town CIeri Below are my comments on behalf of NFEC as well as an attached word document. I will follow up with a hard copy on NFEC letter head. Gwynn Schroeder NFEC Southold Coordinator January 29, 2003 Members of the Town Board Southold Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Re: Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy: Comments on behalf of North Fork Environmental Council January 29, 2003 Members of the Town Board Southold Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Re: Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Comments on behalf of North Fork Environmental Council Dear Members of the Board, One of the most telling statements made by the Town's consultants during a preliminary discussions on the work plan for the moratorium was that although the Town had wonderful goals for preserving Southold, the current Town Code would never meet those goals. Inherent in that observation is the need for the Town to proactively take charge of it's own destiny and aeL Clcco!-dluyly. Through the SEQRA process and utilizing the tool of DGEIS, an optimum outcome can be achieved. Many hours of professional and volunteer time, as well as ten of thousands of taxpayer dollars, have been spent over the yearti Lo develop plauti LhaL would pn~tieL.ve our- valued [ClL1ulaud, open tipace, and threatened natural environment,. The failure has been that many of the most effective and proven tools recommended in these various studies and 1 reports were never adopted. O~ the Town has revisited the nJlltous plans through the DGEIS, pubic input is considered and the findings are pn:~t3enLed, 1 L will be up La you La tieL un UlOoe fludings. AL Ll1e eud of this process it will be your responsibility to act in the best interest of all the residents of the Town. We can not afford to monitor the pace of development, conduct further studies or to rely on unproven preservation tools to meet our goals. Specifically, NFEC requests that the following be included in the DGEIS: The MluUL".iLy ReporL or the Blue Ribbon COHuultit31oIl, Cll::;o Knowll at) the CAP Plan, signed by two members and two alternate members of the BRC, should be included as one of the documents reviewed in the DGEIS, rather than as an alternative. The Minority Report calls for the adoption of 5-acre upzoning in the A/c and R-80 zones in conjunction with the formation of a Rural IuceuLlve Dit3Lr'lcL, conLlnued clutiLeriuy reyulaL10Ilt3 and the conLlnuaLioIl of the current Purchase of Development Rights Program. This will guarantee the Town meets the minimum preservations goals set forth in the BRC majority report. This report offers numerous examples of preservation successes throughout the country in which zoning was utilized as a tool. The formation of a Rural Incentive District and the potential outcomes must be considered in the context of a concurrent upzoning, as well as compared La the RID wlLhouL upzoning. When excuulued dt) a t3LClUU alone pretiervaLloIl tool, we would ask that specific examples of success be offered as proof of the efficacy of such a plan. Possible exit strategies from the RID, both those which reward farmers with an increased development rights and those which guarantee preservation minded landowners that the Town will purchase developmenL r"lyhLti 011 LheiL" L.ime [L"clUe Clnd aL Lhe cULTenL zoning designation must also be evaluated for potential outcome and landowner participation. Submitted by, Gwynn Sch.t:oeuel: North Fork Environmental Council Southold Coordinator P.O. Box 799 Mattituck, New York 11952 (631) 298-8880 2 . . ; TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SCOPING SESSION JANUARY 29, 2003 PRESENT: Supervisor Joshua Y. Horton, Councilman William D. Moore, Councilman Craig A. Richter, Councilman John M. Romanelli, Councilman Thomas H. Wickham, Town Clerk Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Attorney Gregory A. Yakaboski. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Good Evening and welcome to the commencement of the Scoping Session for the SEQRA document. Before we commence, would you please rise and join with me in the Pledge to the Flag. I appreciate you all coming out tonight, we will commence, sitting before me is Patrick Cleary and Chick Voorhis. Both of who are members of the Town's moratorium planning group and I will turn the meeting over to the both of them and they will explain the SEQRA process, the purpose of tonight's Scoping Session and when there has been appropriate and clear direction from both Chick and Patrick, I will open the floor for public comment. There are a number of people in the room tonight, I would ask if we make an effort to keep our comments to somewhere in the neighbor hood of 5 minutes. So with that being said, welcome Patrick and Chick. CHICK VOORHIS: Thank you and good evening. My name is Chick Voorhis as Josh said. I am a member of the team and we are here tonight to assist the Town Board in conducting a scoping session for the purpose of determining the content of a draft generic environmental impact statement. Of course, we will seek to conduct the meeting in an orderly fashion. We do have a sign up sheet that the Town Clerk has asked that you use so that you can be identified. The purpose of this meeting is that the Town Board is currently involved with consideration of implementation of planning tools that have been identified in past land use studies. These have been inventoried and Patrick will speak a little bit about that because that is essentially what constitutes the proposed project that the Board is considering. So just in terms of overview, any Board that takes an action is responsible to consider the environmental consequences of that action. This is required under state law known as the State Environmental Quality Review Act, also known as SEQRA. It essentially requires that the Board take a hard look at the action that they may improve on, grant or implement. One of the best ways to do this is to use a draft generic environmental impact statement. A draft GElS is a document that will be prepared by the Town with the assistance of the planning team and it will be circulated for public comment, for the purpose of your input on the planning initiative that the Town Board is considering. So that the public will have additional opportunities to comment on the specific content of what the Board is contemplating. And we have included a graphic board, the one to your far right, that specifically outlines' the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. The first step is to determine the content of the EIS and that is our purpose in being here tonight. The Town Board took a number of very important actions back on January 7, at which time they determined themselves to be the lead agency in review of this action, Patrick will speak about that, and they required the preparation of a draft generic environmental impact statement. This evenings meeting has been advertised in at least two local newspapers during two consecutive weeks at least 15 days prior to tonights meeting. I 1 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session should point out that scoping is optional but the Board felt that it was important to get the communities input with regard to the scope of the environmental impact statement. There are a number of ways that the scope has been made available, after January 7 it was available here in Town Hall, it was placed in several local libraries, it was available on the Town web site and it was mailed and circulated to all of the agencies that may ultimately be involved with future decisions that affect land use in the Town of Southold, as well as any parties of interest that were on record at that time. Now, scoping, which we are conducting tonight, is essentially defined as the process by which the lead agency or the agency which oversees the project identifies the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts related to the action. And these are the items that would be addressed in the draft generic EIS. So, I hope that you have been able to look at the scoping document that has been prepared, it goes into the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and we will seek to gain your input on that tonight. With that, Patrick is going to speak about a couple of items pertaining to the lead agency role and the proposed action specifically. . 2 . PATRICK CLEARY: Lead agency is the term that Chick has used tonight, it is a term that describes the body that is running this process. In this case, the Town Board has designated itself to serve in that capacity. The Town Board will make certain critical decisions as we move through this process but their job is effectively to drive this bus, to make sure that this process runs according to the regulations. The lead agency will adopt the information that you bring to us tonight in this scope, will decide its content, the lead agency will determine the suitability of this impact statement when it is prepared and will the lead agency ultimately will produce (inaudible) findings and make decisions about the actions. The action is really what we want to talk about tonight, one of the many things that we want to talk about tonight, it revolves around the action. The action in this case is somewhat unusual, typically the action is a project. It is a subdivision, a commercial building; in this case, the action is 20 years worth of planning efforts that the Town has worked on. The scoping document that many of you have before you tonight list those studies and they go back to 1982 and we are talking about 18 different studies that have been produced by the Town over those years. Now of those studies there have been a number of ideas, recommendations, there have been policies, there have been goals and objectives set forth. Our action in this generic environmental impact statement is to put all of those together in a single package, see how they integrate and to make decisions on bringing those actions forward, implementing those actions. This table that you probably can't see in front of you up there, but what that table does is list from all those studies the things that should be done. The various tools, techniques, policies, objective goals, all of those things articulated in different languages, spelled out in different ways are identified on that board and they range from a couple of categories there, what we call planning process, zoning and zoning code issues, education and enforcement issues, capital improvement issues, direct town management issues, and issues of sort of inter-agency coordination, and inter-agency initiatives. Now there is a range of these actions and as I said earlier, the language used in describing these are a little bit different. Some of them are old and some of them are relatively new. Some of them are well accepted and some are controversial. It is our effort this evening in gaining your input in to how we create effectively the table of contents for this exercise and Chick will talk about that in a second and if you sort of get involved with us and we hope we are getting a hook into you tonight, if you are interested in this process to get you to participate with us in this process because the process is at its base, a very public process. And this action that we are describing tonight, the nature of the input we are seeking from this tonight, will come back to you over the course of this exercise and you will be asked for your input again and again. I think what I would like to do know is I 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session have Chick go through the scoping document and effectively the draft generic environmental impact statement content. . 3 . MR. VOORHIS: The first section involves the proposed project and Patrick has indicated what that constitutes and identifies here, the Town has had a number of polls, that they have (inaudible) and put it to the test of how they envision Southold to look and this has been through many administrations and many studies and those goals are reflected on the second page of the scoping outline, so that is essentially the proposed action. The EIS consists of the existing environmental conditions and since this is a town-wide initiative it is going to affect many areas of the town, the town environmental study will be broadly defined. (Inaudible) entire studies that inventory the Town and there have been a number of new efforts that we are very pleased to have been able to take place, with the assistance of Planning staff and the Town Board guidance, such as wetlands mapping, mapping of (inaudible) slope areas, and assembling the Town's GIS data base into a very usable form. Upgrading a lot of it that has already been collected and essentially making it workable for the purpose of describing the Town's environment for the environmental setting section. So there will be some very useful tools coming out as a result of that that will be portrayed both graphically and in text form. One of the primary sections is to take that proposed action and look at the environmental consequences of it. How it will affect the Town, how it will affect the land use and the decision making aspects of the Town and this section will look at all of the various resources, geology, water resources, ecological resources, transportation, air resources, land use owning and plans, demography of the town or population aspects, community services and various jurisdictions. The Town's infrastructure, community character, cultural resources which may include archeological distortions such as (inaudible) and visual resources, economic and fiscal conditions and conservation (inaudible) and these all will be evaluated in terms of each of the proposed initiatives. Additional sections will be prepared including cumulative impacts and (inaudible) whether these are primary impacts or secondary impacts and in some cases, long term impacts. Each of these will be reviewed to determine if there are mitigation measures that are appropriate to incorporate or review as part of the process. And then there are a couple of other required sections, we are really getting into all of the more interesting topics of conversation and that is, are there alternatives that the Town could look at in order to achieve the goals or perhaps no action at all. And that would essentially be to allow the Town to continue on the course that it is currently in. We have identified some framework for consideration of alternatives and we have certainly seeking input to that extent tonight. So we are very near the time when we would be looking for public comments, as the Supervisor has indicated, we are very interested in hearing those comments, please come up to the sign up sheet, put your name on record, use the microphones at the two podiums and present your comments, speak clearly and slowly so that you can be understood. After the conclusion of tonight's meeting, there will be a period of time for additional written comments but we will be beginning to synthesize those comments, review them and there will be a transcript in the future (inaudible) and utilize that to revise the scope and issue a final scope that the Town Board will ultimately adopt. I will just point out that if an issue has been covered there is no need to repeat it, that we will make notations with regard to that comment. So, in closing, the introduction here tonight there has been no final decision, the Town Board ultimately makes the final decision, this is the beginning of the process, the SEQRA process; there will be an official public hearing on the Environmental Impact Statement (inaudible) prepared based on the scope that you will be commenting on tonight and that is what we wanted to express to you, to try and frame out how the meeting is intended to be conducted. So with that, I think the Supervisor would like to have the public express their comments to the Board and we will be here to clarity issues at the Supervisor's direction. . 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session . 4 . MR. CLEARY: I would like to add a point, the way that we are going to organize this tonight so that it is as useful and clear to us as possible, if you would like to break down your comment into three groups: the first is if you could ask your comments on the project description; the second group is to comment on those impact areas that Chick described in some detail and finally we ask you to comment on alternatives, so you may return to the podium three different times to offer comments so that way we are able to keep our thoughts relatively clear through the process. And again we are not seeking substantive comment on the plan, we are seeking your input on what becomes sort of the table of contents of this study that will continue for a number of months down the road. The first area will be comments on the project description. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank-you, gentlemen. So essentially, in a couple of short sentences, the purpose of this meeting is to introduce new ideas, alternatives to the scoping or to the SEQRA process that the Town has not incorporated thus far. So at that point, I will offer the floor to members of the public and I think what we will do is put this down at the podium. Would somebody care to address the Town Board? Basically, we want the name and address as a matter of record so we know who has participated. STEPHEN MUDD: I would like to ask for clarification from the Town Board as to which classification of zoning that we are talking about possible zone change that this environmental impact study has been put on. We have attended a lot of meetings and I don't have it clear in my mind as to the delineation of what zoning that you are talking about consideration of a change of zone. And I don't know if you have gotten to that level or is that still up for finalization but I would like to, if possible, get clarification on that. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: I would like clarification on that, too because I would like to get us to a further discussion of zoning but as the two consultants have said, we are looking for input on this meeting of other alternatives. That is what we are here for. All alternatives. MR. MUDD: So as it stands right now, it is a town wide consideration for anything that is... COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: From the way they explained it to me, anything goes. MR. VOORHIS: We have conducted a very detailed review of the 20-year history of studies. Patrick mentioned approximately 18 studies. So what was in those studies is essentially what is on the table for the Board to consider to implement. There were a couple of areas that involved change of zones but that is certainly not the exclusive focus of this project, it goes beyond that looking at economic development plans, affordable housing initiatives and many avenues of techniques to make the Town a better place. The several specific areas that did involve zone changes that come to mind are ones that the Town has considered in the past, five acre zone and that has been reflected in several reports and so that is part of the consideration. The Town has also considered through reports, adoption of an ordinance that would allow to plan zoning districts and this would create a planning tool that is being used not only on Long Island but throughout the country to look at incentives for various types of mixed use and appropriate uses in the contemplated, for certain areas of the Town. And there were some areas that had also been identified where looking at the AC zoned lands and the R-80 zoned lands to make sure that they were in the appropriate locations for what they are intended to do based on .. 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session the legislative intent of those zoning districts. Those were a couple of the areas, again, what I will call a matrix in the middle on the board which you are welcome to go up and take a look at, spelled out each of the (inaudible) that are being considered under this plan, you may want to take a look at that for areas that involve zoning changes. So effectively, how this works now, if your concern was the five-acre upzoning, it is in the analysis. It is in the mix to be explored, studied and evaluated, if you think it should be a ten-acre upzoning, let's say, a 50-acre upzoning, you should tell us that that should be considered as an alternative and the Board will consider that as one of the alternatives to an action that is already effectively on the table, that being the five-acre upzoning, which is something that came out of a previous report. So that is how this system will work. This is an action, it is described as the stuff that the Town has already done and your job tonight is to say that 'you have got it all, you have covered all the bases' or you missed them, 'I really think you should do more or less or different'. That is what we are talking about in terms of alternatives. . 5 . MR. MUDD: If at some point in time, I would assume that through the input and everybody's focus on this that there will be clarification of what zoning would be considered based, again, on this five- acre potential zone change. Are you going to start over at that point and do a new Environmental Impact Study on those particular zones because what you have done, everything is on the table for discussion, I understand that, but if it gets defined down to certain types of zones wouldn't you have to do a different Environmental Impact Study based on the zonings that are going to be considered for inclusion at that point. MR. VOORHIS: What will happen throughout this process is that we will move from a fairly local approach throughout evaluation to findings where the Board makes some judgments. So there is a draft environmental impact statement, there are public hearings associated with that, during those public hearings you are able to say if we should refine, change, modifY or reduce in size or enlarge in size. The Board will take those into consideration as comments and provide answers to that during the public environmental impact statement, so the nature of the beast is that these ideas will gain focus as we move through the process. If there is no focus at the end of the day and there is no conclusion and the Board says 'I am not sure, you are absolutely right' the Board would then have to re-visit this issue if there is no conclusion to it. If they say up-zoning is good but we don't know where and that is their finding, then they would have to re-visit this if they chose to up-zone and do SEQRA again, if they chose to up-zone a particular parcel of land. MR. MUDD: Thank-you. A point of information, the 18 studies that previously have been made... MR. VOORHIS: Actually there were 20. MR. MUDD: 20 are they (inaudible) SUPERVISOR HORTON: Would anyone else care to address the Town Board? JOSEPH LIZEWSKI: The fact that these studies are being used is very interesting to me simply because they are studies and they really should be put in the right perspective. The fact is that they were studies and they were not passed on by the Town Board's at that time, reflect that the people at that time didn't feel that there was enough merit in some of those studies to adopt them. And I think that you have to realize that some of these points that you may be picking out of these studies actually . . 6 . 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session toppled Town governments at that time because of the controversy of, or some of the planning that was done in those Town studies. So I think that you should start to reflect on really what is there and not on the studies that are there because those studies were not passed or were not all adopted for a reason. And if they were all good studies, you wouldn't be here right now, correct? So taking those studies and taking those studies apart seems like a very, very backwards way of looking at the future, simply because people have already made a judgment. That is like saying all of the governments before us didn't know what they were doing. All these studies were wonderful and they all were no good because they didn't pass on these studies, now we are going to reopen these studies and we are going to look at them at a different time and a different place and not realize the reasons for these studies not being adopted. There is a reason why those studies weren't adopted, there is a reason why those studies weren't adopted and the governments at the time either wisely or unwisely may have decided not to adopt them so I think you should look at the legality of what was put in place and not so much of what the studies represent. If you are going to do that kind of thing, it is a funny thing that when you are looking at government, we always looked at government in, if you are sitting on the Town Board people come to you and say, you know in East Hampton they just passed this wonderful, regulatory law. We are behind, we need that over here, about six months later we would go to Southampton and then finally it would start to work its way into our agendas. When it comes to this whole study, when you look at East Hampton and the way that it is going with its upzoning and the problems that it has and Southampton, it should be very easy for you to start to realize the direction that your studies are taking you because it has already been done and the problems that they have, we are going to have over here. So I think that the studies should be looked at in a much different light than what is reality and find out what are the legal things that we have really done and what did we really put on the books, not just the studies that were done. I mean, study after study after study always gets done but the truth of the matter is, when the study is not adopted it means that the people that sit on that bench at that time are not happy with that study. So when you are looking at all these studies, there is a reason why you have 20 studies and not everything was adopted. So I think that you have to look at the negative side of this, not just the positive side and realize that there are an awful lot of things and a lot of issues that came to bear and you are taking it out of context at this time because they were done years ago. And some of those studies were really not big studies, they were just a meeting in this hall like the Jones study and it was presented for a very short period of time and it was gone. So, when you are looking at this stuff I think that you should realize that these studies haven't been implemented for a very good reason. BILL ESSEXS: My name is Bill Essexs, I am an attorney from Riverhead, I represent several farmers who are present and several who aren't here. They are land-owners in the Town, they are interested in this proceeding and I understand that I am going to have several opportunities to speak tonight because you are going to have different topics and the first one somebody said was a project but I think it also falls under the definition of the description of the action. My first comment deals with that because I do not believe that what you are doing is an action under SEQRA. If I am correct on that, you are investing time and a lot of money in a project that is not yet a project and you should see whether I am right or whether your advisors, if they are giving you this advice, are correct. The Environmental Conservation Law has regulations adopted pursuant to it and six-I hate to speak in shorthand but where I am making a record-but 6 NYCRR section 6l7.2b defines what an action is and in your resolution, Town Board resolution of January 7, 2003 which I think started this and caused us to be here tonight, there is a description of the action and then they list 20 different projects or studies done in the past, the first one is 1982 and the last one is 2002. Examining those matters is not a SEQRA action. A . . 7 . 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session positive declaration, which you have already done, can only take part as part of an action and an action is defined in the SEQRA regulations and the one closest to you is an agency planning and policy making activities which, that is okay so far, that may affect the environment, so far okay, and commit the agency to a definite course of future decisions. That is not what is happening here. Someday you may decide that you want to adopt a Local Law or amend your code or do any number of things that are specific. Buy a new Town Hall, hire personnel, rezone something, change some of your planning regulations, there are any number of things that you can do that are actions and maybe you are thinking about those things but there are not part of what you are doing today and if the cornerstone of what you are doing and how you are getting people involved and how you are putting people at risk for what they think is there future and their economics is something that you should get advice on and I respectfully request on behalf of my clients that you get a written opinion from your attorneys, special counselor regular counsel, on this very issue. Because I am going to give an opinion to you and I believe that the opinion that I am giving will be a correct opinion and I don't want to waste my time on that but I am going do it but I am going to charge them and they are going to pay me and we are going to have it but if I am right and you are wrong, you are going to be embarrassed and you are going to have wasted a lot of time and it may be that this should not be a SEQRA scoping session, this may be a discussion, it has nothing to do with SEQRA because there isn't any action, you can still do these things and you will start your SEQRA in the future when you have an action that you ought to pursue. I think that you have the heart and the course and the cart in the wrong direction. I want to touch on one other thing right now before we get into the next part of what I think will be an extensive discussion. And that is in one of these pieces of paper that I managed to get over the last week, there was some discussion by someone on your staff that economics is not before you now, that is not true. Economics are before you, the Chinese, there was a Court of Appeals case in 68 New York second that states that economics are involved, the SEQRA regulations themselves state that economics are to be taken into account when you make a decision. The name of the case is Chinese Staff and Workers Association vs. City of New York, 68NY2nd359 and it has been cited hundreds of times and if you are to go ahead either now, as you are headed or in the future as I think you should do it and you keep economics out of your study, you are giving the people who are going to be upset with what you are doing at the end a free shot. And don't waste the taxpayers money and your time if in fact, I am correct and your consultants are incorrect on that. You must take into account the economic consequences of what you are proposing to do because those economic consequences are not only economic but they show up in who is going to live here. Now, that part and who is going to leave and what the real estate taxes are going to be and so on, but I think that is part of another part of this evening and I will get to that. So, my first two statements are: you shouldn't be doing this now, please get legal advice in writing on the subject and I will maybe we will cross on that and then respond but you should put that to rest, I think you owe it to the taxpayers to put that to rest, you owe it to everybody, I think. And the other issue on this procedure issue is that you have to take economics into account and there are a lot of cases on the subject, there are treatises on the subject and I am willing to share those with your counsel and your consultants. And I expect and hope that I get the opportunity to speak on the alternatives and also on the impacts because I think that if you are going to go ahead, over my objection, I want a list of what the impacts are so they can be discussed. Thank-you. A YTUG UNALDI: My name is Aytug Unaldi. I would like to start with quoting from President Bush from his speech last night. "Our third goal is to promote energy independence for our country while dramatically improving the environment. I have (inaudible) comprehensive energy plan to promote energy efficiency and conservation, to develop cleaner technology and to produce more energy at . . . 8 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session home. I have sent you clear skies legislation that mandates a 70% cut in air pollution from power plants over the next 15 years. I urge you to test these measures for the good of both our environment and our economy, even more I ask you to take a crucial step and protect our environment in ways that generations before us could not have imagined. In this century the greatest environmental progress will come about not through endless lawsuits or command and control regulations but through technology and innovation." And I am grateful to hear that from our President, that is a sign of a changing world and the world is not going to be the same from now on. Being here, we have our vision of energy protection, economy and income generation, we are here to provide solutions for those titles. Energy, locally produced, clean, renewable and efficient, that is what we look for in energy. Protection, we need to protect our global environment, we need to protect the world that we live in, we need to protect our farmland, we need to protect our soils and aquifer and we need to protect our health. Economy, in the existing economical situation of Southold Town, affordable housing is an issue and synergetic community living is kind of lacking and local production, to locals, local farm production is not going directly to locals and locals can not benefit from the farm protection but we are having a produce which is produced in California or Florida and with conventional methods, with artificial fertilizers. For income generation, we have energy production from produce, food processing, tourism income, homeopathic medicine, staying healthy and fit and local arts and crafts in mind. So we would like to propose a project for covering all of these at once. It is a solar, organic, community farm. It is a farm community, it is affordable, it is clean, it is protecting farmland and it is protecting soil and aquifer, protecting our health, saving energy and water, creating and generating its own energy, generating income, utilizing renewable energy resources, being self- sufficient, activating clean tourism, educating society, forming a global example, supporting local arts, artists and crafts, creating synergy by community living, developing social relations, activating local economy and promoting our town. This is an organic farm, it is just a sketch, if we consider this page, it is about 90 acre piece ofland and it is, the occupied place part of the land is 15% or 20% in this page and it is possible to build affordable, it is possible to farm organic, it is possible to activate the community, the group of people with some income generating measures or let's say a hall, or a sports center, an activity center, an organic food restaurant, a craft center, an artist guild, some (inaudible) for people to meet and talk and it can be done by using all solar and renewable wind powers. It can save us water, it can collect water, it can re-use the used water, it can clean itself up and it can do farming organically in a clean way, so that kids can walk in the farms, not being afraid of the pesticides being used there. This is an idea, I don't know what you think about that. We can work on it, it needs to be worked on. We spent some time on it but it is not sufficient, of course, and it needs to be put on the table and designed, we need land for an example project-like 100 acre land, that we can convert to solar, organic farm community. That was the first point, I have two more. I have a solar house project as well, to decrease the pollution and to supply the energy efficiency. It is a passive and active solar heating, it is passive and active cooling, it retains the temperature-ambient temperature, produces its own electricity, it saves at least 90% of its own energy needs. It generates minimal waste, it collects and saves water, (inaudible), complies with and exceeds code requirements, forms an example for social education and broadcasts the data on the internet for people to learn what is happening in a solar house, how can it save that much? As an example to that, I brought with me a town house complex, built in 1958 in Massachusetts and it's saving 93% of its auxiliary heat needs. I can give you a copy, if you would like. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Yes, if you would leave that with the gentleman up front for the record. . 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session MR. UNALDI: It was possible in 1958, it is possible today and with the existing information and technologies we have, we can do better than that. It just needs some curiosity and some support to implement. And the University, SUNY Farmingdale, Professor Datarty is very much interested in building and sponsoring such a project. He is ready to do the project and calculations, through me, he told me to convey this message to you as well. The Department of Solar Energy is supporting our request for a solar home project, we just need to request from him. And the third is a solar powered garage and workshop. It is a simple two-car garage, which can produce in 20 years let's put it that way, it saves us 163,000 pounds of carbon dioxide, 1,100 sulfur dioxide, 420 pounds of nitrogen oxide, it produces 150,000 kilowatts of electricity, which is worth $20,000. And with the thermal collectors, it produces 35,000,000 btu's per year. This is a tiny project, it is not residential, it is not heated, it is a space which can be located in the backyard and it is very cost effective and efficient project in terms of using clean energy. And if anyone is interested in the details, I can supply you with the details of this project, as well. Thank-you very much. (Solar Townhouse information available in file) . 9 . SUPERVISOR HORTON: Supervisor Schneiderman is here from East Hampton, he is here to announce that the ferry.... JAY SCHNEIDERMAN, EAST HAMPTON SUPERVISOR: It is good to be here. Good evening, Town Board members, Supervisor Horton. Actually, I had a little bit of trouble finding Town Hall in the snow in particular, I stopped at the firehouse and I guess a lot of the firemen are involved with the snow removal, and they were out front and they said it is right before Horton A venue, so I think it is very nice that they have named a street after you, Josh, they haven't done that for me yet in East Hampton. Actually, not only am I the Supervisor in the Town of East Hampton, I am also the Chairmen of the East End Supervisors and Mayors Association. All of the towns are grappling with similar issues. Weare all thinking about our future and trying to figure out what to do in light of incredible development pressures over the last few years. In a conversation with Supervisor Horton, we were talking casually about the upzoning that the Town is considering and I was talking a little bit about East Hampton's experience with upzoning, which the gentleman who spoke before mentioned some of the problems. I was reading through, and I am not familiar with the legislation that you are proposing, I take it it is a moratorium over large sections of land, as you study what the proper zoning of the land should be but as I looked at the intent here, water supply, agricultural lands, open space, recreation space, rural character, natural resource and transportation, I thought I would comment on some of those things. Because sometimes you don't get exactly what you think and there are some benefits to upzoning, in East Hampton upzoning largely came out of the 208 Study, which Dr. Koppelman conducted. And it was to protect ground water and there was a belief that at five-acre zoning and even less in Dr. Kopplemans report, it would bring the nitrate levels down to a point where you could protect your ground water. So it is important to figure out what the purpose of that upzoning is. Now, as I go through this, in terms of water supply-that might be perfectly valid but at the same time, this is a heavy agricultural area and I know everybody wants to preserve your agriculture and agriculture is water depend, it is also, and I support the efforts for organic farming but agriculture as an industry can't always be organic. So there is a lot of nitrogen, there are often agri-chemicals used and that does have an impact on ground water. So you have to think ahead and figure out how are you going to constantly be able to rely into the future on your aquifer here or will you have to reach out possibly into the Pine Barrens or other areas and if the main goal is water protection, you really need to think about whether that is really going to be the dominant reason, if that is going to hold out for you. I am going to get in a moment to another impact on agriculture that is not entirely positive. Open . . . 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session space preservation, it is a tool for open space preservation but it tends, in East Hampton we have carved up our landscape. We have chopped it up into these five-acre blocks so instead of preserving large, contiguous blocks of open space we tended to segment it. So as an environmental tool, it also has its down sides. It forces everybody to use their cars, because you have got these big parcels that aren't near anything so everybody has to get into their cars, so you have your transportation issues, it has an economic impact, which I will discuss in a second, too. But from the environmental prospective, I prefer a model that you identify the large areas that you want to preserve and then you concentrate your density where it should go rather than just carving up your landscape. Recreation, if you mean recreation in terms of playing fields, I think you have got to identify where those playing fields are going to be because what we find with five-acre zoning you end up with very big homes, not the kind that the average person can afford, so you end up with the mansions and the mansions seem in my experience seem to be very vocal against playing fields anywhere near them because there is going to be a lot a noise and you know, we have an increasing Latino population and it seems to raise a lot of flags for people, so our efforts lately to provide for playing fields has been met with very staunch and well-funded opposition. Rural character, you have to define what rural character is because to me rural character is the community, the people as well as the environment. What has happened in my community is by upzoning everything, we have taken away all the lots that working people can afford. And with that, a lot of people have left the town and a lot of these big houses are become summer homes, because working people can't buy them so they end up being summer homes and those summer homes demand services. People have to take care of those homes and those people have to live somewhere. So either they are living in basements, we actually haven't had the density reduction, the population reduction we hoped for because we end up with all these people that now have to service those homes or people commuting into the area because they can't live there. And what has happened in my town, is the price has gone up so high that the bottom of the housing market is now $400,000. That is the bottom, $400,000. That means that you need basically a family income of around $200,000 to buy a home. 98% of the working people, based on the 2000 census figures are priced out of the housing market. That is serious. Because we can't get nurses to live in the community, we can't get teachers, town employees, things are unraveling and we can't replace these people and they can't live in the community. And what does that say to a community? What is that impact when your kids school teacher, they can't run into them at the pizza parlor at night? What kind of commitment does that teacher have when they can't live in the community? And it is getting worse and worse in that direction. I would say every week, a young person comes to me and tells me that they are leaving town and there is really no hope. Those who have houses, some of them are staying and some of them are cashing out. They can't believe the prices that they are getting for their homes. They are moving to North Carolina or Florida, places where there are more opportunities and those homes then become summer homes, those summer homes demand more services and you end up with this domino effect, where it gets worse and worse. So what appears as a good environmental initiative, may not actually be that. In terms of the transportation, as you bring your density down you believe that you are changing your transportation, but once again if you make everything go outside our your hamlet centers, everybody needs a car, every member of the family needs a car, you have all these additional vehicle trips and then if the working people can't live in the community, they are commuting back and forth and the people that are living there are living 20 to a house because that is the only way they can afford to live is by splitting the rent 20 ways, you end up with more people than you thought you were going to have so it really, you really have to study these things. I guess I am really here to say, don't make the same mistake we've made. Upzoning can be a valuable tool but look at it comprehensively. Don't do it without figuring out the affordable housing component, figure out- 10 . 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session maybe transfer some of your density into your hamlet centers, figure out areas where development can occur. Because if you don't, you are going to find that it is very hard to correct these things. You will find that it is hard to pass your school budgets because it is more and more a summer community because working people can't live there. You will find all these impacts that you had no idea that you were going to face and now, I am trying to face that. We have brought in some really good planners who have done affordable housing in Nantucket, in Aspen, Colorado and other affluent communities and we are trying to find these solutions but we are working at a disadvantage because most of the land has been carved up. So just think about it carefully and I will answer any questions. There may be some good merit to it but do it comprehensively. 11 . COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Do you have in East Hampton, clustering with your upzoning to five acres? SUPERVISOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: You did. Do you think the town would have been better off today, if they didn't upzone? SUPERVISOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I think the town needed to do affordable housing, 20 years ago. Real affordable housing. So I think that a certain amount of upzoning would have made sense but I think that it is a shame that so many of the small lots have been taken away. Because those were the lots that working people can afford and there is really nothing right now for working people. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Did East Hampton do an upzone across the board on every lot? Or did they do it on specific districts? SUPERVISOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Not every lot but much of our land mass is in the SGPA which is the special groundwater protection area, that area was largely upzoned to five acres. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Right. SUPERVISOR SCHNEIDERMAN: And that is a big chunk of the landmass. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: But as a whole... SUPERVISOR SCHNEIDERMAN: The area that is outside of it is mostly coastal, so you end up with high property values to begin with. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Right. But as a whole do you think the town would have been better off doing nothing? SUPERVISOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I think what the town needed to do was plan more comprehensively, it needed to include people in its definition of rural character. That is critical. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Supervisor. Would anyone else care to address the Town Board? . 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session 12 . TOM SAMUELS: Tom Samuels, from Cutchogue and thanks, Jay for making the ferry ride. History has a way of repeating itself. My primary business is in Southampton and East Hampton and I have seen this progression as it has happened in those two towns and it will happen here. It is predictable. You can talk about what is in the scoping document all you want. What you just heard is the result of five acre zoning. Five acre zoning, exclusionary zoning is amoral. It is bad stuff. I had a meeting this afternoon with the largest building contractor in Southold Town. Not one of his employees can afford to own a home in the town. Most of them have to have their rent subsidized by the contractor in order to stay in town. You have got fire departments, you have volunteers at the hospital, you have volunteers at the blood bank all alone. It is a real situation and I hate to see what happened to East Hampton happen in Southold. And I have said it for years, not in just this area, the natural resources permits are another area of complaint that I have. And you have served on that Board as Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The real reality of what you are contemplating and that is what this hearing is all about, it is not about other solutions, it is about five acre zoning. That is why I am here. I wouldn't have come for any other reason. Because the meetings and the hearings and the decisions, let's go back to the US-UK study. You remember that one, Tom. That one was to have all the new housing around the hamlets. Save the open space out in the farm fields and so on and so forth. But what happened? Every proposition that came for housing around the hamlets, met NIMBY in the hamlets. It was predictable. It was predictable. And it was predicted and it happened. Now, all the other studies that Mr. Cleary was talking about was driven by a narrow constituency. They were in response to appeals made to the Town Board to solve various problems. Number one was let's keep the town the way it is, how can we do it? So you had a narrow constituency coming to elected officials who felt they had to respond, let's do a study. What did Bob Wagner say in the city? If you have a problem, do a study. By the time you get the study done, the problem will not be apparent. So that is what happened since 1982. To use those studies as an outline for five acre zoning is patently ridiculous. Now, you have some decisions to make, it is true. And I, for the life of me, John; I know you are driving this but I don't understand it. Because you have employees, do they live in the Town? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Yes, some of them do. I just want to clarifY, are you saying that the 20 years of studies, all those administrators over the last 20 years, we shouldn't look at any of them? Discount them? MR. SAMUELS: Well, you can look at them. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Is your alternative to do nothing? Is that, what you are saying is your alternative is to do absolutely nothing and... MR. SAMUELS: There are two things that have to be done in this Town. Number one is affordable housing. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Okay. MR. SAMUELS: Okay, number one, before you do the five acre zoning, give these kids some hope. Number two, affordable rental apartments. So they can live in them reasonably enough to get some equity to buy a house. God forbid they are going to be at $400,000 in this town. But what you are . . 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session doing to these kids is telling them that we don't want you here. It is like the old gag at SouthoId High School, pump our gas, cut our grass and get out of town by 5:00. That is what the kids say. 13 COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: So, your alternative is to address affordable housing but to leave density and zoning alone. It is okay? I wanted to clarifY that. MR. SAMUELS: My alternative is, leave the farmers alone. If they want to enter into an agreement with you like they did in Southampton, well and good. That is not a bad plan or an alternative for it. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: But if they don't want to enter the plan, just leave zoning alone and leave the density potential alone? MR. SAMUELS: Absolutely. You cannot take their land away from them. It is all they have got. They have been screwed for years, it goes back for at least to 1959 when I moved here. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: So your alternative is to leave the zoning and density potential alone? MR. SAMUELS: Until you have addressed the real problems in the Town. COUNCILMAN ROMANALLI: Affordable housing? MR. SAMUELS: Affordable housing. That is what you have got to do. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: And if we address that? MR. SAMUELS: Well, let's see what happens. I read about, the scare tactics that are repeated and repeated and repeated. Let's go back. The most ludicrous thing, Steve Jones of the Water Authority says here you don't have enough water for Southold Town. We can't give everybody water. You come up with a five-acre zoning plan. What does Steve Jones say-'we have got water for 100,000 years'. Now what does that tell you about what has gone on here? It is a joke. The only reason he said that was to push the five-acre zoning initiative. That is why he did it. That is hypocrisy of the grandest order from a public official. That is real hypocrisy. That is shameful. If you are going to, leave the town alone. Now, the actual population increase in Southold Town, since the last time I looked, is about 800, of full-time residents. Of course, they can't, you can't live here. It is no coincidence that we have so many very good Latin-American people because the town can't exist without them. The restaurants, the farms, the nurseries, the landscapers. I don't know how many plumbers there are but you probably, I have Latin workers and they are great. But they are going to want to live someplace. Right now, they are 20 to a room. Where the hell are they? I don't know. But we have got to address this. The services that this town requires are tremendous. People that are moving into town aren't self-reliant. They need a plumber to change a washer, they need somebody to fix the screen. That is the problem, you are not addressing those problems, you are pushing them aside and saying, well, if we have less people, we will have less problems. I don't know that we are assured of that. I remember Charlie Horowitz' five-acre zoning in Orient that was forced on him. And he finally accepted it, after years. To date, there are three houses and there must be 14 sites left. Five- acres is too much land to buy. Now, if you are going to cluster them, you are going to have trouble . . 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session selling the lots. Because somebody who pays for a five-acre lot, wants five acres, or two acres, or three acres. But if you are going to stick them in one acre, he is not going to be happy. You can't have all the swimming pools and the tennis courts and the three car garages because that is what they are going to want. So let, here is the alternative, John. Forty acres zoning, nothing but investment bankers living in the town, a paid fire department, no nurses living in the town, no EMS, that is the alternative that you are looking at. The town as got to grow as fast as it will grow. At some point, I don't know what you are going to do but to say that Southold can avoid change or, it is ridiculous. You can't. It is not going to happen. What right have the citizens of Southold to turn their back on the rest of the County or the State? Or the American people. I live in a very, very nice house. I bought it in 1959. I know it is worth 1.5 million dollars. Doesn't mean a gosh dam thing. It doesn't mean a gosh dam thing. Because there is no place for me to go except spend funny money some place else. For the life of me, John, I cannot understand your position. As you know, 1... 14 COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: But, Tom, again I keep on questioning your alternative, basically is, we are okay. MR. SAMUELS: We are okay. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Address affordable housing and the density and the growth of the town is okay and we don't have to worry about it and all the 20 years of studies are over with but they are a waste of time. That is really what you are saying? SUPERVISOR HORTON: I am going to end the cross talk now. John. Dr. Samuels, do you have any other alternatives that you would like to offer, sir? MR. SAMUELS: I want the EIS, ifin fact you are going to ignore and I would like Town Council to comment on Mr. Essexs contention. But in the event you choose not to comment or in the event we overlook Mr. Essexs comments, I want to see a socio-economic impact analysis of what you are proposing to do. Because I think it is wrong. I think it is dramatically wrong. I maybe haven't gotten that point across. COUNCILMAN MOORE: Tom, one thing for you to think about-and that is: set aside upzoning for a second, but for every acre of development rights that you buy are you not having the same kind of impact when reducing the availability of land for housing stock? You don't need to answer it, just chew on it. MR. SAMUELS: No, I want to answer it. COUNCILMAN MOORE: No, that is okay. MR. SAMUELS: No, I want to...Jet me answer the question. SUPERVISOR HORTON: We are not going to.. .please, sir. MR. SAMUELS: May I answer the question? . 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session SUPERVISOR HORTON: You may answer the question but what I ask of the Board, is this is the opportunity for the public to address the Board. This isn't a cross talk or an exchange or a narrative from the Board. Thank-you. 15 . MR. SAMUELS: The town population has again and again and again approved referendums for bonds for purchasing. Mr. Wickham is right in this case. If the public, the townspeople, want to buy development rights, want to buy the farmers rights-fine. But how can you tell the farmer he has to sell the rights. Why should he if he doesn't want to? The question is if the development rights are purchased or if you buy the land and the density is less, then the town has willed that to happen. But don't regulate the guys land away from him. That is what I am saying. Thank-you. MR.ESSEXS: I have brought an outline, which I am going to leave here with many of my comments. I would like for everybody in Town government to have one. Just think about it for a moment, I live in Aquebogue and I spend a lot of my practice in Southampton and East Hampton and I am astounded that the Supervisor in East Hampton agrees me or I agree with him on so many things. I have been fighting with them since 1959. I want to talk about this issue of five-acre zoning, which is I think a reason why we are here tonight. The town is really, the town consists of property that is governmental, industrial, agricultural, commercial and residential. Those are the zoning uses that you have here. And what is going to happen in the future? The government land can get larger or smaller based on government fiat. You guys choose that and you probably aren't going to make it too much larger. You have some schools, you have some government buildings, you have some parks. Those things are probably static or they are going to grow. And as they grow, nobody is going to live there. So your population is controlled in that area. The industrial and the commercial areas don't contribute to population and probably if they are like the other East End towns, except for Riverhead, you are going to reduce those a little bit because the adjacent property that was vacant is now being developed and people don't want commercial industrial there, so you are probably going to give into some ofthat and not allow rezonings for commercial industrial. The agricultural areas, you are not going to create any more. What is there is there, unless it is changed. And then you have the residential, the residential properties that are in single and separate ownership are protected. That is what really is driving these meetings and driving people getting elected or not getting elected. And the housing stock is going to go up in value with the passage oftime and a lack of new housing acreage being available. But what is in play, the only thing that is in play are the large, vacant residential tracks and the agricultural properties. And that is why I am here. People like to look at the agricultural properties as long as the wind doesn't blow dirt in their faces and people like the farming area for its ambience. However, the values that keep the farmers in business are the potential borrowing power and the future ability that they know that they can convert that vacant land into housing stock if they need to or if they want to. The ones that are there, the thousands of acres that are still there reflect an interest in that investment, in that future, and also in the farming profession. What is proposed is, to take the value off the vacant farmland and transfer it to the houses that exist. That is the natural progression if you go forward and do the rezoning. It is a movement of value, negative to the farmer and positive to the homeowner. There is a lot at risk and spinning around that you guys need to consider if you are going to make that value judgment because you are making it in response, at least in part, to the voters who have these houses, summer or year-round, who want the status quo maintained as long as possible. Is it right morally and is it right politically for you to move that money? And if you are going to move that money, you should at least acknowledge that you are doing it because hypocrisy shouldn't be involved in this. Now, when I go to my Watermill office on Fridays, I get up at 5:00 AM and I leave my home . . 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session in Aquebogue by 5:30 AM because 9 months out of the year, if I don't do that, a 20-minute trip becomes an hour trip. The people, the Town Hall in Southampton and East Hampton can't get people to work there because they can't get across the canal. The nurses can't get to work, the carpenters and the tradespeople leave their homes in Western Suffolk and in Riverhead, and in Shirley at 4:30 AM and 5:00 AM and they are crowding me at 5:30 AM. Where else do you have anything like that? We are becoming a ridiculous situation where the houses are getting larger, as somebody said, nobody can do anything. You have to have five people serving every house that is out here. It is happening here, it is even happening in Riverhead, of all places. And you either have to find other ways to getting the cars and trucks out here or you have to find a way to keep people here. But what the Supervisor of East Hampton said and what Tom said is absolutely true. We have this conundrum that we have to deal with. You also have to consider the situation of... Southold is sort of unique, you have a large retired middle class and upper middle class group. You don't have as many of the billionaires as they have in Southampton and East Hampton and I say that not sarcastically. However, in East Hampton and Southampton you can jack the taxes up to any amount of money and the people don't care. Just don't care, it is of no consequence. I have clients paying $100,000 a year in real estate taxes, do not care. That won't fly here. As you restrict the number of houses, the ones that are left go up in value and somebody has got to pay those taxes. You have to pay more money to get your cops and your firemen, as you reduce your density, your values go up and your taxes are going to go up. Maybe not as much as they have in some places but you are going to have increased taxes. And you have got to take that into account because you have got a very high percentage of people on fixed incomes maybe they are higher fixed income than other places, but they are still fixed incomes. It is not East Hampton or Southampton where they don't care. Is a rezoning and a transfer of wealth going to result in a town wide reassessment? A town wide reassessment is a great way to find out where your voters are because nobody likes it. You are going to find people showing up at public meetings that you didn't know lived in the town. Also, when you in effect, threaten farmers by saying somebody has got to give and you are the only ones left. Because that is what, the politest way you can say this, somebody has got to help us and there is nobody else around because the housing stock can't be touched, it is grandfathered. So here are the only ones in play. When you do that, what are you doing? You are saying to the farmer, lose your value, let it whither away or you are saying go develop. You are prodding them and is it appropriate for you to go and put that stick in their eye. And if you are going to do that, you should look at the consequences of putting the stick in their eye because you may not like the rush that you are going to force. There has been discussion here, I have gone through some of your records and seen some of the advice that you have gotten from some of your counsel, about making contracts with farmers saying that if you do certain things today, your zoning, your two acre zoning will still be there 5, 10, IS or 20 years. That is not legal. If someone tells you it is legal, they are not telling you the truth. I say that categorically. Cannot make a contract with regard to zoning. If you want to get the Legislation to amend the State Constitution, great. It should be done, it should be a tool. The theory is that one Town Board, one Village Board, one County Board cannot make a decision that binds the hands of the next legislature. That is good government because the history of this, every once and a while there is some corruption, not on Eastern Long Island but in other parts of the world there has been corruption and the State law is unequivocal, you can't make a contractual bargain to give somebody their zoning in the future. And if somebody tells you to the contrary, let's have an exchange of letters and let's go and try to put that to bed. Because if you are going to ahead and make rezonings based upon contracts that are non-enforceable, you are either knowingly doing it or negligibly doing it, you shouldn't do it. The issue of what you do in the future, it is a difficult issue that has be addressed in particular, discreet zoning proposals that as far I can see, have not come out 16 . 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session yet and are not on the table. I, on behalf of my clients, will be making some proposals. I don't think that is my position to deal with it tonight, I will try to do it as soon as I can but your problem is your waterfront properties are for the most part zoned residential and no one is about to change that. The forces in the State, County and the local level are not going to allow that. Your farm lands are not going to become commercial and industrial, so you are left with a residential or agrarian economy and the number of alternatives are somewhat limited. You can attempt in different ways to cap your population but when you do that, you must understand what is going to happen. The prices are going to go up, the taxes are going to go up and the service industry is going to have to come out from somewhere else and you are on a peninsula, there is no way in, you can't fly them in, you can't bring them in by boats. And nobody wants to build a new road, so you have some problems that you ought to try to solve before you create the problem. As the Supervisor from East Hampton was intuitive enough to say, his predecessors created the problem and now they can't get rid of it. You cannot get an ambulance from East Hampton to Southampton during the summer. They use helicopters. There is gridlock. You don't have to worry about walking across the street because you just walk between the cars. There is absolutely, from the middle of June, the end of June you can't in East Hampton Village, you can't get a parking place. Starting in March until the end of October. Those problems should be dealt with before you adopt a rezoning. Otherwise, you are going to do what they did in Southampton and East Hampton, you are going to create the problem. I anticipate that if you go forward with this project in one form or another, once the project is defined, that we are going to have a back and forth, as long as the clients want me involved, I am willing to take part and help move it but I don't yet see what your action is, if you announce it is five-acre zoning, then I know what the action is. But no one has announced that. And I wonder why. Is it pussyfooting? Is there another action and no one has told me about? Or is that the action? If it is, you ought to advertise it as such, you ought to circulate who is going to be the lead agency, elect a lead agency, make a positive declaration, scope it and go forward. But I don't think you are scoping anything tonight and I hope that somebody will take me up on it, having an exchange ofletters on either of these issues. Thank-you very much. 17 . SUPERVISOR HORTON: Would anyone care to address the Town Board? SUPERVISOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Just very briefly, listening to some of the comments. Particularly, John, some of your questions. It is clear that one of the major driving concerns here is population growth and one thing I might suggest, is for you guys to do a full fold-out analysis. Figure out what the population will be if you didn't change anything and also figure out the carrying capacity of your environment and your infrastructure. So you know, if you are going to bring your population, where you should be-you know, how much you need to bring it down and then look at every tool that is out there. Look at TOR's, transfer development rights, look at upzonings, maybe they do make sense in certain cases. But look at all the impacts of those things, too. So if you want to protect agriculture and you are creating large homes around your farmland, you may run into problems with people complaining about the noise of farms, the smells of farms and those kinds of things. You might be better off having large sections of farmlands without all the big mansions around those houses. It might make sense, we have that problem out in Montauk, we have great commercial fishing industry and we zoned around it all residential and now all of the houses are complaining about the smell of fish. It hurts the commercial fishermen when that happens. So just be smart about it. To me, when you try to stop growth you end up with uncontrolled growth. You end up with all these things happening that you weren't anticipating. The better approach is to manage growth and to manage growth wisely. Figure out what the carrying capacity is, figure out how to get there and how to address . . 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session some of those impacts and I think you will do fine. East Hampton, for all that has been said negative, is still a beautiful place. We have done a tremendous job protecting our environment. We are in some ways victims of our own success. Lots of people want to live there, the property values are high because it is such a beautiful place. So it kind of goes hand in hand but I think there is time here to do this right. Just take your time. Talk to people who are doing this all throughout the country. There are a lot of great ideas emerging and some of these strategies; five acre zoning and upzoning are old strategies, they have their useful applications but there is a lot of other ways to get to where you want to get to. And just look at all the impact. Thank-you. 18 SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank-you, Supervisor. Would anyone care to address the Town Board? BOB V ANBOURGONDIEN: Good evening, everybody. I just wanted to read a quick passage from one of your moratorium papers. 'Why is the moratorium team looking at so many issues? Some of our problems resulted from decision being made out of context: in other words, one problem may have been solved but another one was created because due thought was not given to inter-relationships and possible negative impacts that the solutions to the problems would have on other issues.' It is just not going to be one negative aspect. From what I have heard tonight, there is going to be many negative aspects to an upzone. And I am going to read you something that just came in one of my trade magazines, 'Adams County, Pennsylvania has already experienced the unintended consequences of local townships first hand. As new townships have come into being, they quickly they quickly put mandatory density reductions into place. This has caused many farmers and nurserymen to sell their ag land more quickly, as they know it will become almost worthless without development rights.' ERIC KEIL: Good evening. The thing that I would like to say is, both John and Bill mentioned, should we do nothing or should we just accept what is happening now? The fact is that the Town hasn't been doing nothing, we have a very successful development rights purchase program that to date has resulted in the Town essentially having the equivalent of II-acre zoning. Bill mentioned that wouldn't the development rights purchase program have the same negative impact as an upzone. The fact is that it wouldn't. The reason for this is because we have been purchasing development rights over decades and probably will continue to purchase them over decades to come. So that the impacts of the purchase of development rights program are mitigated over a significant amount of time. Also, the results of the, the II-acre density result, hasn't been that all the lots increase in price essentially, what happens is some farms are completely or nearly completely preserved while other tracts of land have been developed. Those have been developed have the same costs that they do today, so that the expense of those lots is not going to be as high as if they were five-acre subdivision lots. Essentially, we are not doing nothing, we are doing really well right now and I think that the Town ought to consider what the impacts will be on the success that we have now of any action that they consider. That is all I want to say. Thank-you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank-you. Would anyone care to address the Town Board? BECKY WISEMAN, LONG ISLAND FARM BUREAU: Good evening, Supervisor Horton, Town Board, Mr. Voorhis. I am Becky Weismann, from Long Island Farm Bureau. And I am really glad we have decided to, everyone chip in here because I am not quite sure where my comments fit in to that structure of three different areas we were to speak at. But what I do want to say is that Long Island Farm Bureau, our mission statement so to speak, is that we really are the voice of commercial . . 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session 19 agriculture. And one of our foremost responsibilities is to review and to provide comment on legislative changes that can negatively impact the agriculture industry. It is important that Southold Town's Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement recognize the economic impact of the agriculture industry. Agriculture is New York's largest industry and Suffolk County leads the industry in market value of agricultural products sold. As well as employing over 10,000 people, agriculture provides the landscape and the scenic beauty that makes tourism here on Long Island in the largest industry with over 2 billion dollars in revenues annually. Of grave concern to me and to Long Island Farm Bureau is what appears to be a decided shift in the Southold Town's goals. The Town's stated goal is to preserve land including farmland, open space, recreation and working landscapes, as read in this scope. But our perception is the Town wants to preserve farmland only for its open space, recreational and aesthetic value. We are deeply concerned that the foundation of the farming industry is at stake. Ifthe business of farming is sacrificed to open vistas, then Southold Town's rural integrity will be lost forever. The historic and cultural tradition of farming dates back to the 1600's. There are very few places in our country that could have this unique and irreplaceable asset. We urge you, the Town Board, not to abandon your past principals and policy commitments to the Town's agricultural industry as they are recorded in the 20 documents that have been reviewed by the moratorium team. Long Island Farm Bureau's that the following issues and answers be included in the Generic Draft Environmental Impact Statement, as the Town of Southold moves forward in drafting its comprehensive implementation strategy. I. In the event of a change in zoning, what is the economic impact: I. on the product of agriculture, on the production of agriculture; 2. the land value and equity and finally the farm businesses. 2. In the event of a change of zoning to decrease density, what is the impact on existing private and public preservation programs? 3. "Open Farmland", that statement was used throughout the scopes description. We are requesting that farm be defined according to New York State Agriculture and Market Law section 301 as amended. 4. Buildings on PDR lands, also mentioned in the draft document. Long Island Farm Bureau opposes any undermining of the purchase of development rights program. We would ask the Town to consider the States Ag and Markets 305- ala which states "Local governments, when exercising their powers to enact and administer comprehensive plans and local laws, ordinances, rules or regulations shall exercise these powers in such a many as may realize the policy and goals set forth in this article and shall not unreasonably restrict or regulate farm operations within the agricultural district in contravention of the purposes of this article unless it can be shown that the public health or safety is threatened. Greenhouses, bams, fencing etc. are all necessary tools and normal components of the farm and the farm business. 5. Mobile home housing. The Long Island Farm Bureau requests that farm worker housing be considered under the affordable housing policy that the document has set forward. 6. The monitoring program. As the rural incentive district is reviewed and codified, a monitoring program of land preservation and development must be included. I would like you all to note that that was one of goals that Long Island Farm Bureau requested and in fact, I was the one who requested it at the moratorium hearing. That a monitoring system be set in place, completed and presented to the Town at the end of the term of moratoria. As the decisions are made by the Town of Southold to implement policy that has the powerful ability to impact agriculture for future generations, it behooves the public and elected officials to turn to other examples and resources for guidance. And in conclusion, I have four resources that I would like to refer to. The first one is the Town of Southampton's final generic environmental impact statement which states, "The Town understands that maintaining the economics of farming is key to preserving farmland. The initiatives pursued by the Town are not strictly for preservation of open space but rather to preserve and protect farmland as a viable agricultural industry." That was Southampton's final statement. The Cato Review of Business in Government, 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session Fall 2002, the topic of that article was 'Has zoning hurt affordable housing?' and Cato's response to that question was, in the nations tightest housing markets, land use regulation contributes heavily to high housing costs. And on page 30 at the conclusion, it stated 'if policy advocates are interested in reducing housing costs, they would do well to start with zoning reform. ' Michael Carraciola, who is our Suffolk County Legislator states " Farming requires a critical mass of activity to sustain the infrastructure of related business on which it depends. Despite all of our accomplishments, we must do more." And finally, Nathan Rutgers who is the Commissioner of New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets states, "Suffolk County leaders understand that profitable farmers keep land in production. Viable farms maintain open space, protected open space sustains a healthy environment and a sound environment with a balance of rural and urban uses maintains the highest quality of life. Innovative, incentive based approaches to protecting farmlands can help strengthen these key relationships." The key words to that statement from the Farm Bureaus perspective is innovative and incentive based approaches to protecting farmland. In reading the scoping document, Long Island Farm Bureau understands that according to page 7 that states, "Under SEQRA the economic analysis of business operations is not appropriate for analysis in an environmental impact statement." But our response to that is, understanding that this is a public policy goal, we feel that the economic impact on a major industry such as agriculture in Southold Town, must have economics and the economic impact considered as it relates to that industry. Thank-you for the opportunity to provide this comment, I do have copies of this and I will leave it. . 20 . SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank-you. Would anyone else care to address the Town Board? DOUG COOPER: Doug Cooper from Mattituck. I think most of my questions were addressed here also but I just would like to reiterate them. Have you or are you considering the negative effects of any of those plans or recommendations that you may be making on the effects of current, private conservation efforts which is now in this Town running at 25% to 35% of the total preservation efforts and which is a major reason for us now preserving on an average over II-acres for every new building lot that is created. It is my fear that any upzoning efforts or perhaps any other plans may have a negative effect on this. I hope that you keep that in mind. Will you also be studying and will you have any estimates on the negative effects to agriculture and the business, particularly the business of farming that may result from future plans and recommendations? I hear that you wish to protect farmland the best way is to protect the farmer by not hurting him. And when I read in your draft scope here, just as Becky before me mentioned that economic analysis is not appropriate, I find this a slap in the face. The economics to protect the environment falls to a large extent with the landowner and if you protect his rights and his investment, he can help protect the environment. Thank-you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank-you. Would anyone else care to address the Town Board? BARNEY SIDOR: This has been going on for two years now. I was involved in this in this Town with upzoning issues in 1991. I did not think I would have to come back twice in one lifetime to defend my rights. It would be a sad commentary for this Town that the only way to preserve its rural heritage would be through regulation. I have heard from Town Board members that we can't do anything. Twenty years of local government burying their heads in the sand and they come up with the idea and it is nothing more than five acre zoning on the table. There are no new concepts here and by the very nature that we are still sitting here today discussing how to preserve open space and farmland says something is working. So instead of turning everything around and looking for this grand plan of five- 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session acre zoning, why don't you go through some of the details that have lead us to this point? When I overhaul a tractor or a truck, I do not tear the tractor apart to find out it was simply a fuel filter that had to be replaced. You have for example, the concept of cluster zone. Exactly inventory that for me and tell me how much farmland has been preserved through that concept in 13 years? We on our own merit have given you the conservation subdivision, which the town still does not have on code. And also, with no disrespect to Melissa, everybody is so concerned with the responsibility to the taxpayers when they come up with these bonds, the reverse of that is that if a bond was passed in 1995 and there still is money sitting in that account that should have been already used to preserve the farmland at a much cheaper price, then you need to look in a Committee to find out why is there a logjam? What is the problern and don't give me that nonsense, it is the farmer? You need to look at some of these things first before you jump at this. John, I am looking straight at you because you were the one who gave me the best story out of all of this, about the emotion of private property, on your rides on a Sunday afternoon with your grandfather or father and he took you out of the car and put his hand in the soil and said how special this was. Okay? . . 21 COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Marty, I am going to comment to that in the effect of, you said there is Bond money from 1995... MR. SIDOR: Whatever the bonds were. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: That is not being used. The money is there and we want to talk about land preservation. Come to the table, Marty. Come to the table. MR. SIDOR: Let's look at the program. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: The money is there. MR. SIDOR: Okay. Come take a look at the program. Why is there a logjam? It is too easy to say it is the farmers problem. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: There is no logjam. There is no logjam, Marty. MR. SIDOR: Melissa, $10 million approximately? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: It is not because we don't want to spend it. MR. SIDOR: But don't jump from that to five-acre zoning. That is not doing your homework. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Marty, again.... MR. SIDOR: I am asking, please, look at the program, John. That is all I am saying. Okay. If there is a problem there, then I will be the first one to say okay, what is the next step? SUPERVISOR HORTON: This is not an opportunity for cross talk. Marty, Mr. Sidor you are more than welcome to give input and again, Town Board, this is not a debate and we are not here to cross 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session talk, we are here to take input from the public. And if you have more to add, Mr. Sidor, please continue. . 22 . MR. SIDOR: Okay, let me finish up by saying that the concepts that we have in place to get us to this point, if they have to be fine tuned and looked over, I would appreciate if you would do that first. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Would anyone else care to address the Town Board? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: I would like to add into the record, comments in advertisements made by the Farm Bureau that says, "A farmland on the East End seems to be disappearing." These are in newspaper ads and print ads, "Faster than a minute and that any housing on the farmland is no good for farming." These are their quotes from the Farm Bureau in their ads. They should be added into the record, also, for future decisions. MR. SIDOR: I have seen some of these conservation subdivisions and the flexibility of what the farmer is giving you is he is selling his development rights on a major piece of that parcel and with the flexibility of the Land Trust is finding and making this very appreciable to both the community and is preserving farmland. SUPERVISOR HORTON: So the overall alternative here, so we can clarify for the record, is to in addition to what you have commented on thus far, is Chick-the addition of conservation subdivision, is that correct? MR. SIDOR: Look at the methodology of the Land Preservation Committee and check to see if Riverhead is doing it the same way and see what these programs are in some of the other East End towns. I believe there are a few other things to be added. Thank-you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: So, as well, part of this enhancements to the Land Preservation Department and the Land Preservation Committee process and methodology. Would anyone else care to address the Town Board? MR. VOORHIS: A very quick couple of points, if I could. Pat and I have been listening and obviously the Board is hearing the comments and I just want to make a couple of points of clarification and Patrick will also too. I wanted to just say that this is not simply about one initiative, this is a package of initiatives that has been identified over the course of the Town looking at tools to achieve the goals of the Town. If you look at it in terms of a comprehensive planning effort, I believe that will be the best context and there is clear direction. There has been a commitment on the part of the Town through the past studies, through the legislative acts and through the record of decisions that the Town has made toward achieving the goals of the Town. There are many different ways to get there. Some tools have been outlined in the documents, I don't think we should lose sight of the value of those documents and the importance of them as a baseline and a foundation for what we are looking at. The FAQ that was mentioned before that is on the Town website does identify the fact that we are looking at the interrelationship of the various methods. That you can't look at one alone, that you really should understand the interrelationship and many of the comments that I heard tonight speak to that directly. There is no intent to skirt issues that are socio-economic impacts to the Town. These will be identified, we will take and report all of the comments that have been heard tonight and certainly issues 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session that are socio-economic in nature to the Town must be studied and will be studied. Those are a couple of the points that I thought would be helpful to clarity. . . 23 MR. CLEARY: And to further clarity, the point that you just raised, cluster subdivision and conservation subdivisions are part of the action that is being studied. So that is, that is the reason this whole exercise is encouraging, to bring it all in through this processing of public evaluation. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Moving forward, would anyone else care to address the Town Board? Chick, Patrick the amount oftime that this will be the scoping session or the public input portion of the scoping session will be left open if I am not mistaken, will be February 10th. Is that correct? So comments should be addressed to Southold Town Hall via the Town Clerks Office, specific to the moratorium planning group. The Town Clerk's Office until February 10 will be taking comment on alternatives and other things that members of the public feel should be addressed in the scope of the environmental impact statement. Address your comments to the Town Clerk's Office, as well, the Town Clerk mentioned that e-mail is an appropriate communication as well as fax. The e-mail address is as follows... TOWN CLERK NEVILLE: I will give you my card. SUPERVISOR HORTON: We have those long government e-mail issues. MR. ESSEXS: (inaudible) to deal with the issue of whether we have the proper action, I am going to address that (inaudible) SUPERVISOR HORTON: I agree with you. Actually, I will take that up tomorrow with legal counsel. I appreciate that, Mr. Essexs. Here is the e-mail addresstotheTownClerk.itis e.neville(al,town.southold.nv.us and for any further information you can call my office as far as how to deliver things to Town Hall. That is 765-1889. Thank-you for coming out and we appreciate your input. * * * * * * * Comments submitted prior to Scoping meeting by Gwynn Schroeder, on behalf of the North Fork Environmental Council: Dear Members of the Board, One of the most telling statements made by the Town's consultants during a preliminary discussion on the work plan for the moratorium was that although the Town had wonderful goals for preserving Southold, the current Town Code would never meet those goals. Inherent in that observation is the need for the Town to proactively take charge of it's own destiny and act accordingly. Through the SEQRA process and utilizing the tool ofDGEIS, an optimum outcome can be achieved. Many hours of professional and volunteer time, as well as ten of thousands of taxpayer dollars, have been spent over the years to develop plans that would preserve our valued farmland, open space, and threatened natural environment. The failure has been that many of the most effective and proven tools recommended in these various studies and reports were never adopted. Once the Town has revisited the numerous plans through the DGEIS, public input is considered and the findings are presented, it will be up to you to act on those findings. At the end of this process it will be your responsibility to act in the best interest of all the residents of the Town. We cannot afford to monitor the pace of development, conduct further studies or to rely on unproven 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session preservation tools to meet our goals. Specifically, NFEC requests that the following be included in the DGEIS. The Minority Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission, also known as the CAP Plan, signed by two members and two alternate members of the BRC, should be included as one of the documents reviewed in the DGEIS, rather than as an alternative. The Minority Reports calls for the adoption of the 5-acre upzoning in the AlC and the R-80 zones in conjunction with the formation of a Rural Incentive District, continued clustering regulations and the continuation of the current Purchase of Development Rights Program. This will guarantee the Town meets the minimum preservation goals set forth in the BRC majority report. This report offers numerous examples of preservation successes throughout the country in which zoning was utilized as a tool. The formation of a Rural Incentive District and the potential outcomes must be considered in the context of a concurrent upzoning, as well as compared to the RID without upzoning. When examined as a stand alone preservation tool, we would ask that specific examples of success be offered as proof of the efficacy of such a plan. Possible exit strategies from the RID, both those which reward farmers with an increased development rights and those which guarantee preservation minded landowners that the Town will purchase development rights on their time frame and at the current zoning designation must also be evaluated for potential outcome and landowner participation. . . . 24 ~~ Elizabeth A. Nevil( - Southold Town Clerk . . . . TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SCOPING SESSION AGENDA 1. Welcome - Supervisor Horton 2. SEQR Overview - ClearyN oorhis 3. Role of Lead Agency - ClearyNoorhis 4. Description of Action - ClearyN oorbis 5. DGElS Format - ClearyNoorhis 6. Public Comment - . Comments on the Description of the Action Involved Agencies Interested Agencies Public . Comments on Impact Areas . Geology . Water . Ecology · Transportation . Air . Land Use & Zoning . Demography . Community Services . Infrastructure . Community Character . Cultural Resources . EconomiclFiscal Conditions Involved Agencies Interested Agencies Public · Comments on Alternatives Involved Agencies Interested Agencies Public 7. Wrap-Up, Establishment of Written Comment Period - V. Scopaz , . .. Page I . SIGN-IN SHEET 7:30 p.m. January 29,2003 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY GElS SCOPING SESSION Please Print Name f1IJ (tv..- Bou111r-Jlev ~~ ~~V~ MaHine: Address Telephone Number/Fax Number ~8() Gr~cr ~tS f-<.:-{..( 70 J- 'f b </'2- trl"f Sf~Y.+ ~~~~I?e!~wfP~~ I ~lj ~DI..cLu~., fLJ. ~.~ ~../-L WiLli a-W\ -Es~. 4-t+-..r",,"t -R \".. (h.e ......<f TA'1. s: ~ h "U' 'iderW\ '" "\ ,C: '" f' y-v i ,O\'". -t-O.....IV irt E"" .~"th"'-""'p-;-"'lM . , .. -..... III Page . .:l SIGN-IN SHEET 7:30 p.m. January 29, 2003 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY GElS SCOPING SESSION Please Print Name Mallin!!: Address Telephone Number/Fax Number fGT!(<f Sa C/~eD ~ ~.~ 7 Y',o."J..r<?-"7t N.~~,- . . . . TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY GENERIC ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT STATEMENT SCOPING SESSION AGENDA 1. Welcome - Supervisor Horton 2. SEQR Overview - ClearyN oorhis 3. Role of Lead Agency - ClearyNoorhis 4. Description of Action - ClearyNoorhis 5. DGEIS Format - ClearyNoorhis 6. Public Comment - · Comments on the Description of the Action Involved Agencies Interested Agencies Public · Comments on Impact Areas . Geology . Water . Ecology · Transportation · Air . Land Use & Zoning . Demography . Community Services . Infrastructure . Community Character . Cultural Resources . EconomiclFiscal Conditions Involved Agencies Interested Agencies Public . Comments on Alternatives Involved Agencies Interested Agencies Public 7. Wrap-Up, Establishment of Written Comment Period - V. Scopaz SIGN-IN SHEET 7:30 p.m. January 29, 2003 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY GElS SCOPING SESSION Please Print Name . MaHin!!: Address Telephone NumberIFax Number . J '''"' ~ 11m flU) 1ft H -".,". U) J-. <0 ::s . SECOND flOOR fl R lid. -!{jut- . .,.-- ". .-- - . -. - _. -- - . - . __ _ _ _u.,_ __ ......, .--.. -.- ..- ----. - FROtH ELEVATION SECTION i. R1.7 MAIN PIPING TO I FROM SHAREO STORE 4> SERVING SEVERAl ~ HOUSES 38 vc ]~ ,n, C .J (~\), FIRST FLOOR 1J mm..- .- .-_. . ;'0"" ~ ~--- -~-. REAR ELEVATION ~ R13.4 ~ BURIED SHARED STORAGE TAflK RECEIVED ~~'tl JAN 2 9 2003 . . ~; ~ Soutb1il""~wn (Ie ~,->.~- .;.:- 1i~~;~; GENERAL DESCRIPTION Four individual units are attached to form a typical townhouse building. Each individual unit contains three bedrooms. two baths, l1vinq~dining room with Franklin stove (efficient heatinq with low-draft opera- tion), kitchen-family room, . Net heated area: 1650 sq. ft. (13.000 c. f.) Gross area: 1690 sq. ft. Estimated 1975 buildlnq cost, excluding land. site' improvements, and fees: MIlHMUM AVERAGE I 37.500 l42,;Oo Heat loss: 9,650 BTU/OEGREE DAY / UNIT 8.4 BTU/HR-SF @ DESIGN TEMPERATURE BTU Co~~ected by Solar System: 55.7 BTU/YEAR/UNIT Matenals: Foundation and Slab on Grade: poured concrete (10" walls) Walls: 2x4 studs sheathed w. 5/8" plywood, 112" gyp bd interior, 2x6 studs @ end'wa11s. Floors: \~ood joists with 5/8" p1ywC'uu subfloo!", 3/8" under1ayment. and carpet. Ceilings: 1/2" gyp. bd. Roof: Composition shingles on 5/8" plywood Sheathing over wood rafters. Windows: Double-glazed double-hung with wood frames. Patio doors: Double-glazed, weathers tripped Exterior doors: 1 3/4 wood. weatherstripped. with metlll storm door. Thermal Insulation: R-ll f1berglas~' batts in walls. R-19 in attic. under collector. lInd 1:" end walls of building. 'it 93% SOLAR HEATING SYSTEM Four townhouses share a common solar ~elting and solar domestic hot-water prehelltingsystem consisting of a . inexpensive. Single-glazed. water type' collector. forming the 450 south roof of the house; a central 6000-gallon insulated steel storage tank' buried in the ground near the row of houses; and associated pumps. piping, valves. con- trols and insulation. The -collection cycle is as fol- lows: when a sensor registers that any collector 1n the row is 100 wanmer than another sensor in the middle of the tank the circulating pump goes on and pumps water through the collector. Collection ceases and the col- lector is drained when the collector cools relative to the tank. or when the middle of the tank reaches 200oF. The house heating cycle is as follows: when the thermo- stat in any house tn the row drops below 70oF. the house heating circu1atol'l' pumps water from the top of the tank through the baseboard convectors of the house and back to the storage tank. If the water in the tank 1s too cool to sattsfy the demand. the system continues to run, while an tndependent system of electric base- boards with individual th'ennostats provides additional heat. Although the hot-water system might stay on for considerable periods. the pump uses very little elec- tricity. Sooner or later the solar heating w111 sathfy the house demand and the system will begi,n to cycle again. Domestic hot water 15 suppl1ed, to each hOllse by a conventional hot-water heater, with the Il1Itn feedwater pipe run through 136 feet of 314M copper tubing, or an equivalent heat exchanger. 1~ the conmon ltorage tank. It would be posstble to meter tndividual untt usage if ind~lltng ts destred. :;c.', \ -{-- ~ . ~~'.~";; ,:,{ " .'i',(~' , c,; ,.~ 1 1 " . _-2 r -. ~~',: ~~,:. .....' . , .- ., , " .... .j ~ pri' ~% ~: 1.r . timing the Insulated .. ,. :1-_~',; klle'!,,;' IIlter' ".;- il~ ~. ::,'~ to e[ IDF, 'MIlD- ., se ank ues ' al Dr fify' ~. , , er '. 'n t. r ,j f (i .. i i -., """".... HEAT SUPPLIED DURING A TYPICAL YEAR 22 J A SON 1068TU 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 SPACE HEAT 0 0011 HW 2 I D J F M A M J SOUTH WINDOWS MISCELLANEOUS ~;iii~~il:ili[\tl*ml]:l:iti::i!llil:::ii::::iii:i:::ilIif!!:!:::::::}:::;;:::;:;:; S:LAR ~.:.R.:.:fff!I!Ii!iiii:ii:i::il:iii::ii:iii::iii:::iil:iii:i:iiiiIIi:iiIii!IIii:iii:i:iiii:iiiii:i:ii: ~"i:jl';~ ;: ...<c,;',; I. i'; . PERFORlllNCE . , ,',. " This system was designed to maximize the~a~unt of solar heating within the constraints of a marketable and bufld- 'able design. - The resulting system reduces'the auxiliary ~ heat used by 87 percent when (:Qq:lired to the identical house without solar heating (the:Non~SOlar'Townhouse). and . by 93 percent when cDq:lared to the rqlroved Cape. which is about 12 percent larger. (The performance 'option chart to the rfght cDqlares the Solar Townhouse with the Non-Solar Townhouse.) The basfc design has no basement. but other. .;~.' wfse resembles fn cons.tructfo~. ,the Impro,ved. Cape. ' ., . . - t l~ " . ,;:As with every desfgn. lowering the thermostat to a 650F :.average produces a large fncr~ase fn perfonmance, fn thfs ..'~case reducing the auxiliary heat.by an'addition 6 percent. : to 93 percent. Reducing the sfze ,of collector would prob- ably not change the operating'cost of the house very IlIUch, :_,.-.but would increase the auxil1arYheat consumption. In- <creasing the size was not POlsible with the desfgn shown. .,~. :Usfng 61 studs with R.19 insulation for the exterior walls . .,: appear. to pay for Itself; a .aste .ater heat. recovery :,,:i' '~yst8lD is not quite as good a buy, primarily because it 1-./ requfres construction of a.special pft'onder.the floor, or ' an ejector PWJP to raise the waste water back to ffrst- ,'~. ~ floor Jevel. ani does not,pro'lid enough he'at ' ~t, .~~~ compe"slt~ for th1s~cO$.t, ~ . t.t)'. .'. ~H I "4f~ I 1-4; lf~_,,(t <{ . HI' i~a:.~.~j. . ''\:'tl;C> ."It . '.U-'t"at.... ,~, . . . -{< ~'; -'>it; 'd .' i! , -' -. . Because the store is a centrally located tank for four at- tached houses, the cost of the tank per gallon is substan- tially less than individual tanks. This is partly offset by increased piping, but serves to decrease the overall system cost. Larger tanks cost correspondingly less per gallon, so that doubling the size of the store, despite a small perfonnance increase. could be an attractive option. It is IllOre sensible. however, to provide two tanks, to allow one to shut down for repair or examination. and the cost per year indicated at right reflects the latter assulllPtion. Because of -the low overall heat loss of the townhouse, and the potential economies of a shared store and pos- s131y shared pumps and controls. the townhouse seems to be a sensible building type to heat with solar energy. It appears to be economically attractive and architectur- ally feasible to produce townhouses which are largely heated by solar energy. and within certain 11mits to re- late them in a site plan to reasonably high densities. Further studies need to be undertaken t~~l~~lre the pos- sible densities in a non-solar heated townhouse develop- ment with those achievable wfth.theaddftional restraint of co'rrect solar orientation. - J I S-Jl ~ ::~~:AREA' 50% EFFlC. (;.,I.;5~ II SGAlQ FTS NET [to SI2E OF STlllE "to5lXl' II... HOUSE HEAT LOSS 9.650 8TU/DAY OF I WATER HEAT DEMAND 100 GAlLONS/DAY , MISCELLANEOUS HEAT SUPPLY 12D.000 8TU/DAY : IIEATAIlILITY 11.500 RTU/DAY.F CD MINIMUM DELIVERY TEMPERATURE 80 F , YEARlY TOTALS 11 8TU) ,DON MIl ~PACE HT.TO!&. i2!. (Q SOLAR 23.5 32.2 SS.7 _ AUXILIARY 3.9 4.1 8.0 ~ MISCELLANEOUS 35.0 35.0 SOUTH WINDOWS 12.4 12.4 STORE LOSS 0 0 TOTAL rr.4 ~ m HEAT LOSS TABLE .BTUlHR'SFI10of 'TIJ~ SLAB {Jt GRADE NA 700 EXTERIOR WAllS 1.62 950 OPENINGS 4.25 2,500 ATTIC AND ROOF 1.53 900 INFILTRATION NA 2.750 HUMlDlFICATlON NA 1.250 1/2 END WALL 1. 02 --....600. TOTAL --..-.rr 9.650 STORE TEMPERATURE F CCl4PARlSON WITH TOWItfOUSE PERFORMANCE AUXILIARY HEAT COST OF CDST OF OPTION SAVEO OPTION . SClAR HEAT lO"BTUIYR -L- tl.!lL- $/1068TU.YR Basic House 54.7 87 600 11.00 Lower Thennostat to 650 Average + 3.8 93 n.c. 10.25 Double Size of Store + 1.6 90 + 50 11.50 Add 75 LF Convector + 0.6 .88 + 60 12.00 Waste Water Heat Recovery System + 3.1 92 . + 75 IU5 6" Exterior WaHs wI R-19 Insulation + 1.3 89 + 20 11.00 . Reduce Collector 201 - 4.3 80 - 60 ID.7S .. Reduce Collector 4Ds: -10.8 70 ~120 ~1.00 Reduce Insu-1ation on Store 3.6 ' 82 - 25 1l.25 COST ESTIMATE MINIltJH ~ Basic Unit (including IIg $5,500 share of solar system cost) 37.500 42.500 ., '. ,~ ..., .!',"' '1::;;' .;- ~fI3' .~Q) fi~ Jm- ~_. (0 ::J . ',-. I I ,. I .;: .~.: 40 .- ~ i ~... :..-=-~ ..::; -'t; ~i ' .'~".:J ;;:'-,i:.. t't: i .:__ i. !.-!i- .. ~-. ......-.- . , ... 1_. ~ . ~.... . -~ . """"~ ..-. .. '\'ir".."...... - ~....-,._........- - -..".....," .', .... ,. . . . ~":im~"":"""~..lf~~~"": ~uttr run was based on nper-unttP values for pi!rametcrs. Collector area. store size, and store loss to env\ronment were calf.ulated for 4-un1t townhouse building and divided by 4 to l-btain "per-unit" values used in run. ~'. This is a day-by-day printout of the house pei"for- mance for the year 1958. A quick scan of the printout shows the general qualitative performallce of ,the system--those times in the year when aux- iliary water heat, auxiliary space heat, solar space heat, etc. are required. This inforNtlon 15 sUlfPlarized on the preceding pages, but 1s presented here in full to enable the interested reader to interpret the data for himself. Col. 1: "UlTber of day. starting July 1 Col. 2: Mean daily temperature Col. 3: Daily insolation on vertical south-facing surface Col. 4: Solar contribution to water heating Col. 5: Auxiliary contribution to water-heating Co1. 6: Miscellaneous contribution to space heating Col. 7: South window contribution, to splice heating Col. 8: Solar contribution to space heating through conduction losses froM the store Col. 9: Sollr contribution to Spice heating throug~ .....1 dIstrIbution Col. 10' Io.l111'Y ,ontrlbutlon to SP"'" hlltlng Col. 11' Tot.l SPI" hlltlng Col. 12: Stor.t temperaturt at .!!!!! of tht dlY For coopl.t. ..pl.nltt.. 01 the printout. $I, pp. 44-47 For discussion of parameters. Sl' pp. SO-67 For discussion of small trror fn weather dati for dlYS 354.365. see p. 47. ..'" ~ - .....1111111 I I " , SOLAR TOWNHOUSE SHARED WATER SYSTEM ,FLOOR AREA COLLECTOR AREA / UNIT STOR':>S:ZE I UNIT SOUTH WINOOW HOUSE HEAT LOSS THERMOSTAT WATER HEAT DEMAND MISCELLANEOUS HEAT COLLECTOR EFFICIENCY STORE LOSS TO HOUSE STORE LOSS TO ENVIR / UNIT STORE ENVIR. TEMP. HEATABILITY MINIMUM DELIVERY TEMP. YEARLY TOTALS (I06BTU) SOLAR AUXILIARY MISCELLANEOUS SOUTH WHIOOWS STORE LOSS TOTAL . '.650 SQUARE fEET 715 SQUARE fEET 1.500 GALS / UNIT 86 SQUARE FEET 9.650 BTU/llAY OF 70 FO 100 GAlLENS/OAY 120.000 BTU/llAY 50 S o BTU/ DAY of. 250 BTU/llAY OF 50 OF 11.500 BTU/DAY OF 80 FO ocr" HW 23.5 3.9 SPACE HT 32.2 1.1 35.0 12..1 o BIT 2f.4 .. TOTAL 55.7 8.0 35.0 12..1 o Ill. I JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER ""'It" ,.... --.....-... ..-.....- ....-....-....-..--....-.......--........ 11,11.... -. o uuo HO 7$150 11475150 1M 75150 11.75150 0151$0 13315150 IU ?SIlO n515ISO lS.nl50 101 uno 11975150 In UlSO 1-" 15150 19115ISO 130 uno "51S11O ....15150 Itl nlso ' 161UI~ ..1 "ISO 1.lnlSO 101 un:) 19415150 lteUISO o UI5:l o 1~150 onlso '''75150 1M 151$0 0" ... '" n. ... ." ,.. .n ... 10,14 tltI 1114 ".. 1.69 nn 1616 ".. I.., .... ".. 1166 1'66 UU 2415 2511 11664 116' .... .,,6 .", H 33 U 3,,'10 351. '''' nn .... ,,,. .... un 41'10 41310 4411 .... .." 41.,3 41'4 .... .... 516'1 .... .... .. .. .U64 .... 51'1 "" U.I' .... 11'1' 111SO 111'15150 1I1'1$ISO "'15150 "'''ltO "'''150 1t4nUO .U'SIIO 1t1'15150 16115150 31'115150 34'''150 '1'1 '15150 .1315150 ... uuo 115'15150 ..."SUO ."nIH 35115150 ,..75150 311 15150 '''''150 . 314'15150 h5'1'ISO 0151SO 0'11110 "''15lto 141'''50 114'15110 "3111110 .... nil 6614 .... 4'6' ..,. "" liS' "" '1355 '14" 15U 1'" 1'1" '1.... "" .... "" .... un .... "'1:1 .." .'66 .... d.54 ".. .... 41515IM .o'11SIIO- )50615150 '1''15150 It. 15150 151 "ISO .13'15150 .. '15150 .31$150 16'1 '15150 ....nl50 436,,.50 351W50 'iIl;J4 15UO .:11 nuo o nuo o nUO onlso liIllI nno In 15ISO 3U 15no '" "UO :n.nl~ 4i11S1,150 3hl1511O 0"150 1110'15150 50.15150 . . . . . . . . o nlOo o "HO o t933l) . . . . . . , . . . o InOl) o 9650 " , . . o IUOO o ."'SO . ..... 0"""'50 o ;jOIt-OO 0,.600 o 5noo . . . . ;'0 :'19OU ;0 nlOO 0'1'11t03 . " . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... o ..10 . . . . . . . . . . o 115!11) .0 !If'OO .0 ,,;gO 011100 0...50 . . o "!II) '0 "'50 .011'1900 o "'110 o ..UO 0...110 0...110 '0 '1'1100, ;0 ( 0 . ..... 01'1100 ..- . ..... 01.300 . .... 0"'110O o 1061..' 0106'110 'OlllOOOCl .-- '01061". .,- 01.300 o .,QQ OltlOlllO .-- o 160000. .-- .0_ 0..... If """ I) "", . ..... . . 01110030 01113033 .0..... . . .' . . . . . . . . . , , , , . , , " , , , , , , . , , , . . .. . . , , . , , . , , . . , . . . , , , . , , , , , " , , , . , , . " , . , , , , , . , . , , , , . , . . , . , , , . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . , . . . , . '" g . , . , , ,. , , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0"';.0 .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o .0' . . . . , . . . . . . , . , . . . . , . . , . , . , . , ., . 1M'15O 0 ..... . . . . ,0 0 ", , . . . u . . . . 'iUOO 0 ~IU 0, o , . . u . a :t . , , . """14 CI '''''' . ilI4,1I00_,..O . , o , , , . " , . , , , , o , . . , , , , , , . . . , . , 01.... ',,)1/01 \JI" lll.. HIIOO 1,1", I,,~I".. h1;a)1)I/:J . :lIW!> :I II~ o Itn OIW", :1111 l1IaIW II. ''':001/'' 011,) Oil:' 11300 III "'lOll. .60011111 -...!IO)l/to :JoItoII<II'" "",,1,1:)111", !>1.00 U" ;lIW1 01/11 !luao I.' ""110:11'" UWi,lI6" ;I ..,,, :11.11 ~'i' 1;' .,' ..)' :L' . . , , . . . . . . . . , , . '. . . . . . .. .. : . . . . . . 011.. o I"!> 1111" 01" Oln II II. Q In :1i116lIO hI. ""1101"11 Clln CIlia 01._ II 1,111 01.,,11 "!IliO 1.0 STlIOOlIIl U."OUI"" uno I'" ....1I01.1I 0". "'101"3 "'$00110O 11'19001. "".01.' HIM 113" ...1101.' ...WI." nlOltl..' Oil' .. , . . . . . . u ,'~ 1,1 u , u , . 1I117t11 .",.0 "'OO . , , . , , . ~... Mal. , . . o ..~...,1 on_II' u 1l111OU II" '" ..ou I"'" o I"~"'", o ".SoIl 190 o it._1lI1 o UM'W tll)3 o lo.l~ "'" :. :::: ::: i" o IlHIl!IClln o nllUU I"'" U.I#;,;)I,III', U ..00 III;' 0'''-''110I ,... D 144'''''' :I IU',1fIJ I!I' 0,1',,0;) au o I......... nl iI ...llW I"., ~ 'ball" .. ,.,..lhIl/" II ",...,..1." It 1oI1/", II 1!l4-.,,,1..1 U IIhl:t:la I',.. II U~II~ . II ._U!!911 tu ...., ,'" ;tl'l'I?~ ",.j;1,,; 6:~fJJf:- '~'l',.;"l, ,-1,~ r~-'::-:,T';;lllf;;?:~:_'~.' " _-', .', _, "''>-,'' . '""'~ 4', ;','f!::":"f~l:'-~'i.t..:~~.,;~.,'. -"c~~''4:':)::<;j'~: ":~,': ..--:" . '''iII'' '. !:~~""l;~~~,.;..:~.;..:,~ .,;,.,.......'" . ..,~,~:;~~~:,-"":-c-.~-"X~.. .. .,. -:- - .- ",,4,.. "~"""""".~~ J '."'. .. :.';-;lil~~" . .:~;f^,;;';;',i;;;;;"~";~':';;fjf" ::::~;:=:;~~::~!:~;::::~i:i:t~~-~~~:i~:i::~!t~iE~~~t=~i:i:::. i:!;;~;;;;~=;!i!~S~~:~8::=:::: =~~~~;.~~o~:~:!;:.:;::=~:,~~::; ~t~t~:~~::~~:~::t~:::tt;::~~t.=~t:::::g:::::~!:!e::::~:::::: ~~C~:O~~~OO~DOOOOO~OO~~oOOOODD E:~iii:~;~e::i!~::E:~~!;E ~:i; :~~:::f~t:;:!t~~~::Xl~~t: ~~-: ~oZ~~.~.._.O..E~..K~...~.oc~~o !. E~ E:!~~i~~ iE' ~ t~ I tf~~~~~: :: r~CCUQ~~OOooo~~t~~o~~oooc~_ooc 'GOO~C~ODOO~CC~COOC~OOOOCOOOO O~OCOgOOoCOCOQOOOOO~OOOOOCOCCO ~;~~:t~::~:::~!~~~:!:~~!Ef~~tl:~i~:~~.~~;;~:t~!;2g;~~!!i2ig~t:~g~;~g~;:~!i~E,::~:i;,:;~~:;~~; ~~:i~t'Zf:t~~Y.o~~.o~~:&~~t~t! -;DZ~8t't.~~Jt~.~~~!~KK~~:t~~ ~:ttt~~~tk~'~..~~g~~~it~~~t~c. ~oou~urooucc~~~cc~~ocvcoouocc' C~~~DC~O~~~~~ogucccc~oooooto tcco~o~~g!o~g~!gEo~~tooc~og~~g ;ou~:t=:~gi~~~:~~i!:~;~~5!uu~:0~~o~o;i!;!:~auo;o:iio~;~:i;o:; ;::~$i:~~~!~E&gt~::ti~~:!=~~i:=i:;::~~~~;~!i~~~~~=~~~=EE~E~:=~ ~-~~~.r&_.~..uu~m~>>I~_.~._~~g~_ ~-ouuu.u.~~~~...u.....u~.u.u_ ~-~..~~W.C~-..~~U-~.~WU-~.U.K..O_.OOOOOOU_.OOOOOO.OOOOCO.OOw :~~;i::=~tti~it:t~~:~~=:~ti~ti~. : ~ =:0 . ~ ~ S;~;::;:5~i:i~S=~;i!!ti51~~:i=: :t!ooooo.ii:oooooo!00oooo!o05 iiti.~itititi~jtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~~ ~g!og!~loo~o8~18gog8igg8g~gggg iilliiiillilllililiiiiiillii- - ---- -- -.- ;- -8;~:.~;:;:~~;.;:f!:~S:;: e: ~.--.t~ ~.o~...rl.ti...~.~o. ~. ~~ol-:a:;::I~:~~~~&::k~t::ooto OOOOCCoOOOOOOOOOQoOOOOOOOOOO c '- - -- - : ~ -~f:.:; :~~ :~=~-; E ~. 0 g,.~at~ -.~ ~~o.t. __ ::u~o::t:=o:ooooo:g~o~:::g=ot " c :~ IP O-ta.-- :i-~J~ :il ;.. ;0=~oooo!;:55~S=~~:0$i~;=:tiDO .~. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .. .~.~...u....~....~~~...... .~. ~------------------------- S=::=ZZSIZZSggg~~g~ggg~~Z~SES: :;CSt:. --~-.. =:~~=ooaoooooooooooooooooooooo !~ : : , . :f iiiiiliiiliii~~iiiil~iilliilil i~ h~ a: : <I- '["" :..i !I<~ :-~ :!t i ~ ". I~: :i~ '. , - - - - - ~ .5: $~!~5 ;~EE g~i~l~ ~ -. . ~v -_~ KO v .o~.oooo=~.gioogoo..ocoo .0Z.vo ....... ....... ~ ..--- -- -- -- -- - --- ,- - :~~tg:t:= ~:=~ :: Ig::~; -~t ~~I~:~t:f~~~ ~:;i ~ 1~1' l:::t~:::'ti,. ~..~.. ~: :I~~:" i-:. "~.I:~u '!~.::; :;;::t = f~ ~o.o~__~wo~gg~~~_o~o~r~:~~g~. ..gw.o!~c-~.oooo~oo~zoooo..oov! OOOOOODOOCOOOO~OOOOOOOOOOOOCC~ ----- --_. - - ----- --------------------------- ----- ------------------------------ ~:t~~;~~~~:~~~~~~~:;~~;:;f~:t:~=~:,:t:~~=~g~:~:~~::~~!:~:~!~~~~t~~:~~:~::::~:~:::~::~::~~t::: POOOoOOOOoOOoOOOoOoOOcOO~O !ii;~:~=::~:!il;~!~!=:=!!: ~t::::;t:::.c;~~~~:=~g:!y:; o~cv~~g.._rgo__..~u..co~...c . )! ~. : . . . OOCOoOOCOc~oCOOOOC.OooOOO~ .~~~~~~tcv:::g=t:~iitr~:t:e.~t~~~=~tti~~:=~~~t:tt:~:;tii!:a iil~~~ili~i~i~iii!8i~gfi~i: g~~~~ii~~g~i~l~~i~~gilil~li~ill, ~~i~~;iiEi;~E.~~~i~~:;t~t;~~c~~~:~~i;~~:e~~:~;:i~i:e~:;~;:~ :s ~ !!!~~~!~!!~!!!~!~.~l~~~!~~g~~~ ~=~~~~!~!~~M~!~=;~;=;;;:~~!~~ ~~~~!!!!!!!!!~!!!!!!!!!!~~:!!i~t~!~ ~::!=~:=:::::=::gg=::=etee::!U ~:!:::::t::!:~=~:~t~~~~::~~~~!~-~~; '.m ~-. ~~~.-,....'. ,-_-..._..: ;.~_. t~ m~..m_ w_..~~w~.! .:~ w:: ,~l ~~O-~O~~-~-w.~Ou~._.:wou~=mo=~ OD~.':=O~~:~.=~=~oo:o.o~..ooc ' ==~~~~====~======:=:=:~:::::=: :::::::::~::=:=:::::::=::&e:~:~ izgg~iigig~iiiiiiiiii;!ii~iiir i~iiiiiiiiiiiiii~iiii=ii:t!:li~ !z b. . = l# ;:~ii : ~ coooooooooooooooooooor:oooooo ~oouooooooooooooo!oooorOC.V.MO a ~=!fi;;~Bj!i~!~~ ~~;~jj~jj~; :j~~!ji!~!i;!iiiiiiiiii~iiiii I~Biiji~iij~j~~iiiiiijiiiijiijl~ eoooo~gD~oougOY~OoogogDYGDOOoi gogogoggg;g;Z8iogg888g~0:I~DI ~!oloo~ooooooog 000 0:0 :~I :' ; I... ~v ;::: u u u :' !:e::: 1:::: t ~ !:;iw~ . t;:!:~:a:;~~ :i~ :"i ~ - ~....- -...... o....~ .~, .-~ ..-I!; ..~. t:8-t!"'=8F.~ .~: ....c : ~ooococoocoo~touocoogoo~~o~go.oogo~oo~c~oEoo$o::~Eo:goo~g:oE: oo:K Soooo 000 ooooc~ o~~.COo:[~ . ~:~ Oooooooooeoo~ooOCooouoocec~~c:= - "'''' ---- _c., :c~ , -- c~-",..-t..I~~K-._~ ig~! i. . ~~~~~i:Ei;!~~=i ' s!.t...8.......g........... &li~ oOOOCOOgCOOOOOcoooooooocecDD~t KCKK____ ------....~~K~~I~:~~%t:J~ II;iiliiii~fliii~~il;i liiiii:~~ -; __________c_____________;_.:.' ~J tt:~:::~~~ll~:~Z~t:~~::I.t___ !!!!I!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!R!!!I! ~'~r~~XK.~tr~~~:~r~K'ttt~=~=Kt !!K9R!R!~!!!!II!I!!!!!I;!; %~~~~t=l:ow:;:I~;;;I~=:;:= o~aioi~=:ooo~:wooo:i;!;:;:!O~:. oi5i8:0=Ei!oi!!!:!;00:1:~i ~~~"'.."I-*~~~twg~~~~~..~.~.....~ .:.rt.:~.~t.~~=..U~:.~.u~O! ~~~i;!~:;c=!~:=t;;~~~;=:5!:=:! ::~~tK=:~:~:=!;=~~oia51:i: !gg....--.~~.~8~oo~ggDZB...m~..~ ..oo.u.~.=_tW"'..:~~=wu..t.~w t;::I.;~; M~~- o.::w~t. _tiss:: ~=I" =;;=-:;C!:oS:;ll -~-- ~.. ..-.& - ~~"ws~~~ .~u._u .-tSw....I~o..u__.. ..-... ~ ... - ..o~m~...~ ._. .~__* ._u.~~ ~_ ao ooo.~.~ E~=o..~oaooooooc.~cw~w ~.~-.wolo~~.ut~w..~..~.z.~ !iijiiiiiijiijiiiij~j~i~iiiiii 0010glg~8~0800g80800000DO~8g08 jjiliiiiiliiiiiiliililii.li -- - --- -- - ~:~ e::; ~~! ~o;:~~:~i !~- o:;fo:g;rooo:!~ooo:it::;~=:oi!: ';:1:: i~i: !i:~ii= i~~;~ 0:~5:to~:!ioi~;:!:=oo!!i!~ oo~oooo~oooeooo~ocoOOOOOOODOOD - --~-- ~k~-_"~~k_, ___.. ..__ ::;i.:::t:~=i:;X::~:~o~~I:;=C:: ii::g:gi:ggg:~igg~:::;:f!t:~i:_ : I co coooco~o:gOOCCOOOCCOOCDOOO!OOD~ :~~ei;~ilf~~~t:~~~i~~!~t:;r~~~~ ~K~~-~..-~ca~w~~$~-_fi~~g~._~.t~ flcg~~gfggc~!tggcggec08ggggg~~ ------- ----------------- --- ~~:~~t~~~:~~~~~~~!~~~i~:~:ft:~c~ ~:::=:=:::g:::t~=:~:~~=~:=:~t: . OO-:::::IU:. :...!:u':::: :. 00booooooooot8~u.oo_oou..~._uo ~~~~~~~~~w~~~~~~~..~~~~~~w~~~~~ ~i~ii~ii~~i~~~~~~~~~~i~~~i~~~i ouooooooooooooooooouoouoooooo o '" ~Oe 0 C Oc "'~c.>ouo uue 0 0 0 ~ C eo> 0 00 0 clo 0000 00 00 0 000 000 DO 00 00,00 0 000 oc.: . f" ~~oco~c.>go~lioo~co~~c.>uc.>o~go..oo .- f" .,... .;c:':.! ~ ooo~ .. O~~_~'O . 5g.: -. ... uooi~OOO~OgOOOoov:_oo~eE~~!~lo cecooooOOCCOODOO~OOQe~ooooooe ~ ~OOOOOOOOOoOOOOOOOOOOOOOoOoooec '. -- ----- - -- ------ ---------- --..----..~ Ck .~: I rttw..~~o:~o,~ '~.-.~-~~~:,*.~u.Or~C.fk.ff~~~~.-~.tl~sfi~.ll ...:... I:"'~i~!~~!..: !~~;~::l::~::~r;:~ t:tl't _:=_~o; . ~I-:.~O.IO= ::~~~!~!!:~:~:!:::::~:~::~::~i~~~~~::::~::~::!~!~~~!~:!!::!: :::~:;;:t::t~~:~::~:~t~~;:~::~~~~at::~~:l:::~::::::::ett:==:: ~ ~ 4" c eee!~!eIBBBBBBR;;;;.;;.;;.;i!:5: "," .p .W"_O~.~...U__DC.~. w _ "_~a.!_ ~~~&~~I~::.;:~r~~=;::;~==:.;: :I=~F! ~0000Q~io:i~aODoo=5S!i:oi=~;!o II! ~.. ;--:~=::~~~;-;:.::tE5li::;C=iitl~= 0' I: ;;~~~:;:\"=:!:<;c':e:s=;.""~iii!;a!;li : a. i .......-.._m~.u.o.__......~.o.. .: I: ..~t;~~::~=t.~t#:w.:!t=a;:~~!='~:. :,.-.~o.-..~~t.-c.c......c-~o=.s:w.= .~ !.:M~Jt::~:..~:::;:S=:~;::=~iS~".MM '. illiiiililllillilliliiJllllll1 i~ :~s :f"; : . :f~ ... ;:.~ ~oooooooooCCOCOooDOOOOOOOooooo ... i!t i ~ "! ~!~ : i"c: :c-; - - - -- - ---- -t :~ ;K: m~ir=~ ;;:i= . ~: ~~: !:.wt. :=~~~ ~IOqODo.~e~.~oeoooco..w~wo_u.v_o - --~--.... --._k_'..._V=II_; ~ -;:o;!;:: l::~~~.=~~=;_. t.. .~...~ ..~~..~~~ :~,: oco:!~i:g~~ooo:!or~t~:~~.~~~. ;~i: ~n:: i oigg:oooooootiiioocooooooooooto . o n -l o c:> 1TI ;;>0. , ". . . ; . E :z: o <: 1TI dj ,., ;;>0 . . . . . "" ,., n 1TI 3:' c:> 1TI ;;>0 . . . fi '" c.. > :z: c: > ~ . E ...... 1TI c:> :;0 c: > :;0 -< . . 3: > :;0 n :::I: . . . . ~i . , ~ . E '-" >0 -c.!; ;:::;0 r--l ~~ -<:::I: o c: c..'-" c:,., :z: 1TI . . . . . ! . . . '-" :::I: > :;0 ,., "" ~ > -l 1TI :;0 '-" -< V> -l 1TI 3: . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 8, 2003 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold adopted resolution number 22 at their regular meeting held on January 7, 2003 setting a public sconine: meetine: at 7:30 n.m.. Wednesdav. January 29. 2003 at the Southold Town BaD. 53095 Main Road. Southold. New York. on the Southold Comnrehensive Imnlementation Stratel!:v. Copies of this resolution classifying it as a Type I action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, assuming lead agency, declaring it a positive declaration, and initiating a public scoping meeting are attached. Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Suffolk County Department of Planning Long Island State Park Commission Village of Green port Town of Shelter Island Town of Riverhead Town of Southampton Southold Town Supervisor's Office Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Board of Appeals Southold Town Building Department ~.L-~~ Signa , Received By r;:C:or1e Beier/;rl71/?.E. /YYS/JOT If'-/b DUPUCATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK IN RETURN ENVELOPE Attachments cc: ~;nl-ITJ O. r;~le~ Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Suffolk County Department of Health . Suffolk County Department of Public Works Suffolk County Water Authority NYS DEC, Commissioner, Albany NYS DEC, Regional Office, Stony B9'ok NYS Department ofTransportationV NYS Department of State US Army Corps of Engineers Date: / /2 8/0:3 , RECEIVED JAN 3 0 2003 Southold Town Cleft Page / . SIGN-IN SHEET 7:30 p.m. January 29,2003 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY GElS SCOPING SESSION Please Print Name Mailinsz Address Telephone NumberIFax Number /Job vilLI"' BOUr~c1~(t~~ D.c..< V ~~V~ ~A/4 70 J-<( b ,/2- /11/'( 5feJ<-_+ I a ~ p, {J".,-IJII. dcu~~ , UJ~...I""1.- Willia.-w-. EsS'eJq 4t+..rnt;!1. .f< l"p(~p",,~ TA~ S;:c- h "''''idl!?nn.a.I''' ~"" p.....-tliS"oV'. -t-o....^' ist E"'fr:th~""I'-r",.., . Page .:l SIGN-IN SHEET 7:30 p.m. January 29, 2003 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY GElS SCOPING SESSION Please Print Name MaHin!!: Address Telephone NumberlFax Number (2.( f(<f Sa (/~cf) 3~ (\11.,1; ~ . G..L:l~/" I ~ /' V"o.~r~-?l N.~~~ . . . . . Town orSouthold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy EAF Part 1 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION The proposed action involves consideration of implementation by the Southold Town Board of the recommended planning and program tools and measures as described in the planning studies undertaken within the Town over the past 20 years. The studies, plans and recommendations have been reviewed in terms of current needs and Town goals to achieve the Town's vision as articulated in the following plans. . Parks, Recreation & Open Space Survey (1982) . Town Master Plan Update and Background Studies (1984/85) . US/UK Countryside Stewardship Exchange T earn (1991 ) . Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan (1992) . Town Affordable Housing policies and program (1993) . Fishers Island Growth Plan (1987-1994) . Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Study (1994) . Seaview Trails of the North Fork {I 995) . Peconic Estuary Program (1995) . Economic Development Plan, Town of Southold (1997) . Community Preservation Project Plan (July, 1998) . Southold Township: 2000 Planning Initiatives . County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study (1999) . Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy (1999) . Town Water Supply Management & Watershed Protection Strategy (2000) . Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (200 I) . Town of South old Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (2001) . North Fork Travel Needs Assessment (2002) . Blue Ribbon Commission for a Rural Southold, Final Report (July 14,2002) . Southold Town Code, Zoning Code and Zoning Map Updated Page These recommendations (consolidated and summarized in the attached table) would be considered by the Town Board for implementation in the form of amendments to Town procedures, the Town Code and various Town regulations, in conformance with the Town's Master Plan. As a result, the proposed project involves legislative changes, with no specific physical changes proposed. The Town Board intends to initially consider all prior recommendations with an emphasis on those that protect farmland, and open space, promote affordable housing; maintain and enhance character of hamlet centers and preserve natural resources. The Board may prioritize, narrow down or select implementation tools that best achieve the goals of the Town. The basic goals of the above-referenced plans and studies include: . The Town's goal is to preserve land including open space, recreation and working landscapes. . The Town's goal is to preserve rural, cultural, historic character of the hamlets and surrounding countryside. . The Town's goal is to preserve its natural environment; to prevent further deterioration of resources and to restore degraded resources back to pristine or near pristine quality. . The goal of the Town is to preserve and promote a range of housing and business opportunities that would support a socio-economically diverse community. . The Town's goal is to increase transportation efficiency and to create attractive alternatives to automobile travel, while preservmg the scenic and historic attributes of the Town, State, County and local roadways. The Board will solicit inter-agency and public input, and will consider potential impacts under a public forum provided through a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) procedure. The proposed action will provide a means to ensure that the above-listed Town goals will be achieved through a comprehensive, well- established and well-considered land use decision-making framework. / . . . LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"), a Draft Scope for the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement ("DGEIS") filed with respect to the proposed Town Board action known as "Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy", applicable throughout the entire Town of Southold, has been completed and accepted by the lead agency for this action, the Town Board. This proposed action involves the evaluation and, where appropriate, implementation by the Southold Town Board of the recommended planning and program tools and measures as described in the planning studies undertaken within the Town over the past 20 years. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, as determined by the Town Board, a public Scoping Meeting is to be held to solicit public input and comment on the content of the DGEIS, at which time interested members of the public may provide verbal and/or written comments. The Scoping Meeting will be held at the Southold Town Hall, at 7:30 PM, Wednesday, January 29, 2003. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that a copy of the Draft Scope is on file at the offices of the Town Clerk, Town of South old offices, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York and is available for public review during normal business hours, Monday through Friday. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will accept written comments on the Draft Scope until the close of business on February 10, 2003. Written comments should be submitted to Town Clerk, Elizabeth Neville, Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, PO Box 1179, Southold, New York 11971. Dated: Southold, New York. January 8, 2003 BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Elizabeth Neville' Town Clerk PLEASE PUBLISH ON JANUARY 16 AND 23. 2003. AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDA VII OF PUBLICA nON TO ELIZABETH NEVILLE, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, PO BOX 1179, SOUTHOLD, NY 11971, AND FORWARD TWO (2) AFFIDA VIIS OF PUBLICA nON FOR EACH PRINTING. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times Traveler- Watchman Town Board Members Town Planner, V. Scopaz Town Attorney Town Clerk's Bulletin Board .:i!"'" ..f'-"." . '.- .~.- . . . TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY The SEQRA Process and Purpose of Scoping Overview The Town Board of the Town of Southold is providing a period of time for the public to have input on the Scope of a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) that is being completed in connection with the Town's Comprehensive Implementation Strategy. A Scoping Meeting will be held on January 29, 2003 at 7:30 at the offices Town Hall to receive input on the Draft Scope (attached) that will form the outline for preparation of the Draft GElS. The Board will receive comments until the close of business on February 10, 2003. Written comments should be submitted to the Town Clerk's office, Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179 (e.neville@town.southold.ny. us). This process is being completed in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). GEIS/SEORA Process The Town Board is considering implementing planning measures identified in prior planning studies. The Town seeks to ensure that these studies are used to advance the Town's vision. The studies are being reviewed in terms of current needs and goals to achieve the Town's vision. The Town Board will complete a GElS process to analyze the existing Town conditions, explore impacts of implementing prior planning recommendations and test various alternative scenarios. This . will allow the Town Board to obtain public input and consider potential impacts under the public forum provided through GElS procedures. The procedures ensure that the Town goals will be achieved through a comprehensive land use decision-making framework. The first step in the process is the completion oCa Draft GElS. This document will be adopted by the Town Board as lead agency (the agency that oversees the environmental review process), and circulated to the public for comments. A hearing will be held on the Draft GElS, and a period for written comments (at least 10 days) will be provided after the Draft GElS hearing. Once the comment period ends, the Town Board will address all written and oral comments in a Final GElS document.' The Final GElS will be followed by the adoption of Findings that establish the basis for the final decision by the Town Board. SCODinl!: Process/Puroose of Scoping Scoping is defined as the process that the lead agency uses to identifY the environmental impacts of a proposed action. The Scope identifies the contents, level of analysis, range of alternatives, mitigation measures and relevant issues to be included in the Draft GElS. The Town Board issued the Draft Scope on Janu8ly 7, 2003. The aoard will revise this Scope to address relevant comments. Comments should be directed toward items which are omitted from the Draft Scope, the level of analysis and alternatives to be considered. Items that already are contained in the scope and opinions on the project need not be addressed. Written comments on the Draft Scope will . be received until Febcu8ly 10, 2003, after which the Town Board will issue the Final Scope. Questions regarding this process may be addressed to the Town's Planning Consultants Patrick CIe81y (631-754- 3085) or Chic Voorhis (631-427-5665), or Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner (765-1938). Thank you for your participation. . Moratorium . . Page 1 of5 MORATORIUM PLANNING & IMPLEMENTATION INITIATIVE TOWN/CONSULTANT TEAM PRESENTATION TO THE TOWN BOARD The services and approach outlined herein is consistent with the stated purpose of the moratorium adopted by the Town Board of the Town of South old, which states the following: "The Town Board finds that the increased growth and development of residential subdivisions and mu/ti-family developments requiring site plan approval within the Town of South old are placing severe pressure on the water supply, agricultural lands, open space and recreational space, rural character, natural resources and transportation infrastructure of the Town. The Town's unique environment, geography, and hydrology impase distinct limitations on the shape, design, and intensity ofresidential development that can be reasonably sustained without endangering public health, safety and welfare. The Town Board has taken steps to study and analyze the existing land lise, papulations trend, and fiscal, institutional, human, environmental and agricultural resources of the Town to determine sufficiency of the existing land use regulations and the possible need for revision of such regulations. .. The purpose of the moratorium specifically states that several inter-related planning initiatives should be considered, noted as follows: the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission; affordable housing issues; the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP); and public infrastructure. The complex inter-relationship of these issues require sufficient time to formulate an effective implementation strategy. The following table identifies the task, description, cost, preparer and schedule for planned efforts toward implementing this proposal . This working group was formed by the Town Board for the express purpose of determing a legally defensible, cost-effective, efficient strategy. During four intensive sessions held during the month of http://southoldtown.northfork.netIMoratorium.htm 1/16/2003 . Moratoriwn . . Page 2 of5 . September, the group examined the Town's needs, resources and database. This review indicated a need to translate the various studies, recommendations, Committee input, Commission reports, staff efforts and Town Board initiatives into a cohesive plan (package of legislation and procedures that will implement the Town's Vision). The basic goals of the Town, driving these initiatives remain sound and should be built upon. The inter-relationship of programs should be reinforced so that revised procedures and legislation result in more consistent and better decisions by Town boards and departments. The primary objectives are understood to be the following: 'e Farmland! Agriculture 'e Rural/Cultural Qualities 'e Natural Environment 'e Open Space/Recreation . Serve Housing/Business Needs Provide Appropriate Growth Regulation Consider Transportation NeedsILimitations Provide Necessary Infrastructure . . . Every effort will be made to ensure that the inter-relationships of various program components are understood. A Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) will be the means for gaining public input, as well as to conform with procedural and statutory requirements of SEQRA. This task will unavoidably extend beyond the period proscribed by the current moratorium. With a tight time frame and proper resources, the entire Implementation Strategy can be put in place, including the GElS, within 9 months. At the end of that time, the Town Board will be in a position to vote on implementation recommendations. As per the attached proposal, the working group will have weekly work sessions at Town Hall. The time between work sessions will be spent independently completing tasks toward the next meeting. As noted, the proposal reduces the process into four steps: the Legal & Planning Strategic Analysis, Inventory, Planning Analysis and GElS. In the process of preparing this proposal, the working group tackled several of the tasks identified in the Strategic Analysis phase. The group recognized, and this implementation strategy takes into account, that a significant body of pertinent data and studies already exists. As a result, the value of this existing data and studies is reflected in the proposed time frame and costs. --~~~--~.,."--,~,_._-~---~--..,..,.,.~,_._-"--_.~~,~-_.~.~,-_._.----~'-~-'--'-'-~_.~ MORATORIUM PLANNING & IMPLEMENTATION INITIATIVE ACTION PLAN DETAILS Task I Descriotion Cost Preoarer I TB Role Legal and Planning Strategic Analysis Phase $47,080 1 Project start-up Team Authorization 2 Research and build foundation on past studies CY/PC m 3 Identify infonnation needs and critical path Team items 4 Identify needed definitions of key tenns/define Team 5 Identify GIS capabilities and needslbreak-out Team w/ IS items 6 Meet with SCDHS/SCW A CY/PCw/Town reo. 7 CY/PC w/ Town UpdatelInput Meet with Town Committees, Boards, http://southoldtown.northfork.net/Moratoriwn.htm 1/16/2003 , Moratorium . . Page 3 of5 . I Departments reo, I Mtll, Inventory Phase $23,540 8 Prepare foetoal data/maps needed for planning Town wi CVIPC (2) 9 Prepare natural/environmental resource Town wi CVIPC information (3) 10 Prepare bnild-ont analysis model; existing Town wi CVIPC conditions 11 Identuy tools available to implement goals, Town wi CVIPC Update!Input policies, objectives Mtll, Analysis Phase $41,195 12 Research/snmmarize/troubleshoot planning tools Team 13 Test build-out scenarios and analyze program Team wi IS elements (4) 14 Draft Action Planllmplementation Slralegy; Team action 15 Commence coordinated review under SEQRA Town w/CV Coordination LtT. 16 Finalize planning tools and final Team Update!Input recommendations of team Mtll;, Generic Environmental Impact Statement $58,850 (GElS) Phase 17 Use Action Plan, inventory, analysis and prepare CVIPC wi Town Update!Input GElS (5) Mtl>;, 18 Assume lead agency, issue delennination, accept Town Board Resolution GElS 19 Provide minimum 30-day comment period on Publici Agencies Receive GElS Comments 20 Hold bearing on GElS Town Board Public 21 Prepare FEIS CVIPC wi Town Update!Input Mtll. 22 Accept FEIS Town Board Resolution 23 Provide minimum 10-day comment period on Publici Agencies Update!Input GElS Mtl1:. 24 Prepare/adopt Statement ofFindings on GElS Team; Town Board Resolution TOTAL $170,665 Notes: Team consists of Town Planner, Town Attorney, Land PreseIVation Coordinator, Pat CleaJy (PC), Charles Voorhis (CV), Lilla Kombrinl (LK), Jim Gesualdi (JG).Town GIS Specialist John Sepanowski (JS) is critical participant for Geographic Information System (GIS mapping/analysis. Assumes Team meets weekly for 19 sessions to complete backgrOlUld, inventory, and analysis; then meets for ten (10 additional sessions to prepare GElS, Final GElS, prepare Findings, and assist with administration (Town representatives to participate as timl pennits).PC and CV are engaged for 11 hours per week, with equal staff time (11) between meetings to prepare infonnation; Lisa Kombrink an< Jim Gesualdi are engaged for 3 hours per weekEstimated costs do not include document reproduction, mailing, Town staff time, or other product: not specified herein. REVISED TIME SCHEDULE N TaskIWeek o. h http://southoldtown.northfork.netiMoratorium.htm 1/16/2003 Moratorium . . Page 4 of5 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 I Project start-uplteam huddle 2 Research and build foundation on past studies I) 3 Identity infonnation needs and critical path 'terns 4 Identity needed definitions of key tennsldefme 5 Identity GIS capabilities and needslhreak-out terns 6 Meet with SCDHS/SCW A 7 Meet with Committees, Boards, Deparbnents 8 Prepare factual datalmaps ueeded for plamting 2) 9 Prepare natural/environmental resource infonnation (3) IO Prepare buiId-out analysis model; existing ",nditions II Identity tools available to implement goals and !Objectives 12 Research/summarizeltrouble shoot planning tools I3 Test build-out scenarios and analyze program lements (4) 14 Draft Action Planllmplementation Slrategy; ul action . 15 Commence coordinated review under SEQRA 16 Finalize plamting tools and final IOCOmmendations of team 17 Use action plan, inventoJy, analysis and l?repare GElS (5) 18 Assume lead agency, issue determination, 1"'cept GElS 19 Provide minimum 30-day comment period on (JEIS 20 Hold hearing on GElS 21 Prepare FEIS 22 Accept FEIS Provide minimum 10-day comment period on http://southo1dtown.northfork.net/Moratorium.htm 1/16/2003 , Moratorium . . Page 5 of5 23 PElS 24 Prepare/adopt Statement of Findings on GElS Notes: (I) Master Plan Update, Background Studies; Master Plan Update, ]985; ]994 Stewardship Task Force; Seaview Trails of the North Fork, Initiative; Community Preservation Project Plan, ] 998; County Route 48 Upzoning Report, 1999; Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy, 2000; Water Supply Management & Water Protection S Revitalization Plan, 2002; Scenic Byways Corridor Management Plan, Pending; Town of South old Zoning Code. (2) Building permits (single family dwellings) in GIS since 1997; Vacant land as of today; Vacant land available for development; Existing maps of subdividable land by zoning; Special Groundwater Protection Areas (SGPA); Information on water availability; Tax parcels within HD and HB zones; Scenic byways; "At Risk" parcels that ( needs; Recreation needs; Subdivision approvals over last ]5 years; Site plans and multifamily approvals over last]5 years. (3) NYSDEC Freshwater wetlands; topographic maps; critical natural resources maps; aerial photography ofwoodIands; groundwater eleVl resources; soils maps. (4) Define hamlet centers, transition and rural areas; affordable housing program; agricultural lands preservation; recreational needs progr81 (5) Project! action description; existing environmental conditions; potential environemntal impacts including cumulative; available mitigati, project -----.--.......--,....-..,-... . Return to Top [ .Home ] [ Directo!Y ] [ ~sesSQ!'S ] [ Buildina Department] [ Accounting] [ Waste Disposal] [ HiahwID [ .Human Services] [ land Preservation] [ Jus_tice Court] [ Moratorium] [ Planning Department] [ Police Del); [ Tax Receiver] [ Town Attorne.Y ] [ Town Board] [ Town Clerk] [Trustees] [ Zoning Board ] [ Fort Corchaua and Downs Farm Preserve ] Web Site Hosted courtesy of North Fork Internet Web Site Designed and Maintained by the Southold Town Data Processina Department http://southoldtown.northfork.net/Moratorium.htm 1/16/2003 . . Page 1 of2 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ's) November 18, 2002 Questions: 1. What is the "Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy"? 1. Whv are we doing this? 3. How is the moratorium afleeted bv the SCIS? 4. Is this lust another stu.dy1 What is the "Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy"? The Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy (SCIS), is a coordinated, comprehensive program designed to put in place the tools necessary for the Town of Southold to achieve the goals articulated throughout approximately 20 years of comprehensive planning efforts. The legislative intent of the moratorium states: "The Town Boardfinds that the increased growth and development of residential subdivisions and multi- family developments requiring site plan approval within the Town of Southold are placing severe pressure on the water supply, agricultural lands, open spoce and recreational space, rural character, natural resources and transportation infrastructure of the Town. The Town's unique environment, geography, and hydrology impose distinct limitations on the shape, design, and intensity of residential development that can be reasonably sustained without endangering public health, safety and welfare. The Town Board has taken steps to study and analyze the existing land use, populations trend, and fiscal, institutional, human, environmental and agricultural resources of the Town to determine sufficiency of the existing land use regulations and the possible need for revision of such regulations. " The purpose of the moratorium specifically states that several inter-related planning initiatives should b< considered, noted as follows: the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission; affordable housin! issues; the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP); and public infrastructure. The comple} inter-relationship of these issues require sufficient time to formulate an effective implementatior strategy. This working group was formed by the Town Board for the express purpose of determing a legall) defensible, cost-effective, efficient strategy. During four intensive sessions held during the month 0: September, the group examined the Town's needs, resources and database. This review indicated a nee< to translate the various studies, recommendations, Committee input, Commission reports, staff effort! and Town Board initiatives into a cohesive plan (package of legislation and procedures that wil implement the Town's Vision). The basic goals of the Town, driving these initiatives remain sound an( should be built upon. The inter-relationship of programs should be reinforced so that revised procedure~ and legislation result in more consistent and better decisions by Town boards and departments. Thl primary objectives are understood to be the following: Preserve Farmlandl Agriculture . Serve HousinglBusiness Needs http://southoldtown.northfork.netIMF AQ l.htrn 1/16/2003 . . Page 2 of2 Preserve Rural/Cultural Qualities · Provide Appropriate Growth Regulation Preserve Natural Environment . ConsiderTransportation NeedslLimitations Preserve Open Space/Recreation . Provide Necessary Infrastructure Why are we doing this? It is believed that the SCIS is the most efficient way to achieve the goals of the Town. The effort will permit a high level of credibility, as a result of building a foundation on the historic studies and land use direction of the Town. The work will be conducted in a comprehensive manner to ensure that the inter- relationships of various program components are understood. The work will be inclusive, and will involve meeting with Town Committees, Board members, local stakeholders and County Officials to ensure that all ideas and input are considered prior to critically analyzing various implementation tools. The work anticipates that a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GELS) will be used to provide for public input, and to confonn with the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The work anticipates that at the end of the process, a multitude of important and beneficial programs can be implemented. How is the ItWratorium affected by the SCIS? The current moratorium on subdivisions, residential site plans and special pennits was enacted by the Town Board in part due to recommendations set forth in the Blue Ribbon Commission Report and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (L WRP), and also because a pause in the development cycle was necessary to allow the Town to take stock of its ongoing planning efforts, and to chart a clear course for future actions, unencumbered by the pressures of pending applications. It has been determined that the SCIS is the best mechanism by which the Town can achieve these objectives. Is this Just another study? The SCIS is not another study. It is an implementation strategy that is being carefully constructed upon the existing foundation of past plans and studies. In so doing, the SCIS will update baseline technical data and efficiently advance the best existing ideas, without the need to re-study issues that have already been fully evaluated. This "implementation" focused approach will enable the Town to move toward achieving its stated goals. -~-~,..~._~~~~---~--"~-- --~-~-~'--------"~~"-'--~--- . Return to Top Back to Moratorium Page Web Site Hosted courtesy of North Forie Tn/Brmr! Web Site Designed and Maintained by the Southold Town Data Prooessinll Department http://southoldtown.northfork.netJMF AQ l.htm 1/16/2003 . . Page 1 of3 South old Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ's) January 8, 2003 Questions: 1. What are the Tuwns goals and objectives? 2. What are the problems that are being addressed during the Moratorium? 3. Whv is the Moratorium team looking at so manv issues? 4. Is the Blue Ribbon Commission Report being used"l 5. What other planning documents are being reviewed? 6. What planning tools are bei!1ll-Med? What are the Tuwns goais and objectives? The goals of the Town of Southold have been articulated in twenty years of comprehensive plannin~ documents. They can be summarized as follows: . To preserve land including farmland, open space, recreation and working landscapes. . To preserve the rural, cultural and historic character of the hamlets and sUIToundin~ countryside. · To preserve the natural environment; to prevent further deterioration of resources and t< restore degraded resources back to their previous quality. · To preserve and promote a range of housing and business opportunities that support a socio. economically diverse community. · To increase transportation efficiency and to create attractive alternatives to automobile travel while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of roadways in the Town. The Town's objectives in focusing on these goals are to maintain the unique cultural and historic sense of place found within Southold's communities and the high quality of the Town's environmental resources. What are the problems that are being addressed during the Moratorium? The problems being addressed have been categorized by the moratorium team as being either environmental or socio-economic in character. . Environmental problems result from the pace at which land is being converted from open or fam land into residential or commercial use. Excessive development has a detrimental impact on the character of the Town, on traffic, and on its environmental resources (e.g., groundwater, marim waters, wetlands, farmlands). The moratorium team is finding that some of the existin~ regulations, policies and procedures (which determine where and how new development may bl built) may not adequately protect the Town's character and environmental resources. . The socio-economic problems stem largely from the fact that Southold's economy is primarily I seasonal one based on agriculture, marine industries and tourism/second homes. Our businesses including agricultural enterprises, face certain challenges that must be recognized. Also, man) people who live and work in Southold on a year-round basis cannot compete for housing witl http://southoldtown.northfork.netlMFAQ2.htrn 1/16/2003 . . Page 2 of3 . seasonal or year-round second homeowners. As our popularity as a resort area increases, thi! situation may become a source of friction between long time residents and newcomers or visitor! to the community. Why is the Moratorium team looking at so many issues? In a small town such as Southold, decisions made about one issue inevitably have an impact on other issues. Some of our problems resulted from decisions being made out of context. In other words, one problem may have been solved, but another one was created because due thought was not given to the inter-relationship and possible negative impact that the solution to this problem would have on other Issues. Is the Blue Ribbon Commission Report being used? Yes, the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission Report are being reviewed along with many other Town planning documents dating back to 1982. What other planning documents are being reviewed? The documents are listed below: . Parks, Recreation & Open Space Survey (1982) . Town Master Plan Update (1985)\ . Fishers Island Growth Plan (1987-1994) . US/UK Countryside Stewardship Exchange Team (1991) · Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan (1992) . Town Affordable Housing policies and program (1993) . Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Study (1994) . Seaview Trails of the North Fork (1995) . Peconic Estuary Program (1995) . Economic Development Plan, Town of South old (1997) . Community Preservation Project Plan (July, 1998) . Southold Township: 2000 Planning Initiatives . County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study (1999) . Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy (1999) . Town Water Supply Management & Watershed Protection Strategy (2000) . Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (2001) . Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (2001) . North Fork Travel Needs Assessment (2002) . Blue Ribbon Commission for a Rural Southold, Final Report (July 14,2002) What planning tools are being used? The moratorium team is considering all the tools that were identified in the studies and reports listec above. These tools are being evaluated to determine whether they are still appropriate. The team is alsc looking at some new or improved tools that also might be well suited to the job. . Return to Too Back to Moratorium Page Web Site Holrted courtesy of North FUI'k TnteJ'7Ut Web Site Designed and Maintained by the Southald Town Data Pr0<:eS8iTlR Department http://southoldtown.northfork.netlMFAQ2.htrn 1/16/2003 . . TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SEQRA RESOLUTION JANUARY 7, 2003 SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY ACTION CLASSIFICATION, INTENT TO ASSUME LEAD AGENCY STATUS, INTENT TO REQUIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, AND RECEIPT AND CIRCULATION OF DRAFT SCOPE OF THE DGEIS WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southold (the "Board") is aware of, has participated in the preparation of, or has prepared a number of land use plans, studies, analyses, etc. over the past approximately 20 years, and WHEREAS, the Board intends to implement recommendations of these studies that would advance the goals of the Town, and WHEREAS, the Board has articulated the goals of the Town in various documents and reiterates here the intent to achieve the Town's vision as identified in the following goals: . The Town's goal is to preserve land including open space, recreation and working landscapes. . The Town's goal is to preserve rural, cultural, historic character of the hamlets and surrounding countryside. . The Town's goal is to preserve its natural enviromnent; to prevent further deterioration of resources and to restore degraded resources back to pristine or near pristine quality. . The goal of the Town is to preserve and promote a range of housing and business opportunities that would support a socio-economically diverse community. . The Town's goal is to increase transportation efficiency and to create attractive alternatives to automobile travel, while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of the Town, State, County and local roadways. WHEREAS, these studies generally included implementation tools and recommendations designed to address the land use and social need aspects addressed in each study, and WHEREAS, since the action is a Town-wide initiative, it is determined to be a Type I action pursuant to SEQRA Part 617.4 (b)(1), and therefore is more likely to require an environmental impact statement, WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southold has exclusive authority to effect zoning changes, create and/or modify legislation, establish land use programs and implement the various measures and tools identified in the past land use and social need studies of the Town, and WHEREAS, since the Board holds this exclusive authority, the Town Board is the appropriate entity to assume lead agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and WHEREAS, the Board does intend to solicit inter-agency and public input, and will consider potential impacts under a public forum provided through the intended Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) procedure, and sout_ Comprehensive hnplementation Straty SEQRA Resolution WHEREAS, implementation of these recommendations may be interrelated and potentially in divergence, to the extent that coordinated consideration of implementation is necessary and appropriate and further that one recommendation on its own may not result in an environmental impact; however, the combined effect of several recommendations may result in environmental impacts, thus indicating the potential for cumulative impacts, and WHEREAS, notwithstanding the far reaching nature of the intended action, the Board finds that by virtue of the fact that the initiative is intended to implement the past planning studies of the Town, it is consistent with the Town Comprehensive Plan which includes the zoning code and building zone map, zoning decisions, goals, legislative actions and the record of decisions that forms the Town's direction in terms of achieving its vision, and WHEREAS, as a result, the action is not expected to cause significant adverse impacts since it advances the goals of the Town; however, the action is of Town-wide significance, and does involve changes to natural and human resources; is a Type I action pursuant to SEQRA Part 617 and therefore is more likely to require an environmental impact statement; and, lastly that the action will affect property, resources and the shaping of the Town's future, and WHEREAS, based on the above facts and the Part I Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) prepared for the Board's consideration in determining significance, the Board finds it prudent to take a "hard look" at the proposed action through the preparation of a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS), and WHEREAS, the Board is familiar with the scoping process as outlined in SEQRA Part 617.8 Scoping, and WHEREAS, the Board has established a team of professionals to assist with the comprehensive implementation strategy, consisting of the Town Attorney, the Town Planner and Town supporting staff, two (2) planning consultants and two (2) consulting attorneys, and this team has prepared a draft scoping outline for the purpose of determining the scope and content of the DGEIS, and WHEREAS, the Board received this scope and deliberated upon its content and finds the draft scope to be adequate to commence the scoping process for the DGEIS pursuant to SEQRA Part 617.8 (b), and WHEREAS, the Board intends to provide an opportunity for interested agencies and the public to provide input into the scope of the DGEIS through circulation of the draft scope and solicitation of public comments at a public scoping meeting, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby classifies the Town of Southold Comprehensive hnplementation Strategy as a Type I action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, and 2 southW Comprehensive Implementation Straty SEQRA Resolution BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board hereby assumes lead agency status in review of the action and for the purpose of compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Action (SEQRA) Part 617, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board finds that a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) is appropriate and hereby issues the appropriate determination (via a Positive Declaration) to require such document for the proposed action, considering that the recommendations may result in potential impacts which may include cumulative and/or generic impacts, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board hereby receives the draft scope for the purpose of initiating the scoping process pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617.8, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board will hold a public scoping meeting on January 29, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall meeting room, and a period of lO-days will be provided following the public scoping meeting to allow for submission of written comments, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board authorizes the Town Clerk to file notice of the public scoping meeting in two (2) local newspapers on January 16 and January 23,2003 and the draft scope will be made available on the Town web-site, at local libraries and at the Town Clerks office prior to the scoping meeting, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board authorizes the Town Clerk of the Town of Southold to file this Resolution, the Part I Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), the Positive Declaration, and the Draft Scope ofthe DGErS with the following parties: Town of South old Supervisor's Office Town Clerk ofthe Town of South old Town of Southold Planning Board Town of South old Zoning Board of Appeals Town of South old Town Trustees Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works Suffolk County Water Authority Suffolk County Planning Commission NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Commissioner, Albany NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Regional Office at Stony Brook NYS Dept. of Transportation NYS Dept. of State US Army Corps of Engineers Inc. Village of Greenport Town of Riverhead Town of Southampton Town of Shelter Island Parties ofInterest Officially on Record with the Town Clerk (if applicable) 3 . . TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY The SEQRA Process and Purpose of Scoping Overview The Town Board of the Town of Southold is providing a period of time for the public to have input on the Scope of a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) that is being completed in connection with the Town's Comprehensive Implementation Strategy. A Scoping Meeting will be held on January 29, 2003 at 7:30 at the offices Town Hall to receive input on the Draft Scope (attached) that will form the outline for preparation of the Draft GElS. The Board will receive comments until the close of business on February 10, 2003. Written comments should be submitted to the Town Clerk's office, Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179 (e.neville@town.southold.ny.us ). This process is being completed in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). GEIS/SEORA Process The Town Board is considering implementing planning measures identified in prior planning studies. The Town seeks to ensure that these studies are used to advance the Town's vision. The studies are being reviewed in terms of current needs and goals to achieve the Town's vision. The Town Board will complete a GElS process to analyze the existing Town conditions, explore impacts of implementing prior planning recommendations and test various alternative scenarios. This will allow the Town Board to obtain public input and consider potential impacts under the public forum provided through GElS procedures. The procedures ensure that the Town goals will be achieved through a comprehensive land use decision-making framework. The first step in the process is the completion of a Draft GElS. This document will be adopted by the Town Board as lead agency (the agency that oversees the environmental review process), and circulated to the public for comments. A hearing will be held on the Draft GElS, and a period for written comments (at least 10 days) will be provided after the Draft GElS hearing. Once the comment period ends, the Town Board will address all written and oral comments in a Final GElS document. The Final GElS will be followed by the adoption of Findings that establish the basis for the final decision by the Town Board. Scooing Process/Puroose of Scooing Scoping is defined as the process that the lead agency uses to identify the environmental impacts of a proposed action. The Scope identifies the contents, level of analysis, range of alternatives, mitigation measures and relevant issues to be included in the Draft GElS. The Town Board issued the Draft Scope on January 7, 2003. The Board will revise this Scope to address relevant comments. Comments should be directed toward items which are omitted from the Draft Scope, the level of analysis and alternatives to be considered. Items that already are contained in the scope and opinions on the project need not be addressed. Written comments on the Draft Scope will be received until February 10, 2003, after which the Town Board will issue the Final Scope. Questions regarding this process may be addressed to the Town's Planning Consultants Patrick Cleary (631-754- 3085) or Chic Voorhis (631-427-5665), or Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner (765-1938). Thank you for your participation. 14-16-2 (2/87)-7c . . SEQR 617.21 Appendix A State Environmental Qnalitr Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Pnr[lose: The full EAF is designed to help apl2licants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may-be significant. The question of whether aI\ action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequently., there are aspects of a project that are suojechve or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in envIronmental analysis. In addition, many who )lave la:Io~ledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concern affecting the queshon of sIgnIficance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the ~etermin!ltion Pl"ocess .has been prderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of InformatIOn to lit a project or achon. Fnll EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts. Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place In Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides gllidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially-large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the Impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE - TYPE 1 AND UNLISTED ACTIONS IdentifY the Portions of EAF completed for this project: ---X-Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts I and 2 and 3 ifappro\?riatel; and anf. other supporting information, and considering both the magnitude and importance of eac impac, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: A. The proJect will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which - will no have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. B. Although the pro},ect could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a - significant effect or this Unlisted Achon because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.' C. The project may result in one or more large and important imRacts that may have a significant - impact on the environment, therefore a posItive declaration wIll be prepared. * A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Town of Southold ComDrehensive ImDlementation Stratel!v Name of Action Town Board Name of Lead Agency Joshua Horton Suvervisor Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer If different from responsible officer) Date I . PARTI-PROJECTINFORMATI. Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A thiough E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any adaltional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION Town of South old Comvrehensive Imvlementation StratefN LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Municipality and County) Provosed Action would avvlv to the entire Town NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR BUSINESS TELEPHONE Town Board. Town of Southold (631) 765-1938 ADDRESS Town Hall 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE SouthoId NY 11971 NAME OF OWNER (If different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE ADDRESS CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE DESCRIPTION OF ACTION See Attached Please Complete J<;ach (}nestlOn - indicate N .A. it not applicable A. SITE DESCRIPTION Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: Urban -K.,Industrial ...K..Rural (non-farm) ~Other Marine ----K- Commercial -K.,Forest ----K-Residential (Suburban) ----K...Agriculture 2. Total acreage of project area: * acres * 53. 7 square miles or approx. 35,000 acres APPROXIMATEACREAGE** Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, paslure, etc.) Wetland (Freshwaler or Tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of EeL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces Other (Indicate type) ** Beyond scope ofEAF at this time; GElS to be prepared PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? ** a. Soil drainage: ...K.. Well drained ~% of site; -K., Moderately well drained ~% of site; ...K.. Poor drained .!!!.... % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group I through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? 10.000010 acres. (See I NYCRR 370). 2 . . 4. Are there bedrock outcropping on project site? Yes a. What is depth to bedrock? 1.000010 (in fee-rr-- 5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: X 0-10% 85 %; X 1O-15%.!.!l % T 15% or greater ~ % 6. Is project substantially_contiguous tOA or contain a building,site, or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places'! X Yes _-No 7. I~ .Project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? KYes _No X No 8. What is the depth of the water table? ---"'--- (in feet) *Entire Town; Variable (0-9501ofeet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? ....K... Yes No I O.Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? X Yes _ No I\.Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? X Yes No According to NYS Natural Heritaf!e Prof!ram IdentifY each species 12.Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) x.. Yes No Describe Beaches. cliffs. dunes. f!eolof!ic formations 13.1s the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? X Yes No If yes, explain Open space rural aualities. historic settinf!. prominent views. recreational facilities 14.Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? X Yes _No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area Multiple surface waters within Town a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16.Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: Multiple wetlands within Town a. Name b. Size (In Acres)_ 17.1s the site served by existing public utilities? X Yes _ No Partial water/gas service; However, water supply limitations are present and no sewer districts are present.. a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? X Yes _ No See Above b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? ...K.. Yes _ No 18.Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? ...K.. Yes _ No Partial 19.Is the site located in or substantiallY ~ontiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 ...K.. Yes _ No Partial 20.Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? X Yes No Town landfill aiiilTocalizetlSiies B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION* ACTION IS LEGISLATIVE -- No physical changes are proposed; project/site specific impacts may occur. \. Physical dimensions and scale ofproject (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor 35.000010 acres. b. Project acreage to be developed N/A acres initially; N/A acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped N/A acres. d. Length of project, in miles: N/A (if appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed N/A % f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing N/A ; proposed N/A g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour N/A (upon completion of project)? h. Ifresidential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially Ultimately 3 1. Dimensions (in feet).argest proposed structure: N/A height; .A width; N/A J. Linear feet offrontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? N/A length. ft. 2. How much natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? N/A tons/cubic yards. 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? Yes No ----K.. N/ A a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? Yes No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? Yes No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? .:. acres. 5. Will anv mature forest (over lOa years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project'! _ Yes ----K.. No Possible future project physical alteration. 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction N/A months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: N/A However, implementation will be multiple phases. a. Total number of phases anticipated (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase I ~ month _ year (including demolition). c. Approximate completion date of final phase _ month _ year. d. Is phase I functionally dependent on subsequent phases? _ Yes No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? Yes ----K.. No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction N/A; after project is complete N/A . 10.Number of jobs eliminated by this project N/A . II. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? ----K.. Yes If yes, explain: Possible transfer of develooment riehts. No 12.Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? _ Yes ----K.. No Project specific; not part of a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount leeislative chanees. b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13.Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? Yes L No Type: Sanitarv wastewater 14.WilI surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? _ Yes X No If yes, explain: 15.Is project or any portion of project located in a lOa year flood plain? X Yes _ No 16.Will the project generate solid waste? L Yes No Project specific; not part of a. If yes, what is the amount per month N/A tons legislative changes. b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? ----K.. Yes No c. If yes, give name Town facilitv location Cutchoeue d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? X Yes No e. If yes, explain Recvclable oortion of waste stream. I 7. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? Yes ~ No a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? _ Yes X No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? Yes X No 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels?_ Yes .K.. No Project specific; not part of legislative changes. 21.WilI project result in an increase in energy use? _ Yes-K... No If yes, indicate type( s) Proiect Soecific 4 22. If water supply is from_IS, indicate pumping capacity 23. Total anticipated water usage per day N/A gallons/day. eN/A gallons/minute. (See also Narrative Request, Section D). 24.Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? If yes, explain Local Imolementation 25.Approvals Required: The Town Board is the only agency that can implement the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy; However; other related project specific approvals are as follows: Type Submittal Date Town Board Town Planning Board Town Zoning Board County Health Department Other Local Agencies State Agencies Other Regional Agencies Federal Agencies K Yes X Yes X Yes X Yes X Yes X Yes Yes Yes ~Yes No No No No No No No KNo XNo Rezoning, Legislation Site Plan, Subdivision Variances Water Supply, Sanitary System Roadwork Roadwork, Wetlands C. ZONING AND PLANNING INFORMATION I. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? ~ Yes No If yes, indicate decision required: X zoning amendment ~ zoning variance ~ special use permit X subdivision X site plan _ new/revision of master plan ~ resource management plan X other LWRP Consistencv 2. What is the zoning classification(s) of the site? Multiole residential. commercial and soecial zoninl! districts. . 3. Wh!lt is the maximum potential development ot the sIte It developed as permitted by the present zonmg? Build out analvsis will be oerformed as Dart of GElS. 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? Possible chanl!es to result from Dlanninl! efforts. 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed aSllermitted by the proposed zoning? Alternative build out analvsls will be oerformed as Dart of GElS 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? .K.. Yes _ No 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a 1/4 mile radius of proposed action? Multiole zoninl!. Town-wide 8. Is the ProP9sed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a 1/4 mile? Yes No N/A - 9. Ifthe proposed action is the subdivision ofland, how many lots are proposed? N/A a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? N/A 10. Will proposed action require ll!1y authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? _ Yes ----K.. No I I. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? Yes X No Potential specific needs will be addressed. a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? _ Yes _ No 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? Yes ~ No Planning efforts expected to reduce buildout traffic. a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? _ Yes _ No 5 . . . D. INFORMATIONAL DETAILS AND WATER SUPPLY NARRATIVE REQUEST Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts ~s.sociated wi~h your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mll1gate or aVOid them. I. Provide explanation of existing site use, occupancy, structures, sanitary flow, water use; compare to proposed use, occupancy, structures, sanitary flow, water use. 2. Indicate the source of water supply, nearest public water main, nearest public well field, and adjacent private wells (if known). 3. If public water supply is proposed, indicate the ability of the water utility to provide water supply to the project. Provide letter of water availability or detailed explanation of status of review by water utility. 4. If private water supply is proposed, indicate the well specifications, water quality based on on-site water quality data. Provide Suffolk County Deparlinent of Health Services approval or detailed explanation of status of review by agency. E. VERIFICATION I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor Name Joshua Horton Date Signature Title Town Suoervisor If the action is in the Coastal Area, and yon are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. F. PREPARER Name Charles J. Voorhis. CEP. AlCP. NP&V Date Signature Title Managing Partner 6 . . Town of Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy EAF Pal'! 1 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION The proposed action involves consideration of implementation by the Southold Town Board of the recommended planning and program tools and measures as described in the planning studies undertaken within the Town over the past 20 years. The studies, plans and recommendations have heen reviewed in terms of current needs and Town goals to achieve the Town's vision as articnlated in the following plans. . Parks, Recreation & Open Space Survey (1982) . Town Master Plan Update and Background Studies (1984/85) . USIUK Countryside Stewardship Exchange Team (1991) . Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan (1992) . Town Affordable Housing policies and program (1993) . Fishers Island Growth Plan (1987-1994) . Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Study (1994) . Seaview Trails of the North Fork (1995) . Peconic Estuary Program (1995) . Economic Development Plan, Town of Southold (1997) . Community Preservation Project Plan (July, 1998) . Southold Township: 2000 Planning Initiatives . County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study (1999) . Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy (1999) . Town Water Supply Management & Watershed Protection Strategy (2000) . Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (200 I ) . Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (ZOO I ) . North Fork Travel Needs Assessment (2002) . Blue Ribbon Commission for a Rural Southold, Final Report (July 14, 2002) . Southold Town Code, Zoning Code and Zoning Map These recommendations (consolidated and snmmarized in the attached table) would be considered by the Town Board for implementation in the form of amendments to Town procedures, the Town Code and various Town regulations, in conformance with the Town's Master Plan. As a result, the proposed project involves legislative changes, with no specific physical changes proposed. The Town Board intends to initially consider all prior recommendations with an emphasis on those that protect farmland, and open space, promote affordable housing; maintain and enhance character of hamlet centers and preserve natural resources. The Board may prioritize, narrow down or select implementation tools that best achieve the goals of the Town. The basic goals of the above-referenced plans and studies include: . The Town's goal is to preserve land including open space, recreation and working landscapes. . The Town's goal is to preserve rural, cultnral, historic character of the hamlets and surrounding countryside. . The Town's goal is to preserve its natural environment; to prevent further deterioration ofresonrces and to restore degraded resources back to pristine or near pristine quality. . The goal of the Town is to preserve and promote a range of housing and business opportunities that would support a socio-economically diverse community. . The Town's goal is to increase transportation efficiency and to create attractive alternatives to automobile travel, while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of the Town, State, County and local roadways. The Board will solicit inter-agency and public input, and will consider potential impacts under a public forum provided through a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) procedure. The proposed action will provide a means to eusure that the above-listed Town goals will be achieved through a comprehensive, well- established and well-considered land use decision-making framework. . . Town of Sooth old Comprebensive Implementation Strategy EAF Part 1 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION The proposed action involves consideration of implementation by the Southold Town Board of the recommended planning and program tools and measures as described in the planning studies undertaken within the Town over the past 20 years. The studies, plans and recommendations have been reviewed in terms of current needs and Town goals to achieve the Town's vision as articulated in the following plans. . Parks, Recreation & Open Space Survey (1982) . Town Master Plan Update (1985) . Fishers Island Growth Plan (1987-1994) . USIUK Countryside Stewardship Exchange Team (1991) . Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan (1992) . Town Affordable Housing policies and program (1993) . Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Study (1994) . Seaview Trails of the North Fork (1995) . Peconic Estuary Program (1995) . Economic Development Plan, Town of Southold (1997) . Community Preservation Project Plan (July, 1998) . Southold Township: 2000 Planning Initiatives . County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study (1999) . Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy (1999) . Town Water Supply Management & Watershed Protection Strategy (2000) . Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (2001) . Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (200 I) . North Fork Travel Needs Assessment (2002) . Blue Ribbon Commission for a Rural Southold, Final Report (July 14, 2002) These recommendations (consolidated and summarized in the attached table) would be considered by the Town Board for implementation in the form of amendments to Town procedures, the Town Code and various Town regulations, in conformance with the Town's Master Plan. As a result, the proposed project involves legislative changes, with no specific physical changes proposed. The Town Board intends to initially consider all prior recommendations with an emphasis on those that protect farmland, and open space, promote affordable housing and preserve natural resources. The Board may prioritize, narrow down or select implementation tools that best achieve the goals of the Town. The basic goals of the above-referenced plans and studies include: . Provide for Land Preservation including Open Space and Farmland . Maintain and Enhance Rural and Cultural Character . Preserve the Town's Natural Environment . Provide a Sound Socio-Economic Environment for Residents and Businesses . Ensure Adequate Transportation Infrastructure The Board will solicit inter-agency and public input, and will consider potential impacts under a public forum provided through a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) procedure. The proposed action will provide a means to ensure that the above-listed Town goals will be achieved through a comprehensive, well-established and well-considered land use decision-making framework. Page 1 . . SEQRA POSITIVE DECLARATION Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft Generic EIS Determination of Significance Lead Agency: Town of Southold Town Board Contact: Hon. Joshua Horton, Supervisor Address: Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Date: January 7, 2003 This notice is issued pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act - SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and Chapter 44 of the Town Code of the Town of Southold. The lead agency has determined that the proposed action described below may have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) will be prepared. Title of Action: Town of South old Comprehensive Implementation Strategy SEQR Status: Type I Action Description of Action: The proposed project involves the evaluation and where appropriate implementation by the Southold Town Board of the recommended planning and program tools and measures as described in the planning studies undertaken within the Town over the past 20 years. The studies, plans and recommendations have been reviewed in terms of current needs and Town goals to achieve the Town's vision as articulated in the following plans. . Parks, Recreation & Open Space Survey (1982) . Town Master Plan Update and Background Studies (1984/85) . US/UK Countryside Stewardship Exchange Team (1991) . Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan . Town Affordable Housing policies and program (1993) . Fishers Island Growth Plan (1987-1994) . Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Study (1994) . Seaview Trails of the North Fork (1995) . Peconic Estuary Program (1995) . Economic Development Plan, Town of South old (1997) . Community Preservation Project Plan (July, 1998) . Determination of Significance . Town Comprehensive Implementation Strategy . Southold Township: 2000 Planning Initiatives . County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study (1999) . Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy (1999) . Town Water Supply Management & Watershed Protection Strategy (20 . Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (2001) . Town of South old Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (2001) . North Fork Travel Needs Assessment (2002) . Blue Ribbon Commission for a Rural Southold, Final Report (July 14,: . Southold Town Code, Zoning Code and Zoning Map These recommendations (consolidated and summarized in the attached table) would be considered by the Town Board for implementation in the form of amendments to Town procedures, the Town Code and various Town regulations, in conformance with the Town's Master Plan. As a result, the proposed project involves legislative changes, with no specific physical changes proposed. The Town Board intends to initially consider all prior recommendations with an emphasis on those that protect farmland, and open space, promote affordable housing and preserve natural resources. The Board may prioritize, narrow down or select implementation tools that best achieve the goals of the Town. The basic goals of the above-referenced plans and studies include: . The Town's goal is to preserve land including open space, recreation and working landscapes. . The Town's goal is to preserve rural, cultural, historic character of the hamlets and surrounding countryside. . The Town's goal is to preserve its natural environment; to prevent further deterioration of resources and to restore degraded resources back to pristine or near pristine quality. . The goal of the Town is to preserve and promote a range of housing and business opportunities that would support a socio-economically diverse community. . The Town's goal is to increase transportation efficiency and to create attractive alternatives to automobile travel, while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of the Town, State, County and local roadways. The Board will solicit inter-agency and public input, and will consider potential impacts under a public forum provided through a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) procedure. The proposed action will provide a means to ensure that the above-listed Town goals will be achieved through a comprehensive, well-established and well- considered land use decision-making framework. Location: The proposed action would apply to the entire Town. SCTM No.: All of District 1000 2 . Determination of Significance . Town Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Reasons Supporting This Determination: The proposed project involves the evaluation and where appropriate implementation of 20 years of planning recommendations in a comprehensive manner and consistent with current Town needs. By virtue of the fact that the initiative is intended to implement the past planning studies of the Town, it is consistent with the Town Comprehensive Plan which includes the zoning code and building zone map, zoning decisions, goals, legislative actions and the record of decisions that forms the Town's direction in terms of achieving its vision. The action is not expected to cause significant adverse impacts, since it advances the goals of the Town. However, the action is of Town-wide significance, and does involve changes to natural and human resources. In addition, since the action is a Town- wide initiative, it is determined to be a Type I action pursuant to SEQRA Part 617, and therefore is more likely to require an environmental impact statement. Finally, since the action will affect property, resources and the shaping of the Town's future, it is prudent to perform a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS). As a result, the considerations noted above, and the following potential impacts are identified as the Reasons Supporting This Determination: I. The application has been reviewed pursuant to the Criteria for Determination of Significance contained in Part 617.7. Consideration has been given to information supplied by the applicant including a Part I Environmental Assessment Form. 2. The proposed action may result in impacts to the natural and human resources of the Town, individually, cumulatively or synergistically. Zone changes and/or Town Code revisions may be necessary to implement recommendations. 3. The action may set a precedent with regard to the growth and character of the Town and/or individual communities. For Further Information Contact: Greg Yakaboski, Esq., Town Attorney Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Telephone: (631) 765-1889 Copies of this Notice Sent to: Town of Southold Supervisor's Office Town Clerk of the Town of South old Town of South old Planning Board Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Town of South old Town Trustees Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works Suffolk County Water Authority Suffolk County Planning Commission NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Commissioner, Albany NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Regional Office at Stony Brook NYS Dept. of Transportation NYS Dept. of State US Army Corps of Engineers Inc. Village of Greenport Towns of River head, Southampton and Shelter Island Parties of Interest Officially on Record with the Town Clerk (if applicable) 3 . . Draft Scope for the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY Southold Town Board Action January 7, 2003 This document provides an outline for use by the Town of Southold Town Board (as Lead Agency) in determining the content and format of the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (Draft GElS), for the proposed action known as the Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy (SCIS). DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The proposed action involves the evaluation and where appropriate implementation by the Southold Town Board of the recommended planning and program tools and measures as described in the planning studies undertaken within the Town over the past 20 years. The studies, plans and recommendations have been reviewed in terms of current needs and Town goals to achieve the Town's vision as articulated in the following plans. . Parks, Recreation & Open Space Survey (1982) . Town Master Plan Update (1985) . Fishers Island Growth Plan (1987-1994) . USIUK Countryside Stewardship Exchange Team (1991) . Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan (1992) . Town Affordable Housing policies and program (1993) . Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Study (1994) . Seaview Trails of the North Fork (1995) . Peconic Estuary Program (1995) . Economic Development Plan, Town of South old (1997) . Community Preservation Project Plan (July, 1998) . Southold Township: 2000 Planning Ioitiatives . County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study (1999) . Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy (1999) . Town Water Supply Management & Watershed Protection Strategy (2000) . Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (2001) . Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (200 I) . North Fork Travel Needs Assessment (2002) . Blue Ribbon Commission for a Rural Southold, Final Report (July 14, 2002) These recommendations (consolidated and summarized in the attached table at the end of this document) would be considered by the Town Board for implementation in the form of amendments to Town procedures, the Town Code and various Town regulations, in conformance with the Town's Master Plan. As a result, the proposed project involves legislative changes, with no specific physical changes proposed. The Town Board intends to initially consider all prior recommendations with an emphasis on . Draft Scope Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS . those that protect farmland, and open space, promote affordable housing and preserve natural resources. The Board may prioritize, narrow down or select implementation tools that best achieve the goals of the Town. The basic goals of the above-referenced plans and studies include: . The Town's goal is to preserve land including open space, recreation and working landscapes. . The Town's goal is to preserve rural, cultural, historic character of the hamlets and surrounding countryside. . The Town's goal is to preserve its natural envirorunent; to prevent further deterioration of resources and to restore degraded resources back to pristine or near pristine quality. . The goal of the Town is to preserve and promote a range of housing and business opportunities that would support a socio-economically diverse community. . The Town's goal is to increase transportation efficiency and to create attractive alternatives to automobile travel, while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of the Town, State, County and local roadways. The Board will solicit inter-agency and public input, and will consider potential impacts under a public forum provided through a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) procedure. The proposed action will provide a means to ensure that the above-listed Town goals will be achieved through a comprehensive, well-established and well-considered land use decision- making framework. FORMAT AND CONTENT OF DEIS COVER SHEET (Indicate that the document is a "Draft" GElS; name of project, location of action, name and address of Lead Agency, as well as name, title and telephone number of contact person at the Lead Agency; names, addresses and contact information of all persons or organizations contributing to the document; date of acceptance of the document by the Lead Agency; and date by which written comments on the document are to be received by the Lead Agency) SUMMARY (Provide brief summary of the proposed action, to include: location of the Town of Southold, the need for and benefits of the action, a description of the action, the anticipated significant adverse impacts of the action, corresponding mitigation measures of those impacts, alternatives considered, and the permits and approvals required to implement the action.) 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 1.1 Project Purpose, Need and Benefits 1.1.1 Background and History (Provide brief description of the existing pattern of land use within the Town. Describe the various Town, county, NYS and private planning efforts in regard to land use decision-making, and the interrelationships between these plans and the agencies proposing or implementing each. Discuss the forces and/or conditions which have caused this effort to be proposed at the present time. Describe GElS process as it pertains to this action) 1.1.2 Public Need and Municipality Objectives (Justify proposed action in terms of Town goals. Discuss the need for this action and fulfillment of public desires.) Page 2 . Draft Scope Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS . 1.1.3 Benefits of the Project (Provide brief listing/discussion of the benefits to accrue from the proposed action. Discuss the logic and rationale for the choices being addressed) 1.2 Location (Indicate that proposed action is applicable within all of Town. Describe locations of individual types of land uses as distributed within Town, in terms of roadway access, the various zones, districts, utility services, etc.) 1.3 Description ofthe Proposed Action 1.4 Additional Action Thresholds (Provide thresholds and conditions that would trigger the need for supplemental determinations of significance or site specific EIS's. 1.5 Permits and Approvals Required (Provide brief discussion of the remaining SEQRA processes and review stages required for the proposed action; list all required permits, reviews and approvals.) 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2.1 Geological Resources (Provide information on the existing soil, subsurface and topographic conditions of the Town, particularly in regard to those characteristics pertinent to suitability of the soils to support the uses resulting from the proposed action.) 2.2 Water Resources (Describe current status of groundwater quality, quantity, elevation and flow direction in the Town. Provide information on Town surface water bodies.) 2.3 Ecological Resources (Describe/discuss the existing vegetation resources of the Town, including habitats found, acreages of each habitat type, significant species and/or habitats found, etc. Describe/discuss wildlife species found or anticipated, based on habitats found, significance of wildlife species found, etc. IdentifY wetlands and unique habitat linkages. Document contact with NY Natural Heritage Program and findings regarding unique habitats, species, or information recorded in their files). 2.4 Transportation (Describe the existing roadway characteristics and levels of congestion at pertinent intersections and roadway segments in the Town. Present information on current types, levels of usage and routes of public transit resources serving the Town, and document road improvement plans) 2.5 Air Resources (Describe/discuss existing meteorological and climate characteristics of the Town, air quality in the Town, and briefly describe the applicable air quality standards and regulations.) 2.6 Land Use, Zoning and Plans (Describe current land use and zoning patterns in the Town. Describe/discuss the various land use plans, studies, etc., on which the proposed action is based, along with the recommendations of each.) 2.7 Demography (Provide description/discussion of the existing and anticipated demographic characteristics of the Town, including population size, households, income and other relevant data. Perform build-out analysis of the Town based on current zoning, to predict population and describe future conditions) 2.8 Community Services (Provide information on the current status of the following public/community services which serve the Town): . public schools Page 3 . . Draft Scope South old Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS . . police protection . fire protection . recreation . local government 2.9 Infrastructure (Provide information on the current status of the following infrastructural elements): . solid waste removal and handling, including recycling . water supply . sewage & wastewater treatment . electricity · natural gas, ( if available) . Telephone/Cable TV 2.10 Community Character (Describe the existing and emerging character of the community, Describe the visual character of the Town, for observers along bordering roadways and from other public vantage points, for: hamlets, rural areas, and the transition areas between hamlets and rural areas) 2.11 Cultural Resources (Describe/discuss the history of the Town and the established and potential for the presence of significant pre-historic or historic and/or archaeological resources) 2.12 Economic/Fiscal Conditions (Provide information on the current tax generation and economic characteristics of the Town and the allocation of taxes to the various taxing jurisdictions, IdentifY and evaluate various economic sectors within the community, major employers and sources of jobs) 3.0 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (A build-out analysis of the Town will be performed, based on recommended changes in the land use decision-making framework. Where appropriate, specific reference to resource areas will be discussed as provided below) 3.1 RESOURCE IMPACTS 3.1.1 Geological Resources (The potential for erosion during construction, the ability of the soils to accommodate development, and potential changes in the topographic contours should be addressed) 3.1.2 Water Resources (The anticipated impacts on the volume and quality of recharge generated, and its impact on existing groundwater quality, quantity, groundwater flow direction and water table contours will be addressed, In addition, the potential for groundwater or surface water impact to the existing surface waters will be discussed) 3.1.3 Ecological Resources (The amount, extent and character of natural vegetation to be affected, and its habitat value, will be discussed and analyzed, The impact on existing species, as well as the potential for rare or endangered species and potential impacts to these species will be discussed) 3.1.4 Transportation (The impact of the anticipated changes in traffic patterns will be addressed. The document will also address the need for and impacts of the roadway improvements made necessary by the proposed action, and any changes in transportation methods, including public transit) Page 4 . . Draft Scope Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS . . 3.1.5 Air Resources (The potential for impact to air quality from changes in development patterns and densities. as well as from the traffic changes. will be addressed. ) 3.1.6 Land Use, Zoning and Plans (Discuss the impacts of implementing the various recommendations on the land use and zoning patterns in the Town.) 3.1.7 Demography (Provide description/discussion of the changes in Townwide demographic characteristics due to implementation of the proposed action.) 3.1.8 Community Services (Discuss the increased need for public services and the impact on these services due to the proposed action. Comments provided by each community service provider. if any. will be included and addressed in the preparation of this section.) 3.1.9 Infrastructure (address the changed demand on infrastructure resources resultingfrom implementing the proposed action) 3.1.10 Community Character (Address the changes in the visual character of the Town due to the proposed action. Discussion of impacts to the various hamlets and downtown or local commercial centers will be provided.) 3.1.11 Cultural Resources (Discuss the potential impact on cultural resources due to the proposed action.) 3.1.12 Economic/Fiscal Conditions (Provide discussion of the anticipated impacts of the proposed action on the economic pattern and level of economic activity in the various geographic and economic sectors of the Town.) 3.1.13 Use and Conservation of Energy (Discuss how the proposed action will impact the use and conservation of energy resources within the Town.) 3.2Cumulative Impacts (Indicate other pending development applications in the Town. and analyze their cumulative impacts in conjunction with those of the proposed action). 3.3 Secondary Impacts (Describe secondary or indirect impacts that will result from the proposed action). 3.4 Long Term Impacts (Address impacts that might be expected to occur over a long period of time. resulting from the incremental execution of various elements of the proposed action). 4.0 MITIGATION MEASURES 4.1 Geological Resources 4.2 Water Resources 4.3 Ecological Resources 4.4 Transportation 4.5 Air Resources 4.6 Land Use, Zoning and Plans 4.7 Demography 4.8 Community Services 4.9 Community Character/ 4.10 Cultural Resources 4.11 Economic/Fiscal Conditions Page 5 . . Draft Scope Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS . 5.0 ADVERSE IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED (Provide listing of those adverse environmental impacts described/discussed previously which are anticipated to occur, which cannot be completely mitigated.) 6.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES (Provide listing of the various environmental and human resources which will be permanently committed to the proposed action.) 7.0 GROWTH-INDUCING ASPECTS (Describe and discuss those aspects of the proposed action which may result in additional growth and/or development in the Town, due directly to the proposed action, or indirectly as a result of changes in the community which are caused by the proposed action. The document will consider growth that is related to the proposed action such as infrastructure improvements, utilities, job creation, etc. to the extent that the project will be linked with such growth in the area. The potential for additional development in downtowns, local commercial centers and communities outside the project vicinity will be included. IdentifY "triggers" that will cause growth) 8.0 IMPACTS ON THE USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY RESOURCES 9.0 ALTERNATIVES 9.1 No Action (The current land use decision-making framework of the Town remains in its current condition, based on build-out analysis prepared in Section 3.0) 9.2 Mitigative Strategies 9.2.1 Provide for Land Preservation including Open Space & Farmland 9.2.2 Maintain & Enhance Rural & Cultural Character 9.2.3 Preserve the Town's Natural Environment 9.2.4 Provide a Sound Socio-Economic Environment for Residents & Businesses 9.2.5 Ensure Adequate Transportation Infrastructure EXTENT AND OUALITY OF INFORMATION NEEDED The SEQRA process and the Draft GElS prepared in conformance with this scope are intended to provide comprehensive and important information in the decision-making process for use by involved agencies in preparing their own supplemental findings and issuing decisions on their respective permits. The document will be concise but thorough, well documented, accurate, and consistent. Studies for traffic, cultural resources (if any), and other aspects of the project, prepared by qualified specialists, will be appended and referenced. Technical information may be summarized in the body of the document and attached in a separate appendix. All pertinent correspondence utilized in the document will be contained in appendices, as well as excerpts of pertinent publicly available materials. Page 6 . . Draft Scope Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS . . INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN APPENDICES All pertinent information and correspondence included, presented or discussed in the document, shall be included in appendices subdivided for ease of reference. Such appendices may include, but not be limited to: economic impact analysis, groundwater and air quality data and modeling results, and engineering studies, maps, plans, regulations, etc. ISSUES DEEMED NOT RELEVANT. NOT ENVIRONMENT ALLY SIGNIFICANT OR ADEOUATEL Y ADDRESSED IN A PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This section is required for a complete scoping document under SEQRA. In regard to the appropriateness of economic analysis on business operations, SEQRA is quite clear. As stated in The SEQR Handbook (NYSDEC, November 1992, pg. 60), such an analysis is not appropriate for analysis in an environmental impact statement: Are there economic or social factors that are inappropriate for inclusion in an EIS? The potential effects that a proposed project may have in drawing customers and profits away from established enterprises or in reducing property values in a community may not be considered under SEQR. Potential economic disadvantage caused by competition or speculative economic losses are not environmental factors. In summary, it is not intended nor required that a DEIS address the potential impact of the proposed project on the business operations of any similar retail businesses in the vicinity those, of a similar size or type or otherwise, or what would be considered competition between businesses. No other issues have been identified to date. This applicant's intent is to thoroughly disclose and analyze potential impacts associated with the proposed project. This draft scope will be subject to the scoping process in conformance with SEQRA Part 617.8, followed by the issuance of a final scope by the lead agency. Page 7 IMPLEMENTATION TOOLslMECHANlSMS AND Kzy GoALS MATRIX . . This table represema. OOI\$clidatiCD cfthe recamtTlllndations ofplannmg rl!'pOrn 4nri .rtudiOll over-the p451 20 years (43 specific RCommcadutian..)~ 50llIC meuures mIlY I.pply to more than one ~ory, the rno5t appJiCll.ble Su.bcal4g:ory 'vall chOlcn ell toolstmechllllisms au liRed only auc~; ifeach of these medl.o.niMr1:t/tooll w~e implemem.ed, the Town govemmentallroucatioll4l1l1OCi&1 framework would bccotlmtentwitll the co~.ivcpJsn lIS defmod.bypaltinitiarivesand.t'eCO~ thu.s implcmcnlillg the planninj: repIlrti Ilcd stIl4ie$ of the put 20 yean; IhcCUlTcntne<<.! wr<<rtain m~andthcir UJ1cn~ybuedl)ll ClUTm\IOOllditiollslt'llUl.:Jtill bedcterllliocd. .ndpolicy<ie..isions.concCl1;IiIIl ill1Plcmontation TtlWII still be rrIIldc NOIC: StanlSCoJumnintclldcdlOiDdicatcproltvnfQist(E)andwillbtrcvi~andimprnvc4l~!)l",~ptop<l4Cdtob"Cfear.cd(P). pranmn 5-Acre A-c Diatricttown-wide or R\1l"III Incentive DiataicllRID ofbcoetIls, Le. maimaino D. A 'cUltl;lralO~ Diltrict/A-c Raview 'cdefinilionand A-cmstricttJse.lDimlmsi.cma1pilI'alDl!lte1's ~ofZlJDl:;nowesseniiall samcasothcrrelliden!iaI:mnes Review S cW Pmmt Provisions -Vine lllI1e farmstand arkin Review Zoning Code (mmdlltorycbllte:ini,~onal requimnents, revise Sign Ordinance; revi,w R-o. LB diInict; waterdepenQcnl \IIeII; aocouot)'apartmeDta,AHD.tmdarde (~), B&B's, home 0 0tI$,' stri . centen&.fa..1foodinHB tl to comrnondrivewa eofusc uircmcnts Revie,,'Zonin .tnckCreek, induItrW 011 Route 2J WlISlofGreen ,HDJnGN ;wat,r uses,AHD- or d Review Subdivision Ro 'ODS road IIiml:Icnts;dniina;li tin ,infrastructure ReviowHi wa cificat:ions foadrs l.liIements; 'Ii tin. infrastructuA) COilllcrvation Sul:xllvision Pro define IlDd lamenl 75-80% land reservation fur land ~ tools and dmsi reduction Plannin Proceas & Enc:o Committ~1 DO Parti. tion faIItl6lizo .submillsi.on ocmfmmce, review" Transfl!!" ofDe~l t Ri tllNOll..conti U$ Clustlll'in D~velo t Ri s Bank mechanism far 'ate deDsit re!ocati wccutive ZoniD. Dew1 District Ordinanoe ovide lOr n~xible davel 'old in ex of 'c bmefi Trm:Pre:aervationOrdinance . MIIJl)vaIof/.tlluunlesstbrou subdivision/site rllview:detinolrOosl2D1U1d licable Crilieal EnvitonlDOlltal Landa Ordinance sJo sand ts, shallow -oundwater, IWtlanda, waarwa . deflne for 'eid SE RAOrdimmccRevielViRovillion I List; sibl addSccnic-Bvwll ;CriliCllIEnvironmeDtIlIMall '-ScenicB ~Wa Overlll Develo tControls'Route48/15;defUlecomdof farmSlT\lCtur&a:setbeck $(jut.- iif.It1iJOi ~>.eiit\.~~;l~: ,..,,; ""--;':<i."':';;~;:< ,",0,;' A 'cultunlDistrictRevi,w/Edu(lalion l1lrellDdMarketsLs.w;cucoura artici 'Oll;l'IIIlintainexiJlin Cn:ale General Guidance Documents ai Mmual. ioo mana tIJllD.tltraffie ea1Jniu deve i11uminaIiOD standards' BMPs; Q"OI8 ~ Nlllural EDvironmaD.tEdueWon (a1SUtll 't lNI1Bcc:i nnd SUlfBCe waters;BMPs; IPM' eoastaleroaion aontrQ!' beach wiamrJDD.itorin. WateI'!hed Protection ZoneISGPA', si n e, educational distribJtion materials, link with land U$econtrohl Encoura use of lie 'on (relate to T Iltion MallR emeul Plan; cceale hubs; fe r !Os; ,huttles Tt"IIIISJlOIU-tiOD Muiagemrot PIIlD. (T:ra:oaportation Commisltion; encourage lnlnSportatioulpedcstr1aD imp'o~nls; Oll=gc: public tnlDSportalion; crelllo hamlet hubs; fmy !iJlkagu, winery ah~s, si e "best route ton. work with LIRR Economic Dcvdopment P1an(lIllm8ge tourism.; commereial fishing; recreatiollal boating; uniq~ 0{ agricultwal opportunities; mariculture; capital imErovement program; B&.B's, network of visitor <:eIIte~ l6mnusefot 'ocIoftimeia.Ollclla:n ofPDRat eldldcnsi . roviow commitiee3; e ~, i.~. at'fordehle DC &ervi~ '" ir1frul:ructure.doclieIlliOIl,~te. architecture; Ccmmittoe roview, SE RA deai ..~ ,. emmU;side roadllOOUll) Enfarccmenl i1Io oonYWlliemofa 'euLturalbuiid' ofusere '" ~.. rove Waterfront Aoce8e . .tiOWl' obtain/maintain; inventory Town llllld and AdministerParUorrOWl1--wideSi 'tic:anoe invellt Prioritize ilIld emmtCPPP !ldditi0J:JJiJ Create a C4ntralizI:Id Yev.RauudRecn:ationaI C "' ro_ '" i!:e, .". ; -~ft;",c;~i.:;~", ,~,i;"L.~Y ,;,;:'i;:;;.:i-::::'~',;'[ Affordable Po' ,tar" etsandnewdevel 2.5 en' videinceuli llCOCI S So IinIlncialalBistanoa;H COncc:IltratoDevel inHauJktl defiDehamlets;8D.lIIlTll . teinfrllStro<:ture;afibrdablohllllllin lWkwlthlaodusa~' I ParkDia1rictlSchoo1DislriotBolmdlriellCo:ofutmi determinolleedandrcconciledistricta Partin Ind Plan !980stud lIOeds ,i tintoOll3; ~onaIrosoun:es Cf'OllteaPlllialIlIJllRDlX'llatioll ,~~,non~~ SoonicB Wi Pro 48/Route2jcamD.tl deai 'si a ,1i1lkwithOwrla tbrmnde,rds! 'OeliDewhDd_1lXlDtmilI Trail In CommitteeIBib_ 'em Commiaaion'xists, determine con:m[tteo'mw.n 1nto0lS trailhead directional infunmtion in kioskl Tn and CuIIInl ReIources . call sensitivl: areas; Hilltoric District deai laada:mk into <m ArclliteotuIal h-vifw BaIrd md Doli Pm:lmtera detemline Mod; establish bod into 1md UII review Scc.n:ic dotamIirMl.-l fur DlIW Committee; I%IUlII scetUc comdms, towu-wideeenio~ " . .G!&i:'~'~: ~'-J;i '...."'..... - '"J'-'->'";: QrthFotk AlliIlDce'reviewoth<< "baedODl993 aod 1 MutarP1a:o OwninVOlwmell SCWA ItllID& infrutruaturswithottw- ontllroontarninatio:o.dro t;lllISUrlI \IIlte RIVicea 1ioe fire ambu1aaco .tloodha2ardmiti 'on MD.ior citizen care, OOIIIIIDlIIil facilities, cia care, mWs lld. wboeb, ohurchea.libnai. Authorit traftiCCll\min .~': "'ffJ:.".?';;~i".,...'. Afbdablo Pollc ,'~~'i\:;i'r:' ,:,,<,',,~,.-,.. ....".".,.. '- , "0 x x X . X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X . X X X X X E E E p E P P P p E P x x x X X X X x X X x x E p E E E P x x x X X X x P E x x X X X X X X X X X X X X X E E E P X P E E E p p P E E P x X E P E E X X X X ..." / . . . . LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"), a Draft Scope for the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement ("DGEIS") filed with respect to the proposed Town Board action known as "Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy", applicable throughout the entire Town of Southold, has been completed and accepted by the lead agency for this action, the Town Board. This proposed action involves the evaluation and, where appropriate, implementation by the Southold Town Board of the recommended planning and program tools and measures as described in the planning studies undertaken within the Town over the past 20 years. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, as determined by the Town Board, a public Scoping Meeting is to be held to solicit public input and comment on the content of the DGEIS, at which time interested members of the public may provide verbal and/or written comments. The Scoping Meeting will be held at the Southold Town Hall, at 7:30 PM, Wednesday, January 29,2003. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that a copy of the Draft Scope is on file at the offices of the Town Clerk, Town of Southold offices, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York and is available for public review during normal business hours, Monday through Friday. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will accept written comments on the Draft Scope until the close of business on February 10, 2003. Written comments should be submitted to Town Clerk, Elizabeth Neville, Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, PO Box 1179, Southold, New York 11971. Dated: Southold, New York. January 8, 2003 BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Elizabeth Neville' Town Clerk PLEASE PUBLISH ON JANUARY 16 AND 23. 2003, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO ELIZABETH NEVILLE, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, PO BOX 1179, SOUTHOLD, NY 11971, AND FORWARD TWO (2) AFFIDAVITS OF PUBLICATION FOR EACH PRINTING. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Town Planner, V. Scopaz Town Attorney Town Clerk's Bulletin Board ..,,... '1',,;., . . . . TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY The SEQRA Process and Purpose of Scoping Overview The Town Board of the Town of Southold is providing a period of time for the public to have input on the Scope of a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) that is being completed in connection with the Town's Comprehensive Implementation Strategy. A Scoping Meeting will be held on January 29, 2003 at 7:30 at the offices Town Hall to receive input on the Draft Scope (attached) that will form the outline for preparation of the Draft GElS. The Board will receive comments until the close of business on February 10, 2003. Written comments should be submitted to the Town Clerk's office, Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179 (e.neville@town.southold.ny. us). This process is being completed in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). GEIS/SEORA Process The Town Board is considering implementing planning measures identified in prior planning studies. The Town seeks to ensure that these studies are used to advance the Town's vision. The studies are being reviewed in terms of current needs and goals to achieve the Town's vision. The Town Board will complete a GElS process to analyze the existing Town conditions, explore impacts of implementing prior planning recommendations and test various alternative scenarios. This . will allow the Town Board to obtain public input and consider potential impacts under the public forum provided through GEIS procedures. The procedures ensure that the Town goals will be achieved through a comprehensive land use decision-making framework. The first step in the process is the completion of a Draft GElS. This document will be adopted by the Town Board as lead agency (the agency that oversees the environmental review process), and circulated to till; public for comments. A hearing will be held on the Draft GElS, and a period for written comments (at least 10 days) will be provided after the Draft GElS hearing. Once the comment period ends, the Town Board will address all written and oral comments in a Final GElS document. The Final GElS will be followed by the adoption of Findings that establish the basis for the final decision by the Town Board. SCODinll: Process/Puroose of ScoDinll: Scoping is defined as the process that the lead agency uses to identifY the environmental impacts of a proposed action. The Scope identifies the contents, level of analysis, range of alternatives, mitigation measures and relevant issues to be included in the Draft GElS. The Town Board issued the Draft Scope on January 7, 2003. The Board will revise this Scope to address relevant comments. Comments should be directed toward items which are omitted from the Draft Scope, the level of analysis and alternatives to be considered. Items that already are contained in the scope and opinions on the project need not be addressed. Written comments on the Draft Scope will be received until February 10, 2003, after which the Town Board will issue the Final Scope. Questions regarding this process may be addressed to the Town's Planning Consultants Patrick Cleary (631-754- 3085) or Chic Voorhis (631-427-5665), or Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner (765-1938). Thank you for your participation. .. ... . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town HaIl, 53095 MaIn Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 22 OF 2003 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON JANUARY 7, 2003: Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy ACTION CLASSIFICATION, INTENT TO ASSUME LEAD AGENCY STATUS, INTENT TO REQUIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, AND RECEIPT AND CIRCULATION OF DRAFT SCOPE OF THE DGEIS WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southold (the "Board") is aware of, has participated in the preparation of, or has prepared a number of land use plans, studies, analyses, etc. over the past approximately 20 years, and WHEREAS, the Board intends to implement recommendations of these studies that would advance the goals of the Town, and WHEREAS, the Board has articulated the goals ofthe Town in various documents and reiterates here the intent to achieve the Town's vision as identified in the following goals: . The Town's goal is to preserve land including open space, recreation and working landscapes. . The Town's goal is to preserve rural, cultural, historic character of the hamlets and surrounding countryside. . The Town's goal is to preserve its natural environment; to prevent further deterioration of resources and to restore degraded resources back to pristine or near pristine quality. . The goal of the Town is to preserve and promote a range of housing and business opportunities that would support a socio-economically diverse community. . The Town's goal is to increase transportation efficiency and to create attractive alternatives to automobile travel, while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of the Town, State, County and local roadways. . '. . WHEREAS, these studies generally included implementation tools and recommendations designed to address the land use and social need aspects addressed in each study, and WHEREAS, since the action is a Town-wide initiative, it is determined to be a Type I action pursuant to SEQRA Part 617.4 (b)(I), and therefore is more likely to require an environmental impact statement, WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southold has exclusive authority to effect zoning changes, create and/or modify legislation, establish land use programs and implement the various measures and tools identified in the past land use and social need studies of the Town, and WHEREAS, since the Board holds this exclusive authority, the Town Board is the appropriate entity to assume lead agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and WHEREAS, the Board does intend to solicit inter-agency and public input, and will consider potential impacts under a public forum provided through the intended Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) procedure, and WHEREAS, implementation of these recommendations may be interrelated and potentially in divergence, to the extent that coordinated consideration of implementation is necessary and appropriate and further that one recommendation on its own may not result in an environmental impact; however, the combined effect of several recommendations may result in environmental impacts, thus indicating the potential for cumulative impacts, and WHEREAS, notwithstanding the far reaching nature of the intended action, the Board finds that by virtue of the fact that the initiative is intended to implement the past planning studies of the Town, it is consistent with the Town Comprehensive Plan which includes the zoning code and building zone map, zoning decisions, goals, legislative actions and the record of decisions that forms the Town's direction in terms of achieving its vision, and WHEREAS, as a result, the action is not expected to cause significant adverse impacts since it advances the goals of the Town; however, the action is of Town-wide significance, and does involve changes to natural and human resources; is a Type I action pursuant to SEQRA Part 617 and therefore is more likely to require an environmental impact statement; and, lastly that the action will affect property, resources and the shaping of the Town's future, and WHEREAS, based on the above facts and the Part I Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) prepared for the Board's consideration in determining significance, the Board finds it prudent to take a "hard look" at the proposed action through the preparation of a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS), and WHEREAS, the Board is familiar with the scoping process as outlined in SEQRA Part 617,8 Scoping, and . ". . WHEREAS, the Board has established a team of professionals to assist with the comprehensive implementation strategy, consisting of the Town Attorney, the Town Planner and Town supporting staff, two (2) planning consultants and two (2) consulting attorneys, and this team has prepared a draft scoping outline for the purpose of determining the scope and content of the DGEIS, and WHEREAS, the Board received this scope and deliberated upon its content and finds the draft scope to be adequate to commence the scoping process for the DGEIS pursuant to SEQRA Part 617.8 (b), and WHEREAS, the Board intends to provide an opportunity for interested agencies and the public to provide input into the scope of the DGEIS through circulation of the draft scope and solicitation of public comments at a public scoping meeting, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby classifies the Town of Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy as a Type I action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board hereby assumes lead agency status in review of the action and for the purpose of compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Action (SEQRA) Part 617, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board finds that a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) is appropriate and hereby issues the appropriate determination (via a Positive Declaration) to require such document for the proposed action, considering that the recommendations may result in potential impacts which may include cumulative and/or generic impacts, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board hereby receives the draft scope for the purpose of initiating the scoping process pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617.8, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board will hold a public scoping meeting on January 29,2003 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall meeting room, and a period of 10-days will be provided following the public scoping meeting to allow for submission of written comments, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board authorizes the Town Clerk to file notice of the public scoping meeting in two (2) local newspapers on January 16 and January 23,2003 and the draft scope will be made available on the Town web-site, at local libraries and at the Town Clerks office prior to the scoping meeting, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board authorizes the Town Clerk of the Town of Southold to file this Resolution, the Part I Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), the Positive Declaration, and the Draft Scope ofthe DGEIS with the following parties: . ' '. . Town of South old Supervisor's Office Town Clerk ofthe Town of South old Town of Southold Planning Board Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold Town Trustees Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works Suffolk County Water Authority Suffolk County Planning Commission NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Commissioner, Albany NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Regional Office at Stony Brook NYS Dept. of Transportation NYS Dept. of State US Army Corps of Engineers Inc. Village of Greenport Town of River head Town of Southampton Town of Shelter Island Parties of Interest Officially on Record with the Town Clerk (if applicable) I'tj-.I~a~~'IJ.' Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk , " " '. . , ... Y, 14-16-2 (2/87)-7c SEQR 617.21 Appendix A State Environmental Ouality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL A'"SSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full EAF is desigp.ed to help apmicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may-be significant, The question of whether a~ action may be s(gnifi~ant is not always easy to answer. Frequently, there are aspects of a project that are SUDjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in enVIronmental analysis. In addition, many who pave kt:1o"(ledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concern affecting the questIOn of slgmficance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination [!rocess )ias been orderly, comprehensive in natilre, yet flexible to allow introduction of InformatIOn to lit a project or aclion, ,F-ull-E-AF-€omponents:-'Fhe full EAF-is--CCnup' i,~J uf three-parts;--- Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place In Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying, the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides midance as to wheTher an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially-large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is ,identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the Impact IS actually Important. DETERMlNATION OF SIGNlF1CANCE - TYPE 1 AND UNLISTED ACTIONS Identify the Portions of EAF completedfor this project: .-LPart 1 _Part 2 _Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (parts I and 2 and 3 if appropriate k and an?: other supporting information, and considering both the magnitude and importance of eac impac, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: A, The prolect will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which - will no have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. B. Although the probect could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a - significant effect or this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared. * _c. The project may result in one or more large and important imp'acts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a pOSitive declaration will be prepared. · A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Town of Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strate!!y Name of Action Town Board Name of Lead Agency Joshua Horton SUlJervisor Print or Typc Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer If different from responsible officer) Date . .' . . PART 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION .j Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A thiough E. Ariswers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. It; information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. . NAME OF ACTION Town of Southold Comprehensive Implementation Stratel!V Proposed Action would applv to the entire Town NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR Town Board. Town of Southold ADDRESS Town Hall 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 CITY~O STATI Southold NY NAME OF OWNER (If different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE (631) 765-1938 ZIP CODE 11971 BUSINESS TELEPHONE ADDRESS CITY~O STATE ZIP CODE DESCRIPTION OF ACTION See Attached A. SITE DESCRIPTION Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. I. Present land use: Urban ----K..Industrial LRural (non-farm) --K- Other Marine ----K- Commercial ----K..Forest ----K-Residential (Suburban) --K-Agriculture 2. Total acreage of project area: * acres * 53.7 square miles or approx. 35,000 acres APPROXIMATE ACREAGE ** Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) Forested PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) acres Wetland (Freshwater or Tidal as per Arlicles 24. 25 of EeL) acres Water Surface Area acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces acres Other (Indicate type) acres ** Beyond scope of EAF at this time; GElS to be prepared 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? ** a. Soil drainage: L Well drained.TI....% of site; ----K.. Moderately well drained...!i..% of site; L Poor drained 1Q... % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group I through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? 10,000010 acres. (See I NYCRR 370). 2 J, '. . 4. Are there bedrock outcropp.ing on project site? Yes a. What is depth to bedrock? 1.000:1: (in feay- 5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: X 0-10% 85 %; X 10-15% 10 % X 15% or greater ~ % 6. Is project substantially_ contig1!ous tOA or contain a building,.site, or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places'! X Yes _"No 7. I~'project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? X Yes _No X No 8. What is the depth of the water table? --"-- (in feet) *Entire Town; Variable (0-95z feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? -K.. Yes No IO.Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? X Yes No 11.Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? X Yes No According to NYS Natural Heritaee Proeram Identify each species 12.Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) JL Yes No Describe Beaches, cliffs, dunes. eeoloeic formations 13.1s the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? X Yes No If yes, explain Open space rural Qualities. historic settinfl. prominent views. recreational facilities 14.Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? X Yes _No 15.Streams within or contiguous to project area Multiple surface waters within Town a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16.Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: Multiple wetlands within Town a. Name b. Size (In Acres)_ 17.1s the site served by existing public utilities? X Yes _ No Partial water/gas service; However, water supply limitations are present and no sewer districts are present.. a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? X Yes _ No See Above b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? L Yes _ No 18.1s the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? L Yes _ No Partial 19.Is the site located in or substantiallY contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 ofthe ECL, and 6 NYCKR 617? L Yes _ No Partial 20.Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? X Yes No TOlVn landfill aiUfTocalizedSiies B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION* ACTION IS LEGISLATIVE -- No physical changes are proposed; project/site specific impacts may occur. 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor 35,000 z acres. b. Project acreage to be developed N/A acres initially; N/A acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped N/A acres. d. Length of project, in miles: N/A (if appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed N/A % f. Number of ofj~street parking spaces existing N/ A ; proposed N/ A g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour N/A (upon completion ofproject)? h. Ifresidential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially Ultimately 3 ... " . . , I. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure: N/A height; N/A width; N/A length. J. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? N/A ft. 2. How much natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? N/A tons/cubic yards. 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? Yes No --K..N/A a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? Yes No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? Yes No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? .: acres. 5. ;;';'~\~~r{ matury~~rest (rej:,~oflls;rbleo)jlu~~.~~~}~J?;~~i~~f~~~~~i~~~etation be removed by this 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction N/A months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: N/A However, implementation will be multiple phases. a. Total number of phases anticipated (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase I _ month _ year (including demolition). c. Approximate completion date of final phase _ month _ year. d. Is phase I functionally dependent on subsequent phases? _ Yes No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? . Yes --K.. No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction N/A ; after project is complete N/A . 10.Number of jobs eliminated by this project N/A . II.WiIl project require relocation of any projects or facilities? --K.. Yes If yes, explain: Possible transfer of develooment ril!hts. No 12.1s surface liquid waste disposal involved? _ Yes --K.. No Project specific; not part of a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount lel!islative chanl!es. b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13.Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? Yes L No Type: Sanitiln' wastewater 14.Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? _ Yes If yes, explain: 15.1s project or any portion of project located in a lOa year flood plain? X Yes _ No XNo 16. Will the project generate solid waste? L Yes No Project specific; not part of a. If yes, what is the amount per month N/A tons legislative changes. b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? --K.. Yes No c. If yes, give name Town facilitv location Cutchol!ue d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? X Yes No e. If yes, explain Recvclilble oortion of waste stream. 17.Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? Yes ~ No a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? _ Yes ...K No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? Yes X No 20.Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels?_ Yes .2L No Project specific; not part of legislative changes. 21.Will project result in an increase in energy use? _ Yes~ No If yes, indicate type( s) Pro;ect Soecific 4 / .' , . 22. Ifwater supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity 23.Total anticipated water usage per day N/A gallons/day. gallons/minute. . N/A (See also Narrative Request, Section D). 24.Doos project involve Local, State or Federal funding? --X- Yes No If yes, explain Local Implementation 25.Approvals Required: The Tuwn Board is the only agency that can implement the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy; However; other related project specific approvals are as folluws: Type Submittal Date Town Board Town Planning Board Town Zoning Board County Health Department Other Local Agencies State Agencies Other Regional Agencies Federal Agencies X Yes .x. Yes .x. Yes AYe.. X Yes X Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No XNo XNo Rezoning, Legislation Site Plan, Subdivision Variances JV~tP-r .flu!,..."ly, Jla"ifnrJ' SJ'dpltt Roadwork Roadwork, Wetlands C. ZONING AND PLANNING INFORMATION I. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? ..JL Yes No If yes, indicate decision required: . X zoning amendment ..JL zoning variance..JL special use permit .x. subdivision X site plan _ new/revision of master plan ..JL resource management plan X other LWRP Consistencv 2. What is the zoning classification(s) of the site? Multiole residential. commercial and soecial zoninll dIstrIcts. . 3. What is the maximum potential development ot tile site It developed as permitted by the present zorung'{ Build out analvsis will be oerformed as Dart of GEl So 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? Possible chanees to result from olanninll efforts. 5. What is the maximum potential develop.ment of the site if developed as ~ermitted by the proposed zoning? Alternative 6uild out analvsis will be oerformed as Dart of fiEIS 6. Is th!l 'proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? X Yes _No 7. What are the p'redominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a 1/4 mile radius of proposed action? MultiDle lOnine. Town-wide 8. ~/~e proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a 1/4 mile? _Yes _No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? N/A a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? N/A I a.Will proposed action require any: authorization!s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? _ Yes --.2L No II. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? Yes X No Potential specific needs will be addressed. a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? Yes No 12.Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? Yes --X- No Planning efforts expected to reduce buildout traffic. a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? _ Yes _ No 5 ,. . . I D. INFORMATIONAL DETAILS AND WATER SUPPLY NARRATIVE REQUEST Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts ~s.sociated wi!h your proposal, please discuss suco impacts and the measures which you propose to nutigate or aVOId them. 1. Provide explanation of existing site use, occupancy, structures, sanitary flow, water use; compare to proposed use, occupancy, structures, sanitary flow, water use. 2. Indicate the source of water supply, nearest public water main, nearest public well field, and adjacent private wells (if known). 3. If public water supply is proposed, indicate the ability of the water utility to provide water supply to the project. Provide letter of water availability or detailed explanation of status of review by water utility. 4. If private water supply is proposed, indicate the well specifications, water quality based on on-site water quality data. Provide Suffolk County Department of Health Services approval or detailed explanation of status of review by agency. E. VERIFICATION I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Date :/ ~ 3/ 1'13 Signature Title Town Supervisor If the ac . n is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form be ore proceeding with this assessment. F. PREPARER N_ CIwl"~ Si"",",", ~ / /~_ 1y{7~ I t' Title Managing Partner Date 6 . . Town of South old Comprehensive Implementation Strategy EAF Part 1 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION The proposed project involves the evaluation and where appropriate implementation by the Southold Town Board of the recommended planning and program tools and measures as described in the planning studies undertaken within the Town over the past 20 years. The studies, plans and recommendations have been reviewed in terms of current needs and Town goals to achieve the Town's vision as articulated in the following plans. . Parks, Recreation & Open Space Survey (1982) . Town Master Plan Update and Background Studies (1984/85) . USIUK Countryside Stewardship Exchange Team (1991) . Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan (1992) . Town Affordable Housing policies and program (1993) . Fishers Island Growth Plan (1987-1994) . Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Study (1994) . Seaview Trails of the North Fork (1995) . Peconic Estuary Program (1995) . Economic Development Plan, Town of Southold (1997) . Community Preservation Project Plan (July, 1998) . Southold Township: 2000 Planning Initiatives . County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study (1999) . Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy (1999) . Town Water Supply Management & Watershed Protection Strategy (2000) . Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (200 I) . Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (2001) . North Fork Travel Needs Assessment (2002) . Blue Ribbon Commission for a Rural Southold, Final Report (July 14, 2002) . Southold Town Code, Zoning Code and Zoning Map These recommendations (consolidated and summarized in the attached table) would be considered by the Town Board for implementation in the form of amendments to Town procedures, the Town Code and various Town regulations, in conformance with the Town's Master Plan. As a result, the proposed project involves legislative changes, with no specific physical changes proposed. The Town Board intends to initially consider all prior recommendations with an emphasis on those that protect farmland, and open space, promote affordable housing; maintain and enhance character of hamlet centers and preserve natural resources. The Board may prioritize, narrow down or select implementation tools that best achieve the goals of the Town. The basic goals of the above-referenced plans and studies include: . The Town's goal is to preserve land including open space, recreation and working landscapes. . The Town's goal is to preserve mral, culhlral, historic character of the hamlets and surrounding countryside. . The Town's goal is to preserve its natural environment; to prevent further deterioration of resources and to restore degraded resources back to pristine or near pristine quality. . The goal of the Town is to preserve and promote a range of housing and business opportunities that would support a socio-economically diverse community. . The Town's goal is to increase transportation efficiency and to create attractive alternatives to automobile travel, while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of the Town, State, County and local roadways. The Board will solicit inter-agency and public input, and will consider potential impacts under a public forum provided through a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) procedure. The proposed action will provide a means to ensure that the above-listed Town goals will be achieved through a comprehensive, well- established and well-considered land use decision-making framework. . . SEQRA POSITIVE DECLARATION Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft Generic EIS Determination of Significance Lead Agency: Town of Southold Town Board Contact: Hon. Joshua Horton, Supervisor Address: Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Date: January 7, 2003 This notice is issued pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act - SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and Chapter 44 ofthe Town Code of the Town of South old. The lead agency has determined that the proposed action described below may have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) will be prepared. Title of Action: Town of Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy SEQR Status: Type I Action Description of Action: The proposed project involves the evaluation and where appropriate implementation by the Southold Town Board of the recommended planning and program tools and measures as described in the planning studies undertaken within the Town over the past 20 years. The studies, plans and recommendations have been reviewed in terms of current needs and Town goals to achieve the Town's vision as articulated in the following plans. . Parks, Recreation & Open Space Survey (1982) . Town Master Plan Update and Background Studies (1984/85) . USIUK Countryside Stewardship Exchange Team (1991) . Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan . Town Affordable Housing policies and program (1993) . Fishers Island Growth Plan (1987-1994) . Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Study (1994) . Seaview Trails of the North Fork (1995) . Peconic Estuary Program (1995) . Economic Development Plan, Town of Southold (1997) . Community Preservation Project Plan (July, 1998) . . Determination of Significance Town Comprehensive Implementation Strategy o Southold Township: 2000 Planning Initiatives o County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study (1999) o Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy (1999) o Town Water Supply Management & Watershed Protection Strategy (20 o Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (2001) o Town of South old Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (2001) o North Fork Travel Needs Assessment (2002) o Blue Ribbon Commission for a Rural Southold, Final Report (July 14, ; o Southold Town Code, Zoning Code and Zoning Map These recommendations (consolidated and summarized in the attached table) would be considered by the Town Board for implementation in the form of amendments to Town procedures, the Town Code and various Town regulations, in conformance with the Town's Master Plan. As a result, the proposed project involves legislative changes, with no specific physical changes proposed. The Town Board intends to initially consider all prior recommendations with an emphasis on those that protect farmland, and open space, promote affordable housing and preserve natural resources. The Board may prioritize, narrow down or select implementation tools that best achieve the goals of the Town. The basic goals of the above-referenced plans and studies include: o The Town's goal is to preserve land including open space, recreation and working landscapes. o The Town's goal is to preserve rural, cultural, historic character of the hamlets and surrounding countryside. o The Town's goal is to preserve its natural environment; to prevent further deterioration of resources and to restore degraded resources back to pristine or near pristine quality. o The goal of the Town is to preserve and promote a range of housing and business opportunities that would support a socio-economically diverse community. o The Town's goal is to increase transportation efficiency and to create attractive alternatives to automobile travel, while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of the Town, State, County and local roadways. The Board will solicit inter-agency and public input, and will consider potential impacts under a public forum provided through a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) procedure. The proposed action will provide a means to ensure that the above-listed Town goals will be achieved through a comprehensive, well-established and well- considered land use decision-making framework. Location: The proposed action would apply to the entire Town. SCTM No.: All of District 1000 2 . . Determination of Significance Town Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Reasons Supporting This Determination: The proposed project involves the evaluation and where appropriate implementation of 20 years of planning recommendations in a comprehensive manner and consistent with current Town needs. By virtue of the fact that the initiative is intended to implement the past planning studies of the Town, it is consistent with the Town Comprehensive Plan which includes the zoning code and building zone map, zoning decisions, goals, legislative actions and the record of decisions that forms the Town's direction in terms of achieving its vision. The action is not expected to cause significant adverse impacts, since it advances the goals of the Town. However, the action is of Town-wide significance, and does involve changes to natural and human resources. In addition, since the action is a Town- wide initiative, it is determined to be a Type I action pursuant to SEQRA Part 617, and therefore is more likely to require an environmental impact statement. Finally, since the action will affect property, resources and the shaping of the Town's future, it is prudent to perform a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS). As a result, the considerations noted above, and the following potential impacts are identified as the Reasons Supporting This Determination: 1. The application has been reviewed pursuant to the Criteria for Determination of Significance contained in Part 617.7. Consideration has been given to information supplied by the applicant including a Part I Environmental Assessment Form. 2. The proposed action may result in impacts to the natural and human resources of the Town, individually, cumulatively or synergistically. Zone changes and/or Town Code revisions may be necessary to implement recommendations. 3. The action may set a precedent with regard to the growth and character of the Town and/or individual communities. For Further Iuformation Contact: Greg Yakaboski, Esq., Town Attorney Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1I79 Southold, NY 11971 Telephone: (631) 765-1889 Copies oethis Notice Sent to: Town of South old Supervisor's Office Town Clerk of the Town of Southold Town of Southold Planning Board Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold Town Trustees Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works Suffolk County Water Authority Suffolk County Planning Commission NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Commissioner, Albany NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Regional Office at Stony Brook NYS Dept. of Transportation NYS Dept. of State US Army Corps of Engineers Inc. Village of Greenport Towns of Riverhead, Southampton and Shelter Island Parties of Interest Officially on Record with the Town Clerk (if applicable) 3 " .. . . Draft Scope for the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY Southold Town Board Action January 7, 2003 This document provides an outline for use by the Town of Southold Town Board (as Lead Agency) in determining the content and format of the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (Draft GElS), for the proposed action known as the Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy (SCIS). DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The proposed action involves the evaluation and where appropriate implementation by the Southold Town Board of the recommended planning and program tools and measures as described in the planning studies undertaken within the Town over the past 20 years. The studies, plans and recommendations have been reviewed in terms of current needs and Town goals to achieve the Town's vision as articulated in the following plans. . Parks, Recreation & Open Space Survey (1982) . Town Master Plan Update (1985) . Fishers Island Growth Plan (1987-1994) . USfUK Countryside Stewardship Exchange Team (1991) . Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan (1992) . Town Affordable Housing policies and program (1993) . Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Study (1994) . Seaview Trails ofthe North Fork (1995) . Peconic Estuary Program (1995) . Economic Development Plan, Town of Southold (1997) . Community Preservation Project Plan (July, 1998) . Southold Township: 2000 Planning Initiatives . County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study (1999) . Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy (1999) . Town Water Supply Management & Watershed Protection Strategy (2000) . Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (2001) . Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (200 I) . North Fork Travel Needs Assessment (2002) . Blue Ribbon Commission for a Rural Southold, Final Report (July 14, 2002) These recommendations (consolidated and summarized in the attached table at the end of this document) would be considered by the Town Board for implementation in the form of amendments to Town procedures, the Town Code and various Town regulations, in conformance with the Town's Master Plan. As a result, the proposed project involves legislative changes, with no specific physical changes proposed. The Town Board intends to initially consider all prior recommendations with an emphasis on . . Draft Scope Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS those that protect farmland, and open space, promote affordable housing and preserve natural resources. The Board may prioritize, narrow down or select implementation tools that best achieve the goals of the Town. The basic goals of the above-referenced plans and studies include: . The Town's goal is to preserve land including open space, recreation and working landscapes. . The Town's goal is to preserve rural, cultural, historic character of the hamlets and surrounding countryside. . The Town's goal is to preserve its natural environment; to prevent further deterioration of resources and to restore degraded resources back to pristine or near pristine quality. . The goal of the Town is to preserve and promote a range of housing and business opportunities that would support a socio-economically diverse community. . The Town's goal is to increase transportation efficiency and to create attractive alternatives to automobile travel, while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of the Town, State, County and local roadways. The Board will solicit inter-agency and public input, and will consider potential impacts under a public forum provided through a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) procedure. The proposed action will provide a means to ensure that the above-listed Town goals will be . achieved through a comprehensive, well-established and well-considered land use decision- making framework. FORMAT AND CONTENT OF DEIS COVER SHEET (Indicate that the document is a "Draft" GElS; name of project, location of action, name and address of Lead Agency, as well as name, title and telephone number of contact person at the Lead Agency; names, addresses and contact information of all persons or organizations contributing to the document; date of acceptance of the document by the Lead Agency; and date by which written comments on the document are to be received by the Lead Agency) SUMMARY (Provide brief summary of the proposed action, to include: location of the Town of South old, the need for and benefits of the action, a description of the action, the anticipated significant adverse impacts of the action, corresponding mitigation measures of those impacts, alternatives considered, and the permits and approvals required to implement the action.) 1,0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 1.1 Project Purpose, Need and Benefits 1.1.1 Background and History (Provide brief description of the existing pattern of land use within the Town. Describe the various Town, county, NYS and private planning efforts in regard to land use decision-making, and the interrelationships between these plans and the agencies proposing or implementing each. Discuss the forces and/or conditions which have caused this effort to be proposed at the present time. Describe GElS process as it pertains to this action) 1.1.2 Public Need and Municipality Objectives (JustifY proposed action in terms of Town goals. Discuss the need for this action and fulfillment of public desires.) Page 2 / ", . . Draft Scope Southold Compreheuslve Implementatlou Strategy Draft Geuerle EIS 1.1.3 Benefits of the Project (Provide brief listing/discussion of the benefits to accrue from the proposed action. Discuss the logic and rationale for the choices being addressed) 1.2 Location (Indicate that proposed action is applicable within all of Town. Describe locations of individual types of land uses as distributed within Town, in terms of roadway access, the various zones, districts, utility services, etc.) 1.3 Description ofthe Proposed Action 1.4 Additional Action Thresholds (Provide thresholds and conditions that would trigger the need for supplemental determinations of significance or site specific EIS's. 1.5 Permits and Approvals Required (Provide brief discussion of the remaining SEQRA processes and review stages required for the proposed action; list all required permits, reviews and approvals.) 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2.1 Geological Resources (Provide information on the existing soil, subsurface and topographic conditions of the Town, particularly in regard to those characteristics pertinent to suitability of the soils to support the uses resulting from the proposed action.) 2.2 Water Resources (Describe current status of groundwater quality, quantity, elevation and flow direction in the Town. Provide information on Town surface water bodies.) 2.3 Ecological Resources (Describe/discuss the existing vegetation resources of the Town, including habitats found, acreages of each habitat type, significant species and/or habitats found, etc. Describe/discuss wildlife species found or anticipated, based on habitats found, significance of wildlife species found, etc. IdentifY wetlands and unique habitat linkages. Document contact with NY Natural Heritage Program and findings regarding unique habitats, species, or information recorded in their files). 2.4 Transportation (Describe the existing roadway characteristics and levels of congestion at pertinent intersections and roadway segments in the Town. Present information on current types, levels of usage and routes of public transit resources serving the Town, and document road improvement plans) 2.5 Air Resources (Describe/discuss existing meteorological and climate characteristics of the Town, air quality in the Town, and briefly describe the applicable air quality standards and regulations.) 2.6 Land Use, Zoning and Plans (Describe current land use and zoning patterns in the Town. Describe/discuss the various land use plans, studies, etc., on which the proposed action is based, along with the recommendations of each.) 2.7 Demography (Provide description/discussion of the existing and anticipated demographic characteristics of the Town, including population size, households, income and other relevant data. Perform build-out analysis of the Town based on current zoning. to predict population and describe future conditions) 2.8 Community Services (Provide information on the current status of the following public/community services which serve the Town): . public schools Page 3 . . .' Draft Scope Sonthold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS . police protection . fire protection . recreation . local government 2.9 Infrastructure (Provide information on the current status of the following infrastructural elements): . solid waste removal and handling, including recycling . water supply . sewage & wastewater treatment . electricity · natural gas, ( if available) . Telephone/Cable TV 2.10 Community Character (Describe the existing and emerging character of the community. Describe the visual character of the Town, for observers along bordering roadways and from other public vantage points, for: hamlets, rural areas, and the transition areas between hamlets and rural areas.) 2.11 Cultural Resources (Describe/discuss the history of the Town and the established and potential for the presence of significant pre-historic or historic and/or archaeological resources.) 2.12 Economic/Fiscal Conditions (Provide information on the current tax generation and economic characteristics of the Town and the allocation of taxes to the various taxing jurisdictions. Identify and evaluate various economic sectors within the community, major employers and sources of jobs.) 3.0 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (A build-out analysis of the Town will be performed, based on recommended changes in the land use decision-making framework. Where appropriate, specific reference to resource areas will be discussed.as provided below) 3.1 RESOURCE IMPACTS 3.1.1 Geological Resources (The potential for erosion during construction, the ability of the soils to accommodate development, and potential changes in the topographic contours should be addressed) 3.1.2 Water Resources (The anticipated impacts on the volume and quality of recharge generated, and its impact on existing groundwater quality, quantity, groundwater flow direction and water table contours will be addressed. In addition, the potential for groundwater or surface water impact to the existing surface waters will be discussed) 3.1.3 Ecological Resources (The amount, extent and character of natural vegetation to be affected, and its habitat value, will be discussed and analyzed. The impact on existing species, as well as the potential for rare or endangered species and potential impacts to these species will be discussed) 3.1.4 Transportation (The impact of the anticipated changes in traffic patterns will be addressed. The document will also address the need for and impacts of the roadway improvements made necessary by the proposed action, and any changes in transportation methods, including public transit) Page 4 . " .' . . Draft Scope Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS 3.1.5 Air Resources (The potential for impact to air quality from changes in development patterns and densities. as well as from the traffic changes. will be addressed. ) 3.1.6 Land Use, Zoning and Plans (Discuss the impacts of implementing the various recommendations on the land use and zoning patterns in the Town.) 3.1.7 Demography (Provide description/discussion of the changes in Townwide demographic characteristics due to implementation of the proposed action.) 3.1.8 Community Services (Discuss the increased need for public services and the impact on these services due to the proposed action. Comments provided by each community service provider, if any. will be included and addressed in the preparation of this section.) 3.1.9 Infrastructure (address the changed demand on infrastructure resources resultingfrom implementing the proposed action) 3.1.10 Community Character (Address the changes in the visual character of the Town due to the proposed action. Discussion of impacts to the various hamlets and downtown or local commercial centers will be provided.) 3.1.11 Cultural Resources (Discuss the potential'iinpact on cultural resources due to the proposed action.) 3.1.12 Economic/Fiscal Conditions (Provide discussion of the anticipated impacts of the proposed action on the economic pattern and level of economic activity in the various geographic and economic sectors of the Town.) 3.1.13 Use and Conservation of Energy (Discuss how the proposed action will impact the use and conservation of energy resources within the Town.) 3.2Cumulative Impacts (Indicate other pending development applications in the Town. and analyze their cumulative impacts in conjunction with those of the proposed action). 3.3 Secondary Impacts (Describe secondary or indirect impacts that will result from the proposed action). 3.4 Long Term Impacts (Address impacts that might be expected to occur over a long period of time, resulting from the incremental execution of various elements of the proposed action). 4.0 MITIGATION MEASURES 4.1 Geological Resources 4.2 Water Resources 4.3 Ecological Resources 4.4 Transportation 4.5 Air Resources 4.6 Land Use, Zoning and Plans 4.7 Demography 4.8 Community Services 4.9 Community Character/ 4.10 Cultural Resources 4.11 Economic/Fiscal Conditions Page 5 ,t, " . Draft Scope Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS . 5.0 ADVERSE IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED (Provide listing of those adverse environmental impacts described/discussed previously which are anticipated to occur, which cannot be completely mitigated.) 6.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES (Provide listing of the various environmental and human resources which will be permanently committed to the proposed action.) 7.0 GlwwrH-INnUCING ASPECTS (Describe and discuss those aspects of the proposed action which may result in additional growth and/or development in the Town, due directly to the proposed action, or indirectly as a result of changes in the community which are caused by the proposed action. The document will consider growth that is related to the proposed action such as infrastructure improvements, utilities, job creation, etc. to the extent that the project will be linked with such growth in the area. The potential for additional development in downtowns, local commercial centers and communities outside the project vicinity will be included. IdentifY "triggers" that will cause growth) 8.0 IMPACTS ON THE USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY RESOURCES 9.0 ALTERNATIVES 9.1 No Action (The current land use decision-making framework of the Town remains in its current condition, based on build-out analysis prepared in Section 3.0) 9.2 Mitigative Strategies 9.2.1 Provide for Land Preservation including Open Space & Farmland 9.2.2 Maintain & Enhance Rural & Cultural Character 9.2.3 Preserve the Town's Natural Environment 9.2.4 Provide a Sound Socio-Economic Environment for Residents & Businesses 9.2.5 Ensure Adequate Transportation Infrastructure EXTENT AND QUALITY OF INFORMATION NEEDED The SEQRA process and the Draft GElS prepared in conformance with this scope are intended to provide comprehensive and important information in the decision-making process for use by involved agencies in preparing their own supplemental findings and issuing decisions on their respective permits. The document will be concise but thorough, well documented, accurate, and consistent. Studies for traffic, cultural resources (if any), and other aspects of the project, prepared by qualified specialists, will be appended and referenced. Technical information may be summarized in the body of the document and attached in a separate appendix. All pertinent correspondence utilized in the document will be contained in appendices, as well as excerpts of pertinent publicly available materials. Page 6 .~ M . Draft Scope Sonthold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS . INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN APPENDICES All pertinent information and correspondence included, presented or discussed in the document, shall be included in appendices subdivided for ease of reference. Such appendices may include, but not be limited to: economic impact analysis, groundwater and air quality data and modeling results, and engineering studies, maps, plans, regulations, etc. ISSUES DEEMED NOT RELEVANT. NOT ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANTOR ADEOUATEL Y ADDRESSED IN A PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This section is required for a complete scoping document under SEQRA. In regard to the appropriateness of economic analysis on business operations, SEQRA is quite clear. AB stated in The SEQR Handbook (NYSDEC, November 1992, pg. 60), such an analysis is not appropriate for analysis in an environmental impact statement: Are there economic or social factors that are inappropriate for inclusion in an EIS? The potential effects that a proposed project may have in drawing customers and profits away from established enterprises or in reducing property values in a community may not be considered under SEQR. Potential economic disadvantage caused by competition or speculative economic losses are not environmental factors. In summary, it is not intended nor required that a DEIS address the potential impact of the proposed project on the business operations of any similar retail businesses in the vicinity those, of a similar size or type or otherwise, or what would be considered competition between businesses. No other issues have been identified to date. This applicant's intent is to thoroughly disclose and analyze potential impacts associated with the proposed project. This draft scope will be subject to the scoping process in conformance with SEQRA Part 617.8, followed by the issuance of a final scope by the lead agency. Page 7 IMPLEMENTATION TOQLSIMECHANISMS AND KEy GoALS MATRIX ~ 1 This tb.bl~ f"!lre.ents a consolidal;Qn o(the recommendations of planning repo!1s and lltudies over the plllll 20 years (43 specific recornIDelIdatians); some meQUles may apply w more thlm one sub-catallOTY, the nlOslapplicablc subcalegory WlIJI cJ10Sen as moWmCdllll1isms lSte listed only once; if each ofthClle mechllnistmltools w..e impl~=l.Cd, the Town govcrnmeILr13.~'i:d\lCationllllsDCi8.1 :frameworK would bc COlWatent with the compn:hcnlliveplanlll defined bYjlQI initillliYCIlllldteCD~ thu.s implcmclltiut Ih. plannini rep..:>"s IUIds\lI<ll~ ofthepUl20 YCllf:i; the current need fur emllin mell.Sures llnd their UIlcn~Y basw..:>n current COIId.ition5 mlUt still be dc'termined, IInd policy decisioILS conccmi:D.s: implClllOllmtion must still be ~ NOle: StatUS Colllmn intended 10 inwClUll proiTllIJlll exisl (E) and will be reVillwcd llIId improvQdlcnhlUlfOCd.; lll:, IlI'C prapoaed to be Cfuud (P), ! 5.Acnl A..c DUrtricttown-Wide or. aiftc arllll} RUl1IIInce!l.tive Distriat/RID ased OIl in"",!l.t:iVll ZOJJm ,cxahall e ofbenelits, i,e, rnaintam 0 n ace/farIll use fm' criod oftimll in exchan of PDR at e -eldldcnsit A -oUltural Overlll DistrictlA-C Zoom Review eO hie definition and aals} A--C District UselDiInimsional Parameters (mechallics of zone; now essential! same as other residential zone.) Review S chI! hrmitProvisions (Wioe -Vine ; adeQuate mITllSt!Illd 1I1'kin Review Zoning C0d8 (mmdatorycluste:ing, .reCTeattOfilll requirements, revise Sign Ordinance; review R"O, ill dUitrict; wat8r~ l18li,; lICCessory apartmentS. AHD lltandal-(b (expiJ'atiolll). B&B's, home OC(: ation~, discoura. e stri sho in" centers & fa.>t food in HE, ila lots, encoura e common drivewa S" e ofuse rements) ReviewZonin Me "tuck Creek, industrie1 on Route 25 wilStofGree ort,HDinGreen ~waterde eodentlllle~,AHD-re ealorex Review SubdivisionRe atiOIlS roed re uire1llllnts; dreina e; Ii tin, in!i-aslructu.re Review Hi wa cificatiollll foad re ui:rements; e; Ii . tin ; infraatNCture COIl>lervation Subdivision Pro derme end" lemenl 75-800h laod serVlltion throu land USII lools anddensit reduction Plannin Process & Encoura Committed ene Partici' tion furmalize e-rubmission coufilrence, review IlIa! on; review committees; e service rovider' JJl: Transfer of De vel mentRi tslNon-Conti uousClustcrin Develo =IRi tsBank mechanismfur fa -atedansi relOCDti04l eme-nt :ncentiveZonin edDevel tDismctOrdinauce ovidetOr f1exibledevlIl ntI 'eldin exchan. eof ecial nblicbmofite.,i.o,affordablehousin infrastructure. ded1cation,ete. Tree Pre~el"vation Ordinance imit removal of trees unJellS thron subdivi1iion/site IllD revillW",d.=fiue \rile BizelUld a licablll Critical Envirorunental Lands OrdiIlence stee s]o es and ese monts, shallow "uUIldwaler, wetlends, WaterWll ; define fur Yield Ollll~) SE RA Ordinance Rtoview/Revision (T add Scenic-B a ; Critical En.vironmellUl MllS SMnlC B .Wa Overla Devele ment Controls defme corridor Cnmmittee review, SE RA d.esi .00 .. A "oulturalDistrictReviewiEducation AeultureandMarketsLaw;encoUTa ij lei ation,maintainllxi6tin lei lIIIb Cre!lleOeneralGuidanceDoeuments esi Manual,tom ortationt1Wlll emenVtrafficcalmiu ,Ue\'111o illuminationstand.ard:l;BMPs;crosSlI.CC<:ssa lllntIIl.ts"sider0a4acceas) Natural Enviromnimt EducatiOIl (~ duality surtkce/ d sw"fuce waters; BMP~;!PM; colllitalllIOslOll control; beach wiathmonitorin Watershed Protection ZoneJSGPA's (sima e, educational distributioll materials, link with land use COlltrol3 EncoUTB e \I5e of ubJic rta:lion relata to Tr ation Mana emellt Plan; creale hubs; Ii res; Wln ahuttks Transportation Mauagemmt Plan (Transportation Cornmi.'lsion, encourage triUlSportationlpedestrian improvements; enoourasc public n.tspoltatiOll; crollte hamlllt hubs; <<my l.inkBges, winury shuttles, si na e <>bestroute to"; WQfk with LIRR) Economic Development Plan (manage tourism; camrne.rcial fishing; recreational boating, unl'llle of Ilgriculturol opportunities, rnaricultme; capital improvement program; B&B's, network of visitor centers) c.nforcement ille conversion ofll "cultural bui]din. use ex ofuaere 1m roveWBterfrontAccess uisitions;obtainlmaintain;mventot'vTownlandand vel ! AdministerParicsofTown-wideSi "fiCllllOe invenl Town land, conform 10 ark tan; ublicbeach ualitv. Prioritize and loment CPPP additiomil a uisitiens; sccIlie b -wa uUiitia19; sensitive Land; rioritiZll Creste a C<mtralized Year-Round Recreational Co Lex determine need," lc=ntifneCll:l ':Di'jf.;' I AlTordab1eHo Polic hicI ,2-5 af5; deWceIltiVll3,IlOOllBBO a s.,liIl!lOcialallllistBnce;Houain Authori : CoucentrateDevel lllIIIltinHamlets definllhamlets,etl3l1re ro riareinfra~tructure;&.ffordableholl:An ,linkwithlauduaemeclumismsltools; "tal. ~I trafficoaltnin Park District/School District Boundaries COIIformi (dotermine need and fllCotlcile distrieta U date P1lI'k Inventor an<! t Plan ( "or 1980 stud needs II tin; input into GIS; manage recreaticmal resolllUlS Create Il.Parka and RocreatiOl1 nl arks, recreational reSOUIce8, non.church cem:rterios) ScecicB Wii. Pro 0\Jle48!Route2jcurrentl dllal oted;si e,li1lkwithOv<nlll. for~ 'deliDlllll'lmdWlllcontrol8 Traillnve.n ntilCommittoelBikewa atioo Conmissionexists, detc.nnine coromittee;mven iDtoors ~direaiDQB/infon:nationinkioUli Inven llIldMana eCultursJReoources BfChaealo 'caU ~ensitivearl:llS;Hi9l:oricDiatrictdesi tiOIl' uu;lmdrnark. utintoOIS Al'chitaotural Review Board end Deal Parameters (determine IIlled; establish bod, eneme .dance; inte into \and use rovjow roccSs Scenic Advi80 Bod deter:miIle Mild fur new Cmnmittell; mana e ~t~'~._"""" Housin Fina:ncialAssistancePro orthForl::H DeveJ WsJet:S 1 MasterPlan owninvolVllIIl<:nt,SCWA re a.rin ;IlllllIll. infrastructurewithothor encies Emor nc Pre lIaS dWldercontNDinati=.drou tmanB.g<lmanl;eJlI\lll:ellde UIlle me service8 Iice,fir., ambWlIDCe'!loodhazafdmitl 'on lmJ."erosion Social Services Pro 8~or citiZllIl care, ade uate community facilities, day care, meals 01\ wheeLs, c.b.urchcl,1ibmrios ,-" .::",;,,~,}, ,~-'l'{:.}-.,<"" ,,,.,,:.., .':.' ",,~h:?' :."" ,,:':}:i_'" '..-", AffbrdablcHo Polio mdU '. '.' .- p p P E E E E E E P E P P P P E P x X . X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X . X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X :x X X X x x X E P E E E P X X X P E x x E E E P X X X X X P E E E P P P E E P x X X X X X X X X X X E P E E X x X X i"'Iol 19/06 '03 THU 13:09 FAX 516 765 6145 SOUTHOLD CLERK 141001 ********************* *** TX REPORT *** ********************* TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION In ST, TIME USAGE T PGS, SENT RESULT 4622 7651744 J Romanelli 19/06 13:08 00'47 1 OK VALERIE SCOPAZ TOWN PLANNER 713 74 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1119 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-8186 Telephone (516) 765.1938 RECEIVED OFFICE OF THE TOWN PLANNER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD JUN 1 9 2003 SQuthord Town Cieri Memorandum To: Albert Krupski, President, Board ofTrustees Members of the Board of Trustees From: Valerie Scopaz, AICP, Town Planner /. ~~ Re: DGEIS ~ r .-::> Date: June 19, 2003 This morning Peggy Dickerson and Patricia Finnegan informed me of specific concerns on the part of the Trustees regarding the DGEIS. To wit delayed receipt of a copy of the document, insufficient numbers of copies and failure to mention the Trustees as a permitting agency and failure to allow the Trustees to review a copy in advance of printing. After speaking with Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk, it appears that a copy of the DGEIS was transmitted to your office on the 13th of June. It also appears that a misunderstanding contributed to this delay. I regret this oversight. With regard to the fact that only one copy was transmitted: earlier today I spoke with Lauren Standish, Trustee secretary, and explained that she could print out black and white copies of the DGEIS document for the Trustees, which is what I am doing for the Planning Board members since that Board also has only one rmnv Ilovrl Rp.illp.nbp.ra aareed to exelain to Lauren how to do this. 19/06 '03 THU 13:10 FAX 516 765 6145 SOUTHOLD CLERK ~001 ********************* ... TX REPORT ... ********************* TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION 10 ST. TIME USAGE T PGS, SENT RESULT 4623 7654643 WilHam Moore 19/06 13:09 00'37 1 OK . 74 VALERIE SCOPAZ TOWN PLANNER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Bo" 1179 SouthoId, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3186 Telephone (516) 765.1938 RECEIVED OFFICE OF THE TOWN PLANNER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD JUN 1 9 2003 Southold Town Clerl Memorandum To: Albert Krupski, President, Board of Trustees Members of the Board of Trustees From: Valerie Scopaz, AICP, Town Planner /. ~~ Re: DGEIS ..,.. r ~ Date: June 19, 2003 This moming Peggy Dick~rson and Patricia Finnegan informed me of specific concerns on the part of the Trustees regarding the DGEIS. To wit: delayed receipt of a copy of the document, insufficient numbers of copies and failure to mention the Trustees as a permitting agency and failure to allow the Trustees to review a copy in advance of printing. After speaking with Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk, it appears that a copy of the DGE1S was transmitted to your office on the 13th of June. It also appears that a misunderstanding contributed to this delay. I regret this oversight. With regard to the fact that only one copy was transmitted: earlier today I spoke with Lauren Standish, Trustee secretary, and explained that she could print out black and white copies of the DGEIS document for the Trustees, which is what I am doing for the Planning Board members since that Board also has only one "nnv. I.lovd Reisenbero aoreed to explain to Lauren how to do this. 19/06 '03 THU 13:12 FAX 516 765 6145 SOUTHOLD CLERK ~001 ********************* ... TX REPORT ... ********************* TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION In ST. TIME USAGE T PGS. SENT RESULT 4624 4772101 CraIg Richter 19/06 13:11 00'55 1 OK VALERIE SCOPAZ TOWN PLANNER 713 . ,4 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P ,0. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 RECEIVED OFFICE OF THE TOWN PLANNER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD JUN 1 9 2003 Soulhold Town Cle-rl Memorandum To: Albert Krupski. President. Board of Trustees Members of the Board of Trustees From: Valerie Scopaz, AICP, Town Planner /. <;,.~ Re: DGEIS ~ r....::> Date: June 19, 2003 This morning Peggy Dick~rson and Patricia Finnegan informed me of specific concerns on the part of the Trustees regarding the DGEIS. To wit: delayed receipt of a copy of the document, insufficient numbers of copies and failure to mention the Trustees as a permitting agency and failure to allow the Trustees to review a copy in advance of printing. After speaking with Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk, it appears that a copy of the DGEIS was transmitted to your office on the 13th of June. It also appears that a misunderstanding contributed to this delay. I regret this oversight. With regard to the fact that only one copy was transmitted: earlier today I spoke with Lauren Standish, Trustee secretary, and explained that she could print out black and white copies of the DGEIS document for the Trustees, which is what I am doing for the Planning Board members since that Board also has only one ~nnv I Invrl RF>j"'F>nhFlrn ::lnrF>FlO to Flynl::lln to L;:JurAn how to do this. 19/06 '03 THU 13:17 FAX 516 765 6145 SOUTHOLD CLERK I4J 001 ********************* ... TX REPORT ... ********************* TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID ST, TIME USAGE T PGS, SENT RESULT 4625 7345454 Tom WIckham 19/06 13:16 00'55 1 OK VALERIE SCOPAZ TOWN PLANNER 713 74 Town HaIl, 53095 Main Road P,O, Box 1179 Southald, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (616) 766-1938 RECEIVED OFFICE OF THE TOWN PLANNER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD JUN 1 9 2003 Southold Town Cieri Memorandum To: Albert Krupski, President, Board ofTrustees Members of the Board of Trustees From: Valerie Scopaz, AICP, Town Planner /. SP~ Re: DGEIS -- r...:J Date: June 19, 2003 This moming Peggy Dick~rson and Patricia Finnegan informed me of specific concerns on the part of the Trustees regarding the DGEIS. To wit: delayed receipt of a copy of the document, insufficient numbers of copies and failure to mention the Trustees as a permitting agency and failure to allow the Trustees to review a copy in advance of printing. After speaking with Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk, it appears that a copy of the DGEIS was transmitted to your office on the 13th of June. It also appears that a misunderstanding contributed to this delay. I regret this oversight. With regard to the fact that only one copy was transmitted: earlier today I spoke with Lauren Standish, Trustee secretary, and explained that she could print out black and white copies of the DGEIS document for the Trustees, which is what I am doing for the Planning Board members since that Board also has only one ...nn\l Ilnvrf Rp.i!':FmhFlm :'lnrFlFlrl tn A'tnlAin to I ::lllrFln how to rln thi!':. 19/06 '03 THU 13:27 FAX 516 765 6145 SOUTHOLD CLERK ~001 *************************** ... ERROR TX REPORT ... *************************** TX FUNCTION WAS NOT COMPLETED TX/RX NO CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID ST, TIME USAGE T PGS, SENT RESULT 4626 7887646 Louisa Evans 19/06 13:27 00'00 o NG #018 VALERIE SCOPAZ TOWN PLANNER Tf3 ,4 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 766-3136 Telephont> (516) 765-1988 OFFICE OF THE TOWN PLANNER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED JUN 1 9 2003 South old Town CIerI Memorandum To: Albert Krupski, President, Board of Trustees Members of the Board of Trustees From: Valerie Scopaz, AICP, Town Planner /. ~~ Re: DGEIS ~r..:J Date: June 19,2003 This morning Peggy Dick!3rson and Patricia Finnegan informed me of specific concerns on the part of the Trustees regarding the DGEIS. To wit: delayed receipt of a copy of the document, insufficient numbers of copies and failure to mention the Trustees as a permitting agency and failure to allow the Trustees to review a copy in advance of printing. After speaking with Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk, it appears that a copy of the DGEIS was transmitted to your office on the 13th of June. It also appears that a misunderstanding contributed to this delay. I regret this oversight. With regard to the fact that only one copy was transmitted: earlier today I spoke with Lauren Standish, Trustee secretary, and explained that she could print out black and white copies of the DGEIS document for the Trustees, which is what I am doing for the Planning Board members since that Board also has only one copy. Lloyd Reisenberg agreed to explain to Lauren how to do this. ~ " ~ ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 22 OF 2003 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON JANUARY 7, 2003: Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy ACTION CLASSIFICATION, INTENT TO ASSUME LEAD AGENCY STATUS, INTENT TO REQUIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, AND RECEIPT AND CIRCULATION OF DRAFT SCOPE OF THE DGEIS WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southold (the "Board") is aware of, has participated in the preparation of, or has prepared a number of land use plans, studies, analyses, etc. over the past approximately 20 years, and WHEREAS, the Board intends to implement recommendations of these studies that would advance the goals of the Town, and WHEREAS, the Board has articulated the goals ofthe Town in various documents and reiterates here the intent to achieve the Town's vision as identified in the following goals: . The Town's goal is to preserve land including open space, recreation and working landscapes. . The Town's goal is to preserve rural, cultural, historic character ofthe hamlets and surrounding countryside. . The Town's goal is to preserve its natural environment; to prevent further deterioration of resources and to restore degraded resources back to pristine or near pristine quality. . The goal ofthe Town is to preserve and promote a range of housing and business opportunities that would support a socio-economically diverse community. . The Town's goal is to increase transportation efficiency and to create attractive alternatives to automobile travel, while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of the Town, State, County and local roadways. '. WHEREAS, these studies generally included implementation tools and recommendations designed to address the land use and social need aspects addressed in each study, and WHEREAS, since the action is a Town-wide initiative, it is determined to be a Type I action pursuant to SEQRA Part 617.4 (b)(I), and therefore is more likely to require an environmental impact statement, WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southold has exclusive authority to effect zoning changes, create and/or modify legislation, establish land use programs and implement the various measures and tools identified in the past land use and social need studies of the Town, and WHEREAS, since the Board holds this exclusive authority, the Town Board is the appropriate entity to assume lead agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and WHEREAS, the Board does intend to solicit inter-agency and public input, and will consider potential impacts under a public forum provided through the intended Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) procedure, and WHEREAS, implementation of these recommendations may be interrelated and potentially in divergence, to the extent that coordinated consideration of implementation is necessary and appropriate and further that one recommendation on its own may not result in an environmental impact; however, the combined effect of several recommendations may result in environmental impacts, thus indicating the potential for cumulative impacts, and WHEREAS, notwithstanding the far reaching nature of the intended action, the Board finds that by virtue of the fact that the initiative is intended to implement the past planning studies of the Town, it is consistent with the Town Comprehensive Plan which includes the zoning code and building zone map, zoning decisions, goals, legislative actions and the record of decisions that forms the Town's direction in terms of achieving its vision, and WHEREAS, as a result, the action is not expected to cause significant adverse impacts since it advances the goals of the Town; however, the action is of Town-wide significance. and does involve changes to natural and human resources; is a Type I action pursuant to SEQRA Part 617 and therefore is more likely to require an environmental impact statement; and, lastly that the action will affect property, resources and the shaping of the Town's future, and WHEREAS, based on the above facts and the Part I Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) prepared for the Board's consideration in determining significance, the Board finds it prudent to take a "hard look" at the proposed action through the preparation of a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS), and WHEREAS, the Board is familiar with the scoping process as outlined in SEQRA Part 617.8 Scoping, and WHEREAS, the Board has established a team of professionals to assist with the comprehensive implementation strategy, consisting of the Town Attorney, the Town Planner and Town supporting staff, two (2) planning consultants and two (2) consulting attorneys, and this team has prepared a draft scoping outline for the purpose of determining the scope and content ofthe DGEIS, and WHEREAS, the Board received this scope and deliberated upon its content and finds the draft scope to be adequate to commence the scoping process for the DGEIS pursuant to SEQRA Part 617.8 (b), and WHEREAS, the Board intends to provide an opportunity for interested agencies and the public to provide input into the scope of the DGEIS through circulation of the draft scope and solicitation of public comments at a public scoping meeting, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby classifies the Town of Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy as a Type I action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board hereby assumes lead agency status in review of the action and for the purpose of compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Action (SEQRA) Part 617, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board fmds that a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) is appropriate and hereby issues the appropriate determination (via a Positive Declaration) to require such document for the proposed action, considering that the recommendations may result in potential impacts which may include cumulative andlor generic impacts, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board hereby receives the draft scope for the purpose of initiating the scoping process pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617.8, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board will hold a public scoping meeting on January 29, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall meeting room, and a period of 10-days will be provided following the public scoping meeting to allow for submission of written comments, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board authorizes the Town Clerk to file notice of the public scoping meeting in two (2) local newspapers on January 16 and January 23,2003 and the draft scope will be made available on the Town web-site, at local libraries and at the Town Clerks office prior to the scoping meeting, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board authorizes the Town Clerk of the Town of Southold to file this Resolution, the Part I Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), the Positive Declaration, and the Draft Scope ofthe DGEIS with the following parties: Town of South old Supervisor's Office Town Clerk of the Town of South old Town of South old Planning Board Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Town of South old Town Trustees Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works Suffolk County Water Authority Suffolk County Planning Commission NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Commissioner, Albany NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Regional Office at Stony Brook NYS Dept. of Transportation NYS Dept. of State US Army Corps of Engineers Inc. Village of Greenport Town of River head Town of Southampton Town of Shelter Island Parties of Interest Officially on Record with the Town Clerk (if applicable) pg,~Q.~.~;tJ.. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk .', ", 'y. 14-16-2 (2/87)-7c SEQR 617.21 Appendix A State Environmental OualitJr Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL A'SSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full EAl' is desigp.ed to help apJJ.!icants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may~be significant. The question of whether an action may be s(gnificant is not always easy to answer. Frequently, there are aspects of a project that are suoJective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal lmowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in envIronmental analysis. In addition, many who )lave lo).owledge in one particular area may not be aWare of the broader concern affecting the questIOn of sIgnIficance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the ~etermination Pl'ocess )tas been prderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of mforrnatlon to lit a project or actIOn. -FuD-EAF €omponenb:-'Fhe-fult-E-AFis comprised-ufUucc p<u l,. ~ ---~--- --~- ------ Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place m Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying_ the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides g\,Iidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially-large impact. The form arso identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the Impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNlFICANCE - TYPE 1 AND UNLISTED ACTIONS IdentifY the Portions of EAF completed for this project: ---X...Part 1 _Part 2 - Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts I and 2 and 3 if appropriatek and anf. other supporting information, and considering both the magnitude and importance of eac impac, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: A. The proiect will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which - will no have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. B. Although the protect could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a - significant effect or this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared. * _C. The project may result in one or more large and important imRacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a posItive declaration Will be prepared. · A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Town of Southold Comprehensive Implementation Stratel!V Name of Action Town Board Name of Lead Agency Joshua Horton Supervisor Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer If different from responsible officer) Date \ PART 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This docwnent is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A thiough E. Ariswers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any adaltional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION Town of Southold Comvrehensive Imvlementation Stratel!V Provosed Action would applv to the entire Town NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR Town Board. Town of Southold ADDRESS Town Hall 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 CITY/PO STATE Southold NY NAME OF OWNER (If different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE (631) 765-1938 ZIP CODE 11971 BUSINESS TELEPHONE ADDRESS CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE DESCRIPTION OF ACTION See Attached A. SITE DESCRIPTION Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: Urban ....K..Industrial ~Itural (non-farm) ~ Other Marine ~ Commercial ....K..Forest ~Itesidential (Suburban) -K.,Agriculture 2. Total acreage of project area: * acres * 53.7 square miles or approx. 35,000 acres APPItOXIMATE ACItEAGE" Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) Wetland (Freshwater or Tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of EeL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock. earth or fill) Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces Other (Indicate type) ** Beyond scope ofEAF at this time; GElS to be prepared PItESENTL Y AFTER COMPLETION acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? ** a. Soil drainage: ~ Well drained li..% of site; ....K.. Moderately well drained...!i..% of site; ~ Poor drained 1Q.. % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group I through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? 10.000010 acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 2 "'..1- 4. Are there bedrock outcropp.ing on project site? Yes a. What is depth to bedrock? . 1.000:!: (in feay- 5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: X 0-10% 85 %; X 10-15% 10 % T 15% or greater"3 % X No 6. Is project substantially_contigt!ous to" or contain a building,.site, or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places I X Yes _ ~o 7. I~j)roject substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? X Yes _No 8. What is the depth of the water table? ~ (in feet) *Entire Town; Variable (0-95:1: feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? ...1i- Yes No 10.Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? X Yes .1'<0.._~ 11.Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? 1L Yes No According to NYS Natural Herita/?e Pro/?ram Identify each species IZ.Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) 1L Yes No Describe Beaches, cliffs. dunes. /?eolo1?ic formations 13.Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? X Yes No If yes. explain Open space rural tlualities, historic set/in/?, prominent views, recreational facilities 14.Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? X Yes _No I 5. Streams within or contiguous to project area Multiple surface waters within Town a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16.Lakes, ponds. wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: Multiple wetlands within Town a. Name b. Size (In Acres)_ 17.Is the site served by existing public utilities? X Yes _ No Partial water/gas service; However, water supply limitations are present and no sewer districts are present.. a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? X Yes _ No See Above b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? ..JL Yes No 18.Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? ..JL Yes _ No Partial 19.Is the site located in or substantiallY ~ontiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? ..JL Yes _ No Partial 20.Has the sitc ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? X Yes No Town landfill aiiiTTocalizerfSiies B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION* ACTION IS LEGISLATIVE -- No physical changes are proposed; project/site specific impacts may occur. 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor 35,000:!: acres. b. Project acreage to be developed N/A acres initially; N/A acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped N/A acres. d. Length of project, in miles: N/A (if appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed N/A % f. Number of off~street parking spaces existing N/A ; proposed N/A g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour N/A (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially Ultimately 3 . . I L Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure: N/A height; N/A width; N/A length. J. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? N/A ft. 2. How much natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? N/A tons/cubic yards. 3. Willdisturbedareasbereclaimed? Yes No -K.N/A a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? Yes No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? Yes No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? ~ acres. 5. ;~\~:{ matur~ ~~rest <rerN~ Oflls~me ~~lu~~ _~~~j~~?;h~ri~~f,d~~~i~~~etation be removed by this 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction N/A months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: N/A However, implementation will be multiple phases. a. Total number of phases anticipated (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase I _ month _ year (including demolition). c. Approximate completion date of final phase _ month _ year. d. Is phase I functionally dependent on subsequent phases? _ Yes No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? Yes -K. No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction N/A ; after project is complete N/A . IO.Number of jobs eliminated by this project N/A . II.Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? -K. Yes If yes, explain: Possible transfer of development ril!hts. No 12.Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? _ Yes -K. No Project specific; not part of a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount lel!islative chanl!es. b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13.Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? Yes L No Type: Sanitarv wastewater 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? _ Yes X No If yes, explain: 15.Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? X Yes _ No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? L Yes No Project specific; not part of a. If yes, what is the amount per month N/A tons legislative changes. b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? -K. Yes No e. If yes, give name Town facilitv location Clltchol!lle d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? X Yes No e. If yes, explain Recvclable portion of waste stream. 17.Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste'! Yes ~ No a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years. 18.Will project use herbieides or pesticides? _ Yes ..J{ No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? Yes X No 20.Will project produce operating noise exceeding the loeal ambient noise levels?_ Yes .K.. No Project specific; not part of legislative changes. 21.Will project result in an increase in energy use? _ Yes--.X... No If yes, indicate type(s) ProiectSpecific 4 .. 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity 23.Total anticipated water usage per day N/A gallons/day. N/A gallons/minute. (See also Narrative Request, Section D). 24.Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? ..L Yes No If yes, explain Locallmolementation 25.ApprovaIs Required: The Town Board is the only agency that can implement the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy; However; other related project specific approvals are as follows: Type Submittal Date Town Board Town Planning Board Town Zoning Board County Health Department Other Local Agencies State Agencies Other Regional Agencies Federal Agencies .K Yes X Yes X Yes X Ye.q X Yes X Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No .KNo XNo Rezoning, Legislation Site Plan, Subdivision Variances ._ Water l~ul'ply, .flanitary ,\,y"tp~ Roadwork Roadwork, Wetlands C. ZONING AND PLANNING INFORMATION I. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? ..JL Yes No If yes, indicate decision required: . X zoning amendment ..JL zoning vl!riance ..JL special use permit .K subdivision X site plan _ new/revision of master plan ..JL resource management plan X other L WRP Consistencv 2. What is the zoning classification(s) of the site? Multiole residential. commercial and soecial lOninl! dlStrtcts. . 3. What is the maximum potential development ot the site It developed as permitted by the present zomng.f Build out analvsis will be oerformed as Dart of GElS. 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? Possible chanl!es to result from olanninl! efforts. 5. What is the maximum potential develop.ment of the site if developed as I!.ermitted by the proposed zoning? Alternative liuild out analvsis will be oerformed as Dart of GElS 6. Is th~Jlroposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? X Yes _No 7. What are the p'redominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a 1/4 mile radius of proposed action? Multiole zoninl!. Town-wide 8. ~Jre proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a 1/4 mile? _Yes _No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision ofland, how many lots are proposed? NIA a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? NIA IO.Will proposed action require anj' authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? _ Yes --2L No II.Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? Yes X No Potential specific needs will be addressed. a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? Yes No 12.Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? Yes ..L No Planning efforts expected to reduce buildout traffic. a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic'! _ Yes _ No 5 1 D. INFORMATIONAL DETAILS AND WATER SUPPLY NARRATIVE REQUEST Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. Ifthere are or may be any adverse impacts !!s.sociated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to nuhgate or aVOid them. 1. Provide explanation of existing site use, occupancy, structures, sanitary flow, water use; compare to proposed use, occupancy, structures, sanitary flow, water use. 2. Indicate the source of water supply, nearest public water main, nearest public well field, and adjacent private wells (if known). 3. If public water supply is proposed, indicate the ability of the water utility to provide water supply to the project. Provide letter of water availability or detailed explanation of status of review by water lIti1jty 4. If private water supply is proposed, indicate the well specifications, water quality based on on-site water quality data. Provide Suffolk County Department of Health Services approval or detailed explanation of status of review by agency. E. VERIFICATION I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Date ~JI'C).3/ 1'13 Signature Title Town Supervisor If the ac . n is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form be ore proceeding with this assessment. F. PREPARER N_ ChUl~~ Si"""&7//~- 1y{7~ I t' Title Managing Partner Date 6 \' ". Town of Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy EAF Part 1 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION The proposed project involves 1he evaluation and where appropriate implementation by the Southold Town Board of the recommended planning and program tools and measures as described in the planning studies undertaken within the Town over the past 20 years. The studies, plans and recommendations have been reviewed in terms of current needs and Town goals to achieve the Town's vision as articulated in the following plans. . Parks, Recreation & Open Space Survey (1982) . Town Master Plan Update and Background Studies (1984/85) . US/UK Countryside Stewardship Exchange Team (1991) . Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan (1992) . Town Affordable Housing policies and program (1993) . Fishers Island Growth Plan (1987-1994) . Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Study (1994) . Seaview Trails of the North Fork (1995) . Peconic Estuary Program (1995) . Economic Development Plan, Town of Southold (1997) . Community Preservation Project Plan (July, 1998) . Southold Township: 2000 Planning Initiatives . County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study (1999) . Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy (1999) . Town Water Supply Management & Watershed Protection Strategy (2000) . Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (2001) . Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (2001) . North Fork Travel Needs Assessment (2002) . Blue Ribbon Commission for a Rural Southold, Final Report (July 14, 2002) . Southold Town Code, Zoning Code and Zoning Map These recommendations (consolidated and summarized in the attached table) would be considered by the Town Board for implementation in the form of amendments to Town procedures, the Town Code and various Town regulations, in conformance with the Town's Master Plan. As a result, the proposed project involves legislative changes, with no specific physical changes proposed. The Town Board intends to initially consider all prior recommendations with an emphasis on those that protect farmland, and open space, promote affordable housing; maintain and enhance character of hamlet centcrs and preserve natural resources. The Board may prioritize, narrow down or select implementation tools that best achieve the goals of the Town. The basic goals of the above-referenced plans and studies include: . The Town's goal is to preserve land including open space, recreation and working landscapes. . The Town's goal is to preserve nlral, culhlral, historic character of the hamlets and surrounding countryside. . The Town's goal is to preserve its natural environment; to prevent further deterioration of resources and to restore degraded resources back to pristine or near pristine quality. . The goal of the Town is to preserve and promote a range of housing and business opportunities that would support a socia-economically diverse carrununity. . The Town's goal is to increase transportation efficiency and to create attractive alternatives to automobile travel, while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of the Town, State, County and local roadways. The Board will solicit inter-agency and public input, and will consider potential impacts under a public forum provided through a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) procedure. The proposed action will provide a means to ensure that the above-listed Town goals will be achieved through a comprehensive, well- established and well-considered land use decision-making framework. " SEQRA POSITIVE DECLARATION Notice ofIntent to Prepare a Draft Generic EIS Determination of Significance Lead Agency Town of Southold Town Board Contact: Hon, Joshua Horton, Supervisor Address: Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Date: January 7, 2003 This notice is issued pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act - SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and Chapter 44 of the Town Code ofthe Town of Southold. The lead agency has determined that the proposed action described below may have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Generic Environmental hnpact Statement (GElS) will be prepared. Title of Action: Town of Southold Comprehensive hnplementation Strategy SEQR Status: Type I Action Description of Action: The proposed project involves the evaluation and where appropriate implementation by the Southold Town Board of the recommended planning and program tools and measures as described in the planning studies undertaken within the Town over the past 20 years. The studies, plans and recommendations have been reviewed in terms of current needs and Town goals to achieve the Town's vision as articulated in the following plans. . Parks, Recreation & Open Space Survey (1982) . Town Master Plan Update and Background Studies (1984/85) . USIUK Countryside Stewardship Exchange Team (1991) . Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan . Town Affordable Housing policies and program (1993) . Fishers Island Growth Plan (1987-1994) . Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Study (1994) . Seaview Trails of the North Fork (1995) . Peconic Estuary Program (1995) . Economic Development Plan, Town of South old (1997) . Community Preservation Project Plan (July, 1998) Location: SCTMNo.: Determination of Significance . Town Comprehensive Implementation Strategy . Southold Township: 2000 Planning Initiatives . County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study (1999) . Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy (1999) . Town Water Supply Management & Watershed Protection Strategy (20 . Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (2001) . Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (2001) . North Fork Travel Needs Assessment (2002) . Blue Ribbon Commission for a Rural Southold, Final Report (July 14, ; . Southold Town Code, Zoning Code and Zoning Map These recommendations (consolidated and summarized in the attached table) would be considered by the Town Board for implementation in the form of amendments to Town procedures, the Town Code and various Town regulations, in conformance with the Town's Master Plan. As a result, the proposed project involves legislative changes, with no specific physical changes proposed. The Town Board intends to initially consider all prior recommendations with an emphasis on those that protect farmland, and open space, promote affordable housing and preserve natural resources. The Board may prioritize, narrow down or select implementation tools that best achieve the goals of the Town. The basic goals ofthe above-referenced plans and studies include: . The Town's goal is to preserve land including open space, recreation and working landscapes. . The Town's goal is to preserve rural, cultural, historic character of the hamlets and surrounding countryside. . The Town's goal is to preserve its natural environment; to prevent further deterioration of resources and to restore degraded resources back to pristine or near pristine quality. . The goal of the Town is to preserve and promote a range of housing and business opportunities that would support a socio-economically diverse community. . The Town's goal is to increase transportation efficiency and to create attractive alternatives to automobile travel, while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of the Town, State, County and local roadways. The Board will solicit inter-agency and public input, and will consider potential impacts under a public forum provided through a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) procedure. The proposed action will provide a means to ensure that the above-listed Town goals will be achieved through a comprehensive, well-established and well- considered land use decision-making framework. The proposed action would apply to the entire Town. All of District 1000 2 Determination of Significance Town Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Reasons Supporting This Determination: The proposed project involves the evaluation and where appropriate implementation of 20 years of planning recommendations in a comprehensive manner and consistent with current Town needs. By virtue of the fact that the initiative is intended to implement the past planning studies of the Town, it is consistent with the Town Comprehensive Plan which includes the zoning code and building zone map, zoning decisions, goals, legislative actions and the record of decisions that forms the Town's direction in terms of achieving its vision. The action is not expected to cause significant adverse impacts, since it advances the goals of the Town. However, the action is of Town-wide significance, and does involve changes to natural and human resources. In addition, since the action is a Town- wide initiative, it is determined to be a Type I action pursuant to SEQRA Part 617, and therefore is more likely to require an environmental impact statement. Finally, since the action will affect property, resources and the shaping of the Town's future, it is prudent to perform a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS). As a result, the considerations noted above, and the following potential impacts are identified as the Reasons Supporting This Determination: 1. The application has been reviewed pursuant to the Criteria for Determination of Significance contained in Part 617.7. Consideration has been given to information supplied by the applicant including a Part 1 Environmental" Assessment Form. 2. The proposed action may result in impacts to the natural and human resources of the Town, individually, cumulatively or synergistically. Zone changes and/or Town Code revisions may be necessary to implement recommendations. 3. The action may set a precedent with regard to the growth and character of the Town and/or individual communities. For Further Information Contact: Greg Yakaboski, Esq., Town Attorney Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Telephone: (631) 765-1889 Copies ofthis Notice Sent to: Town of Southold Supervisor's Office Town Clerk of the Town of Southold Town of Southold Planning Board Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Town of South old Town Trustees Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works Suffolk County Water Authority Suffolk County Planning Commission NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Commissioner, Albany NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Regional Office at Stony Brook NYS Dept. of Transportation NYS Dept. of State US Army Corps of Engineers Inc. Village of Greenport Towns of Riverhead, Southampton and Shelter Island Parties of Interest Officially on Record with the Town Clerk (if applicable) 3 IMPLEMENTATION TOOLSIMECHANISMS AND KEy GoALS MATRIX This table represenls II consolida.ion of the recOlllIf'<<.nctat;onsofplanning reportS and sn,d,es overtne p"s110 yeaTs (43 spcc,ticreco=dalioru)', some nu:UUl'c:smay iqlPly TO more than Olle su.~ary, ihe most applicablesubcafq:orywasclloilenll.lOolstmechllllisrNaTC li~onlYQI1CC:; if each of these me<;hllnisrnsllools were implernellled, the Town ~overnmenlal!edllC4tionnl!social framc:work w(mld be con!u<unlt willi the comprehellsive pllUl u dofmod bypast initiatives au!. recommendation&. ihus implen1cntini the plannini rcpllrts II.Dd studie$ oflbe pds:Il0~; tM CI.lTTenl need for CeIlllin measures and their IJTgency hued un ,;:jUTeltt canditions mw!t $Iill be lleWrmiuel1. IIIld paliey decisiaUll eonccmiq: impkmonwian:l1ll1a[ ,till be 1tIWie. NOle: Stlltll.\ Column imcnded to indiClWl proirams ~ist (E) all\l will be reviewed mid impravcdlculJlwccd; <no llKpl'OJlOlIC4lo be creaTed {Pl. 5-Acre U nin (A-C Diatricttown-wide or ilie uea) Ru",l wc<ontive Dist!:icVRID asedOllincentive zoW:o ;CJ[chan e of benefits, i.e mainlain 0 en aceifurmuse for odof~ inexch.an of PDRat 'ate 'eldldensit Acu1turlll OvedayDistrictlA-C Zouin Review eo ic definition ilild als) A-C Dim'ict UseJDimensionlll PlI!1IIDete\"s (mechanics ofzoue; now essentiall same as other ~sidential ZODes) Review S cia! Permit Provisionll (Win!lry-ViDe d; ade uate fannstarni arkin R~view ZOllU,g Code (mandlltOl")' clustering, 1-o<:l'8,,-tiou&1 requirements, revise Sign Ordillance; review R--o, LB district', Wlllef dependent \i8e1l; llCCllSSOry apartn:lllnta, AHD lilandards (expirations), B&B's, home occu ation.'l,discaur estri sha ina centers & fa:.tfood in HE,Da"lots,encoura ecommoudriveWll s;chan cofuser uirementsl ReviewZonin Ma MattituckCreek,i.oduslrialonRoute25w6!l!ofGreell rt,HD.illGreen ort;wllterde endl:lntuseil,.t>J-ID. ealorex d) ReviewSubdivisionRe lations rondr uirements;d!"aiull e;li tin ;infrastrnclUI-o) ReviewHi wa S ecifications roadre uirernenu;draiua e;1i ting;inihl~ture) ] ConservationSubdivisiouPro m deiineWld lement75-80%land re6Crvauonthroll landlllo""1:!Oolsanddensit reduction) Plamlln ProOilss&EncourageComminee/A ne partiel ation(fOffilllli:re e,submission coufereocc, review de lIfl:mecntalor anization.;reviewcommirteell;emer DC service rovider' III TransferofDevelo mentRi tslNon-Comi IlOulIClusterin D~v~lo =ntRi tsBank mecl1aIllimfora. ro 'al~densit reloClltionf= omenl lncen:ive Zonin IWlIled Devolo t District Ordinance ( ovide fur tlexible devel mentl "eld in exchilil e of ecial blie benefit5, i,e. affordable ho infrastrUCture, dedication, etc. Tree Preservation Ordinance Unit removal oflreea unlells thl"Ou subdivision/site Ian review; <kfille tree si7Jl and licable lLC1'Ca Critical EuvirDII1llental Lands Ordinance Sl slo ea and esc =nls, shallow "'Oundwater, wetlllDds, waterwavs; define for vield ses) SEQRA Ordinance Revie<.VlRevi:riOll T 1 List; ssibl add Scenic-Bvwa ; Critical Environmental Areas 'SCl:nic B ~Wa s Overla D~velo ment Controls (RoUL<: 48/15; defIne corridor reconcile fann stmcnu-es; setbaclcs, mass, ,architecture; Committee review, SE RA desi lauoo I 'Edu~a-'d'8niEnfo~min(' ."'- 'cultural District ReviewlEducation A 'cuiture and Markels Law; eDcoura e articimuion; maintain exis:in lCl a) I Creme Gener.<l Guidance Do<:urnents esi Manual, tran ortation IT'.ana ement/traffic calmin develo illumination standards; BMPs; crosa acceas a ewmta. aide ~ ilCCU8S} ~"rural Environment Education (etlsure oad uahty wrfacei und surface v,alera; BMPs; !PM' coastal e\"oaion control; beach width monitorin , \),islershed Protection ZonelSGPA's (si na e, educatioual di~1ribution materials, link with land use controls) EncoW"B e use of ubbc trn ortation (relate to TrauspoJ1alion Mana ement Plan; create huhs; fe linka 'ea; winery ahuttlea Transportatioll Management Plan (rrllllllpoltatioD Commission; enOJurage lranspor!alion/pedesllian iroproveltWlllS; ellcourage public Irllnspoltati<lll; create hlllnlet hulls; ferry linkagea, winery ahuttles, I si u e .'best route to"; work with LIRR) Economic Development Plan (manage tourism~ ,;onunercial fIshing; recreational boating; unique of agricultural opportunities~ maricuiturt; capital improvement progr~ B&B's. netWork of visitor CflDters) Enforcement ille lcon.versionofa -culturalbuildin ;useex eofuaere mrementa 1- Ca'-ltli.j1Iilf'M~lue~dHlE'--'~"nditut:'e!i 1m rove Waterfronl AOce8S uillitiona; obtainimaintain, inventorY Town land llUd im rove) AdmiDisterParksofTown-wideSi ificance(invenlor Town land, conform to uk Ian; uhlicbeacb. uaJity' ruvemtnta Priuritize and Su le11>>Ilt CPPP additionnl a uisilion8; SCC:llic b -\Va ac uisilious', sensitive land; rioritize le;< letn<lntifnecessar 'j)fli~trf;;~ AffordableHousln Polic 0 icl diversit ,tar etalllldnewdevelo nt,reviewevel,2-5 ars; videinoentiws,lll:Oe a a,linoncW.llIISi5tance;Ho I COllcentrateDevelo ffiCntinHamleU defiDeluunlels;enwrea ria:einfrll~tructure;aifordablehousin ;liukwithlllud~In8Chanisnw'tools; ilil1' oven>>nt Park DiltrictlS<;hoot District Boundarie8 Confonnit determine need and reconcile distriots Update Pari< Inve:otor and Mana nl Plan ( rior 1980 stud needs u g; input into OIS; I1llUIll. e recreational resou=la) Create a Parks and Rooreation nt (mana ~ ,r~creational resource~, non-cl1urch cemebries) $cenicB -Wi -Mana rncntPro n oute48IRoute25CUlTentl deBi ated;si a ,JinkwithOveda foratandardFI 'de1ine.vlandll9llcontrol& Trail InV6010r fI'rail CommitteelBikewa fIlII rtation Commissionaxists, determine . Ie committee;inven into OIS, ,trailheaddiroction.a\informationinkioskll wventor and Mana eCn1turalReoomces aroha.eolo 'call ~ensitiveareas;HistoricDiatrictdoai IJeIl;landmukdosi;in utintoOIS. ArcbitecturnlReviewEoardillldDesi Pare.metet5 (determine need; establiahboo ; enerate 'dancc;inte teintolandtlSllreview IS Scenic AdvillOr Bod detmmine need tar new Committee; mana ""..~",,,r Housm FinauciaJ Assistance Pro orth Fork Housin Alliance; review other rtunities based on 1993 ort and U Devel WaterS 1 MasterPlan[fowninvolvemenl,SCWA re arin ; mana einfraatrnetun.withothera ncies) Emer ene Pre eas undwater contamination. drou I mana ement; eWJ\lfe ede lI!Ite emer c aetV1Ces lice, fire ambulance flood huard miti 'on Social Services Pro am (Beuior citizen care, ade uate community facilities, cia care, meals 011 wheels, churches. librariel Aut "alll",tnlfficca!min Polic ^""""''' ,eroaio.u , p p P E E E E E E P E P P P P E P x x x x X X x x x E P E E E P x x x x P E x E E E p x X X X P E E E P P P E E P x X X X X X X X X E P E E Draft Scope for the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY Southold Town Board Action January 7, 2003 This document provides an outline for use by the Town of Southold Town Board (as Lead Agency) in determining the content and format of the Draft Generic Environmental hnpact Statement (Draft GElS), for the proposed action known as the Southold Comprehensive hnplementation Strategy (SCIS). DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The proposed action involves the evaluation and where appropriate implementation by the Southold Town Board of the recommended planning and program tools and measures as described in the planning studies undertaken within the Town over the past 20 years. The studies, plans and recommendations have been reviewed in terms of current needs and Town goals to achieve the Town's vision as articulated in the following plans. . Parks, Recreation & Open Space Survey (1982) . Town Master Plan Update (1985) . Fishers Island Growth Plan (1987-1994) . US/UK Countryside Stewardship Exchange Team (1991) . Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan (1992) . Town Affordable Housing policies and program (1993) . Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Study (1994) . Seaview Trails of the North Fork (1995) . Peconic Estuary Program (1995) . Economic Development Plan, Town of South old (1997) . Community Preservation Project Plan (July, 1998) . Southold Township: 2000 Planning Initiatives . County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study (1999) . Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy (1999) . Town Water Supply Management & Watershed Protection Strategy (2000) . Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (200 I) . Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (200 I) . North Fork Travel Needs Assessment (2002) . Blue Ribbon Commission for a Rural Southold, Final Report (July 14,2002) These reconunendations (consolidated and summarized in the attached table at the end of this document) would be considered by the Town Board for implementation in the form of amendments to Town procedures, the Town Code and various Town regulations, in conformance with the Town's Master Plan. As a result, the proposed project involves legislative changes, with no specific physical changes proposed. The Town Board intends to initially consider all prior recommendations with an emphasis on " Draft Scope Sonthold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS those that protect fannland, and open space, promote affordable housing and preserve natural resources. The Board may prioritize, narrow down or select implementation tools that best achieve the goals of the Town. The basic goals of the above-referenced plans and studies include: . The Town's goal is to preserve land iocludiog open space, recreation and working landscapes. . The Town's goal is to preserve rural, cultural, historic character of the hamlets and surroundiog countryside. . The Town's goal is to preserve its natural environment; to prevent further deterioration of resources and to restore degraded resources back to pristine or near pristine quality. . The goal of the Town is to preserve and promote a range of housing and business opportunities that would support a socio-economically diverse community. . The Town's goal is to iocrease transportation efficiency and to create attractive alternatives to automobile travel, while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of the Town, State, County and local roadways. The Board will solicit inter-agency and public input, and will consider potential impacts under a public forum provided through a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) procedure. The proposed action will provide a means to ensure that the above-listed Town goals will be , achieved through a comprehensive, well-established and well-considered land use decision- making framework. FORMAT AND CONTENT OF DEIS COVER SHEET (Indicate that the document is a "Draft" GElS; name of project, location of action, name and address of Lead Agency, as well as name, title and telephone number of contact person at the Lead Agency; names, addresses and contact information of all persons or organizations contributing to the document; date of acceptance of the document by the Lead Agency; and date by which written comments on the document are to be received by the Lead Agency) SUMMARY (Provide brief summary of the proposed action, to include: location of the Town of Southold, the need for and benefits of the action, a description of the action, the anticipated significant adverse impacts of the action, corresponding mitigation measures of those impacts, alternatives considered, and the permits and approvals required to implement the action.) 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 1.1 Project Purpose, Need and Benefits 1.1.1 Background and History (Provide brief description of the existing pattern of land use within the Town. Describe the various Town, county, NYS and private planning efforts in regard to land use decision-making, and the interrelationships between these plans and the agencies proposing or implementing each. Discuss the forces and/or conditions which have caused this effort to be proposed at the present time. Describe GElS process as it pertains to this action) 1.1.2 Public Need and Municipality Objectives (JustifY proposed action in terms of Town goals, Discuss the need for this action and fulfillment of public desires.) Page 2 .' Draft Scope Sonthold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS 1.1.3 Benefits of the Project (Provide brief listing/discussion of the benefits to accrue from the proposed action. Discuss the logic and rationale for the choices being addressed) 1.2 Location (Indicate that proposed action is applicable within all of Town. Describe locations of individual types of land uses as distributed within Town, in terms of roadway access, the various zones, districts, utility services, etc.) 1.3 Description ofthe Proposed Action 1.4 Additional Action Thresholds (Provide thresholds and conditions that would trigger the need for supplemental determinations of significance or site specific EIS's. 1.5 Permits and Approvals Required (Provide brief discussion of the remaining SEQRA processes and review stages required for the proposed action; list all required permits, reviews and approvals.) 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2.1 Geological Resources (Provide information on the existing soil, subsurface and topographic conditions of the Town, particularly in regard to those characteristics pertinent to suitability of the soils to support the uses resulting from the proposed action.) 2.2 Water Resources (Describe current status of groundwater quality, quantity, elevation and flow direction in the Town. Provide information on Town surface water bodies.) 2.3 Ecological Resources (Describe/discuss the existing vegetation resources of the Town, including habitats found, acreages of each habitat type, significant species and/or habitats found, etc. Describe/discuss wildlife species found or anticipated, based on habitats found, significance of wildlife species found, etc. IdentifY wetlands and unique habitat linkages. Document contact with NY Natural Heritage Program and findings regarding unique habitats, species, or information recorded in their files). 2.4 Transportation (Describe the existing roadway characteristics and levels of congestion at pertinent intersections and roadway segments in the Town. Present information on current types, levels of usage and routes of public transit resources serving the Town, and document road improvement plans) 2.5 Air Resources (Describe/discuss existing meteorological and climate characteristics of the Town, air quality in the Town, and briefly describe the applicable air quality standards and regulations.) 2.6 Land Use, Zoning and Plans (Describe current land use and zoning patterns in the Town, Describe/discuss the various land use plans, studies, etc., on which the proposed action is based, along with the recommendations of each.) 2.7 Demography (Provide description/discussion of the existing and anticipated demographic characteristics of the Town, including population size, households, income and other relevant data. Perform build-out analysis of the Town based on current zoning, to predict population and describe future conditions) 2.8 Community Services (Provide information on the current status of the following public/community services which serve the Town): . public schools Page 3 Draft Scope Sonthold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS . police protection . fire protection . recreation . local government 2.9 Infrastructure (provide information on the current status of the following infrastructural elements): . solid waste removal and handling, including recycling . water supply . sewage & wastewater treatment . electricity . natural gas, ( if available) . Telephone/Cable TV 2.10 Community Character (Describe the existing and emerging character of the community. Describe the visual character of the Town, for observers along bordering roadways and from other public vantage points, for: hamlets, rural areas, and the transition areas between hamlets and rural areas.) 2.11 Cultural Resources (Describe/discuss the history. of the Town and the established and potential for the presence of significant pre-historic or historic and/or archaeological resources.) 2.12 Economic/Fiscal Conditions (Provide information on the current tax generation and economic characteristics of the Town and the allocation of taxes to the various taxing jurisdictions. Identify and evaluate various economic sectors within the community, major employers and sources of jobs.) 3.0 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (A build-out analysis of the Town will be performed, based on recommended changes in the land use decision-making framework. Where appropriate, specific reference to resource areas will be discussed. as provided below.) 3.1 RESOURCE IMPACTS 3.1.1 Geological Resources (The potential for erosion during construction, the ability of the soils to accommodate development, and potential changes in the topographic contours should be addressed) 3.1.2 Water Resources (The anticipated impacts on the volume and quality of recharge generated, and its impact on existing groundwater quality, quantity, groundwater flow direction and water table contours will be addressed. In addition, the potential for groundwater or surface water impact to the existing surface waters will be discussed.) 3.1.3 Ecological Resources (The amount, extent and character of natural vegetation to be affected, and its habitat value, will be discussed and analyzed. The impact on existing species, as well as the potential for rare or endangered species and potential impacts to these species will be discussed.) 3.1.4 Transportation (The impact of the anticipated changes in traffic patterns will be addressed. The document will also address the need for and impacts of the roadway improvements made necessary by the proposed action, and any changes in transportation methods, including public transit) Page 4 '. Draft Scope Sonthold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS 3.1.5 Air Resources (The potential for impact to air quality from changes in development patterns and densities. as well as from the traffic changes. will be addressed.) 3.1.6 Land Use, Zoning and Plans (Discuss the impacts of implementing the various recommendations on the land use and zoning patterns in the Town.) 3.1.7 Demography (Provide description/discussion of the changes in Townwide demographic characteristics due to implementation of the proposed action.) 3.1.8 Community Services (Discuss the increased need for public services and the impact on these services due to the proposed action. Comments provided by each community service provider, if any, will be included and addressed in the preparation of this section.) 3.1.9 Infrastructure (address the changed demand on infrastructure resources resulting from implementing the proposed action) 3.1.10 Community Character (Address the changes in the visual character of the Town due to the proposed action. Discussion of impacts to the various hamlets and downtown or local commercial centers will be provided.) 3.1.11 Cultural Resources (Discuss the potentiarimpact on cultural resources due to the proposed action.) 3.1.12 Economic/Fiscal Conditions (Provide discussion of the anticipated impacts of the proposed action on the economic pattern and level of economic activity in the various geographic and economic sectors of the Town.) 3.1.13 Use and Conservation of Energy (Discuss how the proposed action will impact the use and conservation of energy resources within the Town.) 3.2Cumulative Impacts (Indicate other pending development applications in the Town, and analyze their cumulative impacts in conjunction with those of the proposed action). 3.3 Secondary Impacts (Describe secondary or indirect impacts that will result from the proposed action). 3.4 Long Term Impacts (Address impacts that might be expected to occur over a long period of time, resulting from the incremental execution of various elements of the proposed action). 4.0 MITIGATION MEASURES 4.1 Geological Resources 4.2 Water Resources 4.3 Ecological Resources 4.4 Transportation 4.5 Air Resources 4.6 Land Use, Zoning and Plans 4.7 Demography 4.8 Community Services 4.9 Community Character/ 4.10 Cultural Resources 4.11 Economic/Fiscal Conditions Page 5 . .. Draft Scope Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS 5.0 ADVERSE IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED (Provide listing of those adverse environmental impacts described/discussed previously which are anticipated to occur, which cannot be completely mitigated.) 6.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES (provide listing of the various environmental and human resources which will be permanently committed to the proposed action.) 7.0 GROWTH-INDUCING ASPECTS (Describe and discuss those aspects of the proposed action which may result in additional growth and/or development in the Town, due directly to the proposed action, or indirectly as a result of changes in the community which are caused by the proposed action. The document will consider growth that is related to the proposed action such as infrastructure improvements, utilities, job creation, etc. to the extent that the project will be linked with such growth in the area. The potential for additional development in downtowns, local commercial centers and communities outside the project vicinity will be included. Identify "triggers" that will cause growth) 8.0 IMPACTS ON THE USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY RESOURCES 9.0 ALTERNATIVES 9.1 No Action (The current land use decision-making framework of the Town remains in its current condition, based on build-out analysis prepared in Section 3.0) 9.2 Mitigative Strategies 9.2.1 Provide for Land Preservation including Open Space & Farmland 9.2.2 Maintain & Enhance Rural & Cultural Character 9.2.3 Preserve the Town's Natural Environment 9.2.4 Provide a Sound Socio-Economic Euvironment for Residents & Businesses 9.2.5 Ensure Adequate Transportation Infrastructure EXTENT AND QUALITY OF INFORMATION NEEDED The SEQRA process and the Draft GElS prepared in conformance with this scope are intended to provide comprehensive and important information in the decision-making process for use by involved agencies in preparing their own supplemental findings and issuing decisions on their respective permits. The document will be concise but thorough, well documented, accurate, and consistent. Studies for traffic, cultural resources (if any), and other aspects of the project, prepared by qualified specialists, will be appended and referenced. Technical information may be summarized in the body of the document and attached in a separate appendix. All pertinent correspondence utilized in the document will be contained in appendices, as well as excerpts of pertinent publicly available materials. Page 6 .. Draft Scope Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN APPENDICES All pertinent information and correspondence included, presented or discussed in the document, shall be included in appendices subdivided for ease of reference. Such appendices may include, but not be limited to: economic impact analysis, groundwater and air quality data and modeling results, and engineering studies, maps, plans, regulations, etc. ISSUES DEEMED NOT RELEVANT. NOT ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANTUR ADEOUATEL Y ADDRESSED IN A PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This section is required for a complete scoping document under SEQRA. In regard to the appropriateness of economic analysis on business operations, SEQRA is quite clear. As stated in The SEQR Handbook (NYSDEC, November 1992, pg. 60), such an analysis is not appropriate for analysis in an enviromilental impact statement: Are there economic or social factors that are inappropriate for inclusion in an EIS? The potential effects that a proposed project may have in drawing customers and profits away from established enterprises or in reducing property values in a community may not be considered under SEQR. Potential economic disadvantage caused by competition or speculative economic losses are not environmental factors. In summary, it is not intended nor required that a DEIS address the potential impact of the proposed project on the business operations of any similar retail businesses in the vicinity those, of a similar size or type or otherwise, or what would be considered competition between businesses. No other issues have been identified to date. This applicant's intent is to thoroughly disclose and analyze potential impacts associated with the proposed project. This draft scope will be subject to the scoping process in conformance with SEQRA Part 617.8, followed by the issuance of a final scope by the lead agency. Page 7 lMPI.EMENTATION TOQLslMECHANISMS AND KEy GoALS MATRIx This table repr~ent5 & consclid&tion o[the recommendations ofplllnn;Dg rep<lrts &n<.J studies over t~e pllSt ~O years (43 specific recomzMlldutions); same me,uure. m&y IlWly to more than GnllllUD-ca!l:aory, rite most appiiOllble subc&legcry WlIS chosen as wolslmeehlllliBTm arc liSlCd ollly 'luce; if e..ch cfthe&e mechanismsltools \\JeTe implemented, the Town governmenti5-lI~duc&tiOtlAlIz.oci..! tnm<:work would be conJiatent with the wmprel1cn,ive pllln u defined by pau initiatives and teCOmmenda.tiona, thWl implcmcntill~ the plo.nmna reports IInd studies Oedle plllll 20 YeaTli; the current need tor cel\llin mew;~ II.nd their "1"gcncy baaed on c:urrcnt COlIditions l'TIIISt liti11 be dl:tOfauned, o.nd policy dccisiona c:oncembl, implcmenation ~t still be fT!lldc!. Now SIlUUs Colu~ intended to illW= proirlltrlll exist (E) and will be revi~wcU lIIId improvodlanllanccd; OJ, ucprop0u4 to be CfUIed (P). 5-Acre A-<;Di5tricttolNU-Wid"or cificsrea) RUI1l.llncentiveDisb.'ictIRID asedonincentiv..zonin ,exchan cfbrnefits,i,e.maintaino n e/!8rmusefol" 'odcftimeinexchan ofPDRat c 'eldfdonait A 'cultural Overla DistrictlA-C Zwrin Review hic definition and als) A-C District UselDimen.sional PlInlrIWlers (mechanics cfme; now e~ntia.:U ~ame AS other l"ilsid8ntial ZOllO.) Review S cial Pm:nit Provisions (Wino _Vine uate fannst!\Dd arm Review Zoning Codo (mandatory clustering, recreational t'llquiremenls, revise Sign Ordinance; review R-O, LB district; WIIl:er d$pendcnl\l.6ell; accUlIOryapartmClnta, MID Il!lIndarda (expilutio1Ul), 'B&B's,homeoccu ations,.dist:o eM sho "centers&fa:.tfoodinHB,fla"lots,enc econunondrivewa s;c eofuse uirements ReviewZcnin Ma .tuc:kCreek, industrial on Route 25 wtIit ofGue rt,HDinGnlen . water de e;D.dllntUlle!,AHI)-n calort Review Subdivision Ro ations (road re uirements; draiIlll e; Ii lin; infrastructure ReviewHi we S cc.ificatians roadre uiremmlls;draina ;Ii .tin ;infrwnroctunt) i CCll>lervationSubdivisicnPro m definellDd' lement75-80"1oland servationtbrou landWlelool9anddensit roduction Plannin Procoss & Enco Committeel enc Partici ll.tion formalize -wbmission conference, review de al or ; review committees; e DC service rovider' U! TransfercfDovelo mentRi UlNon-Conti WlusCluitcrin Davalc meotRi t~BDDk meochcnismlbr riMe<knsi relocati enl8nt mCl:otiveZonin lannedDevel otDismctOrdinaoce ovidefur flexibledevoJc nt/'eldinexchan of cial blicbmotits, i.... affordahlllhous' infrastructure,dodication,'ctc. Tree Preservation Ordinance imitTllTDOval of trees tw.IilSS thrall subdivision/site hlDreviow~ d.=fine INe size and a licable acre Critical Environmental Leoda Ordizumcc litee slo sand esc rrlllols. .hallow "Oundwater, wetlands, Waierwa ; define for vield ses) SE RA Ordinance ReviewrRevision (T r List; posaibl add Sceuic-Bvwll ; Critical Environmental Arcllll) ScenicB "Wa O\lerla Develo en! defmccoIDdor CornmitteeNl\liew,SE RAdesi on 'A .oultural District RevicwiEduoation A culture and Markets Law; eocourll e ~rtiCl lltiOO; maintaiD. exi:;tin lei anb I Creale General Guidance Documents eSI Manual, Iran art:'llion UWlll emeollU'affic Clllmin ,develo illumination standards; BMPs; cross acccss a e1l\llllts. side road aCCOll$) Nemral Erl\wnment Education (ensure ood ualit surrecei und sur~ Wlltm; BMPs; IPM; coastal erosion oontrol' bClach widthmoniwrin Watershed Protection ZonelSGPA's si e, educational distribution materials, link with land \l.Se controls Encoura e use of ublic rtlltioo (re1atllto TrausponationMana emem FI!\D; creale bubs; fe linkll es;win ~hutt\lls) Transportaticn Managmnmt Piau (TnmspCrWiQIl Commission; encourage tnn5pcrtationlpe~trian imprO"=1l;uts; encouragil public transportation; create Iwnlot hubs; ferry J.inkagcs, winlll')' ahuttln, 1 si na e "best route Ill"; work with LIRR) Economic Development Pbm (manage tourism; cOlIunercial fishing; recrell1iollul boating; unique of agricultural opporo.urities; maricultl1rC; Cllpita.l imtrovement program; B&B's, network of visitor centers) Enforcemeot ille I ccnversion ofa .cultural buildin "e""'.'i'....-.l 1m rove Wa.terlrontAcce$ ( uisitiOIlS;obtainlmaintain;mvtmtorvTownlandmd IIll ! AdministerPlU'ksofTown-wi~Si 'ficwee inV8Illo TO....'lllsnd,confonnlo tan; ublicbeach uaJitll rovemcutll Prioritize and S lOIllllnt CPPP additionel uisitiona; scenic b -we uisitions; sensitive lwd.; riodtiZll Create a Centralizlld Yoar-RoUIld Recreatianal Co lex 1ementifJ;leC&ll ',p.iJ!;i:'tlm'. AfTordahlcHouain Polio ioI edivllrllit ,tar etsllDdllOwdeveJc ,:reviewev ,2-5 &rs; 'deincentiVK,tcOe8llO a ! Concentreto Develo ment inHamillts define lwnlets; lllllIU('e rie!e infrastruclul'o. affcrdable hollliin ; link with land Ulle maclwIismsIlools' Park District/School District Boundaries Conformi determine need and recOIlcile districts UpdatcParkln.ventor andMe1ta Plan 'or 1980 studyoeeds u datin ;illputinIo01S;iIIIU1agerecreationalIll80UlCOS) Create II.Parks and Recreation IIIilJ]II., l-ecreationallllscUNes, =-church cemeteries) ScenicB -Wi uMana tPro Q\lte48/Rollte25cummtl desi eted'si e,linkwithOvw-la forlltand8rdsl idoliDallliand use controls Trllillnve ffrail CommittoeJBikcwa ran atian Commission exists,. detennino committee; invent into GIS, , trailhead directilXlll.l infonnation in kiosks inventor andM CulturalRllIQurces archaeolo 'call sellSitiveareas;HistoricDiIllrictdem. tton; ues'Jandnwkdosi 'in utimoGiS,r:nana Ai'llWteciuralRcviewBoardandDeai Parameters (detomJinc: need; establish bod ,entlnlle 'danoe;inte into Janduscl'lMeW 18 Scenic Adviso Bod detonnintlnoed ttD'~r: Housin Financia1.AsaUrtanoePro orthForkH A1~e;reviewotltero rtunitics basod on 1993re ortandU Devel WaterS I MasterP1an(Towninvolvemeot,SCWA re arin ; mana emfrastructurewitbothor 'es Emer enc Pro !lnldness undWide:r conttuninaticn, drou 1l7l!lIlllgemeDI; eIl8ure ede Ull.te emor c services lice, fin, ~ ; flood bazard miti 'on 1mI' eromoo Social ServicesPru (smtiorcitizen care, ade uate community fecilitiu, day care, meals all wheels, chnrcllos,libnuiea eofuserc Iinancid aWmnco; iW' t ",",0 Affill'dable Hou9in Folic E E E P E P P P P E p x X X X X X X X X X X X X E p E E E P P E E E E P x X X X P E E E p p P E E P X X X X X E P E E . . x X x X X X X x X x X X x X X x X X x X x X x X x X X x x x X X X X X X X X X X J"1I1~1 X x X Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED TO: Town Board JUN 1 6 2003 FROM: Board of Trustees Southold Town Clerk DATE: June 16,2003 RE: Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement The Trustees request a copy of the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for each Trustee to review. As of this date, June 16, 2003, the members of the Southold Town Board of Trustees have not received copies. Comments on the draft will take place after the Board's review of the documents. Thank you. 1645 Meadow Beach Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 RECEIVED FEB 2 6 2003 February 25, 2003 <O"t""I,.I T,.,w" rrnr~ Councilwoman Louisa Evans Councilmen John Romanelli, Craig Richter, and William Moore Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Dear Ms. Evans, Messrs. Romanelli, Richter, and Moore: I am writing to thank you for your support of a stronger, five-acre zoning code, with clustering, as an effective and equitable method of ensuring the Town's preservation goals. I urge your steadfast commitment to this proven method, the first step in what I hope will be many creative solutions to the threat of over-development on the North Fork. Sincerely yours, ~. ~ tl---,-- Yulie Amper /ja T/3 -r4 . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER cc:1I"own Board Moratorium Working Group . .. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southold town.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February ] I, 2003 The attached written comments on the ''Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement" with respect to the "Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy" which were the subject of a public scoping hearing held at 7:30 p.m. January 29,2003 were received by the Southold Town Clerk from the following persons prior to the close of business on February 10,2003: 1. North Fork Environmental Council, Gwen Schroeder, Coordinator 2. Long Island Farm Bureau, Inc., Becky Wiseman, Associate Director 3. Aytug Unaldi, Re: solar design solutions 4. William W. Esseks, Esq. representing farmers (1/29/03) 5. James A. Richter, R.A., Town Engineer 6. Michael J. Domino, Co-Chair Southold Town Tree Committee 7. Paul & Maureen Grippa, Old Sound Stables, 1100 CR 48, Mattituck, NY 11952 8. Edward C. Booth, 17135 Soundview Avenue, Southold, NY 11971 9. Peconic Land Trust, Timothy J. Caufield, Vice-President 10. Southold Town Land Preservation Committee 11. William W. Esseks, Esq. 108 East Main St., PO Box 279, Riverhead, NY 11901 (2/10/03) ~'hr.fo.llu(I)h' Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk Attachments (11) ~ . ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW 108 EAST MAIN STREET P. O. Box 279 R1VERHEAD, N.Y. 11901-0279 WilliAM W. ESSEKS MARCIA Z. HEFTER STEPHEN R. ANGEL ..JANE ANN R. KRATZ .JOHN M. WAGNER (531} 369.1700 WATER MILL OFFICe:: MONTAUK HIGHWAY P. O. Box 570 WATER MILL, N.Y. 11976 (631) 726~6633 TELECOPIER NUMBER (631) 369-2065 WILLIAM POWER MALONEY CARMELA M. DI TAlIA ANTHONY C. PASCA NICA 8. STRUNK February] 0, 2003 RECEIVED FEB 1 0 2003 Town Board Town of Southold P.O. Box]] 79 Southold, New York ]] 97] Southold Town C1erl Re: "Scoping" Hearing Held on January 29, 2002 for Proposed Generic Environmental Impact Statement ("GElS") Dear Town Board Members: On behalf of certain farmers/landowners, I addressed the Town Board on Wednesday, January 29,2003. At that time, I stated that I would be writing to confirm my objections to certain aspects of the SEQRA process for the proposed Generic Environmental Impact Statement ("GElS"). ' My first objection is that the Environmental Assessment Form ("EAF"), the "SEQRA Positive Declaration," and the "Draft Scope" all improperly state the SEQRA "action" as the "evaluation and where appropriate implementation" of "recommended planning and program tools and measures" described in some 20 disparate "studies" or "plans" prepared over the 20 years between ]982 and 2002. My second objection is that the "Draft Scope" document improperly includes sections that are only appropriate in a "final" scope. My third objection is that the "Draft Scope" improperly seeks to exclude consideration of the economic impacts of the proposed activity. My fourth objection is that the "Mitigative Strategies" listed as "Alternatives" in the "Draft Scope" are, in fact, not proper "alternatives" to the proposed activity. The foregoing objections are discussed at length hereunder. . ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSEl.ORS AT LAW . February 10, 2003 Page 2 I. The ProDosed Generic Environmental ImDact Statement ("GElS") Does Not Seek to Review a Proper "Action" A generic environmental impact statement ("GElS"), as authorized pursuant to the SEQRA regulations at 6 NYCRR Section 617.10(a)(1), (2), or (3), contemplates the review of specific "actions." Such "actions" are specifically defined in 6 NYCRR Section 617.2(b). The "action" purportedly identified by the Town Board in the Environmental Assessment Form ("EAP"), the "SEQRA Positive Declaration," and the "Draft Scope" for the proposed activities (see, e.g., at Pages 1 and 2 of the "SEQRA Positive Declaration," dated January 7, 2003), does not, in fact, constitute an "action" as defined pursuant to 6 NYCRR Section 617.2(b). The only definition of a SEQRA "action" that might be applicable to the proposed .activities described in the Environmental Assessment Form ("EAF'), the "SEQRA Positive Declaration," and the "Draft Scope" is set forth in subdivision "2" of 6 NYCRR Section 617 .2(b). That subdivision includes "agency planning and policy making activities that may affect the environment and commit the agency to a definite course of future decisions." The activities articulated in, for example, the "Description of Action" in the aforesaid "Positive Declaration" merely propose the "evaluation" and "where ap'propriate implementation" of an unspecified "plan and program tools and measures" set forth in soine 20 diffuse and diverse planning studies that have been conducted over a 20-year period. Nothing in the "Description of Action" involves any definitive activity that "commits the agency [i.e., the Town Board] to a definite course offuture decisions," as is required to meet the definition of an "action" under 6 NYCRR Section 617 .2(b )(2). A GElS may be undertaken, pursuantto 6 NYCRR Section 617.10(a)(4), to assess the environmental impacts of: "an entire program or plan having wide application or restricting the range of future alternative policies or projects, including new or significant changes to existing land use plans, development plans, zoning regulations or agency comprehensive resource management plans." . " ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW Pebruary 10,2003 Page 3 However, the Town Board's proposed GElS does not set out to assess the effects of any actual "program" or "plan," Rather, the only activity this is now proposed involves the mere formulation of a policy or plan. Such preliminary planning activity, which does not commit the Town to any particular plan or "definite course of future decisions," is neither a proper "action" nor a proper subject for a GElS. The Town Board should not misrepresent, as I submit it has, that the proposed GElS is to review "actions" (for example, the 20 "plans" listed on Pages I and 2 of the January 7, 2003 "Positive Declaration"). That statement is in error and should not be perpetuated. To not correct the error is to mislead the public and risk the integrity ofthe SEQRA process. If the Town Board wishes to conduct a proper process, it must first inform the public of its intended action. 2. The "Draft ScoDe" ImDroDerlv Includes Sections That Are Onlv Appropriate in a "Pinal" ScoDe The SEQRA regulations, at 6 NYCRR Section 617.8(b), specifically provide that the content of a "draft scope" should include the items identified in paragraphs" I" through "5" of 6 NYCRR Section 617.8(f). It is clear, from reading 6 NYCRR Sections 617.8(b) and 617.8(f) together, that the last two items (i.e., paragraphs "6" and "7") of 6 NYCRR Section 617.8(f) are to be included in a "final" scope, but not in a "draft" scope. These. two items include "an identification of the information/data that should be included in an appendix. . ." and "those prominent issues that were raised durifill: scoDinl!: and determined to be not relevant or not environmentally significant or that have been adequately addressed in a prior environmental review" (emphasis added). The "Draft Scope" prepared for the Town Board improperly includes sections entitled "Information to Be Included in Appendices" and "Issues Deemed Not Relevant, Not Environmentally Significant or Adequately Addressed in a Prior Environmental Review." As explained above, these sections, which cover the information described in paragraphs "6" and "7" of6 NYCRR Section 617.8(f), are not appropriate in a purported "draft" scope. The section of the "Draft Scope" entitled "Issues Deemed Not Relevant, Not Environmentally Significant or Adequately Addressed in a Prior Environmental Review," which purports to preclude discussion in the GElS of certain economic impacts of the proposed activities, is particularly objectionable. One could not possibly identify issues "raised during scoping" as irrelevant or insignificant before the scoping process has even been conducted. lt appears that . ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW February 10, 2003 Page 4 the said section was included in the "Draft Scope" in an improper attempt to avoid comprehensive analysis in the GElS of the adverse economic effects of the Town's purported "Implementation Strategy" on the Town's land values, existing commercial enterprises, existing agricultural operations, and other matters. 3. The "Draft Scope" Improperlv Seeks to Exclude Consideration of the Economic Impacts of the Propose~Activitv The section of the "Draft Scope" entitled "Issues Deemed Not Relevant, Not Environmentally Significant or Adequately Addressed in a Prior Environmental Review," which appears at Page 7 ofthe "Draft Scope," states that the GElS will not contain any economic analysis. This preliminary "pre-scoping" limitation on the extent of the environmental review for the Town Board's proposed activity is improper and ignores potentially-significant adverse , environmental impacts that may result if the Town formulates and ultimately evaluates a program.or plan that incorporates substantial development restrictions, such as five-acre zomng. At least since the Court of Appeals' decision in Chinese Staff and Workers Association v. State of New York 68 N.Y.2d 359,509 N.Y.S.2d 499 (1986), review of the economic impacts of proposed zoning changes is relevant and, in fact, required under SEQRA. As discussed by the East Hampton Supervisor, whose Town has experienced the effects of upzoning, including, but not limited to, the exclusionary effects of such a policy, the Town Board, before 'it undertakes such a dramatic change in the zoning status of the Town, must examine, inter alia the myriad economic issues and consequences that will flow from such a change. 4. The "Mitil!:ative Stratel!:ies" Listed as "Alternatives" in the "Scooinl!:" Resolution Are Not Proper "Alternatives" to the Proposed Activitv The SEQRA regulations, at 6 NYCRR Section 617.8(t), require that a "scope" for a proposed activity include, among other things, "the reasonable alternatives to be considered." The "Draft Scope" includes, at Page 6 thereof, a purported alternative called "Mitigative Strategies. " Examination of the so-called "Mitigative Strategies" reveals, however, that they are not alternatives at all, but merely another list of planning goals (i.e., provide for land preservation inCluding open space & farmland, maintain & enhance rural & cultural character, preserVe the Town's natural environment, provide a sound socio-economic environment for residents & . ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW February 10, 2003 Page 5 businesses, and ensure adequate transportation infrastructure). There is a material difference between such planning aspirations and actual "alternatives" to a proposed action. Very truly yours . W~ JJJ t>s~4t, William W. Esseks WWE:lac cc: Town Supervisor Town Clerk ~ . TO: Moratorium Planning Team RECEIVED FROM: Land Preservation Committee FEB 1 0 2003 DATE: February 10, 2003 RE: Southold Town Clerk Coordination and Implementation Strategy Input: January 17, 2003 Request for Input The Land Preservation Committee offers the following input: ~ The Committee feels that given the commitment of the community (prior preservation bonds, Community Preservation Fund), that it is critical that whatever implementation tools, laws or policies are proposed, that they are reviewed to ensure that they are not counter productive to, or have the potential to undermine the existing preservation programs. ~ The Committee does not support the creation of implementation tools, laws or policies that have the potential to limit the current or future agricultural operations on restricted or un-restricted agricultural lands. ~ The Committee supports code language defining and clarifying the Conservation Subdivision process. ~ The Committee faces an issue in regard to the subdivision of farms into smaller farm parcels (both prior to and during the preservation process). The Committee is looking to set policy in regard to whether or not subdivision should be allowed, and if so, if a minimum farm parcel size should be established. ~ The Committee supports implementation of the existing Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy. The Committee would like to reserve the right to make additional comments in the future. . - PECONIC LAND TRUST 296 Hampton Road, p.o. Box 1776, Southampton, NY 11969 (631) 283-3195 EDe (631) 204-0711 www.peconiclandtrusLorg RECEIVED FEB 1 0 2003 ~outhold Town CIeri February 6,2003 Southold Town Board Members CIO Town Clerk Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Scope of the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) that is being used in connection with the Town's Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Dear Members of the Town Board: The Peconic Land Trust appreciates the opportunity to provide input into the DGEIS scoping process that the Town of Southold is undertaking to develop its Comprehensive Implementation Strategy. We feel that we can contribute to the work of the Moratorium Planning Team and the Town of South old in this process, based on the Trust's nearly 20 years of experience in working with the five East End towns and landowners in realizing their conservation goals. Much of that experience is expressed in several of the studies under review, which were prepared with the assistance of the Peconic Land Trust including: the Southold Town Farm and Farmland Preservation Strategy, the Blue Ribbon Commission for a Rural Southold, and the Community Preservation Project Plan. The Trust supports the Town's overall goal of preserving at least 80% of its existing undeveloped land and reducing residential density by at least 60%. In developing the implementation tools to achieve these goals, the Town must consider the potential impact that any of them may have on landowners and in particular on farmers and farmland owners. So much of what we wish to preserve in Southold Town, in its rural character and natural beauty, depends critically on open space and farmland protection. Without careful planning and consideration of the potential environmental and economic impacts of the strategies adopted, we will certainly fall short of achieving our goals and may cause serious damage to those segments ofthe community that form the basis for land preservation. . In response to the invitation for input to the scoping process, the Peconic Land Trust offers the following comments and recommendations: . The Moratorium Planning Team should specify the term "working landscapes" as lIsed in the first goal stated in the SEQRA Positive Declaration: Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft Generic EIS, Determination of Signifieance (January 7, 2003). A basic goal identified from the plans and studies under review is to "preserve land including open space, recreation and working landscapes." While the references to land that is open space or used for recreation are very clear, the term "working landscapes" is oblique and lacks meaning for the purpose of the proposed action. We suggest that this term be replaced by the term "farmland and land used for agricultural purposes." This would enhauce the work ofthe Team in the following ways: (a) It would allow the focus ofthe Town's stated goal to be consistent with the specific subject and meaning of recommendations for farmland preservation found in several of the studies and initiatives under review, in particular the Southold Town Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy (1999), and the Community Preservation Project Plan. (b) It would allow for the recognition of the direct connection between the preservation of farmland and the preservation of the business of farming and agricultural activity, since one cannot be achieved without the other. (c) For this reason, it would identifY as entirely appropriate within the scope of the proposed action the analysis of the economic impact of any of the implementation tools on the business of farmi~ that may be recommended to the Town Board. This rejects nrm-ow interpretation of~ SEQRA guidelines as presented on page 7 as to the relevance of economic analysis to the scope of review as expressed in the Draft Scope for the DGEIS (January 7,2003). (d) It would be consistent with the Town's Preservation of Agricultural Lands code (Chapter 25 of the Southold Town Code) which specifically defines the preservation of Agricultural Lands and Agricultural Production as in the ''public interest" and a "proper public purpose". . ~ The Moratorium Planning Team should evaluate how effective the existing zoning codes have been in achieving the Town's goals in preserving open space and farmland. The Town must undertake a comprehensive assessment of the actual record of farmland and open space development under existing codes in order to establish a real basis for determining whether other tools such as upzoning are needed. The Trust's review of recent trends in subdivisions in the Town of Southold over the past six years reveals that the existing codes are achieving on average II-acre density (better than twice the reduction in density that would be achieved by an upzoning to 5 acres). In 2002 alone, average density on farmland and open 2 space subdivisions was 30 acres. The Moratorium Planning Team must show that 5-acre upzoning is justified and that it would provide results that are potentially better than those results achieved under existing code. . The Moratorium Planning Team should develop an implementation strategy that relies on incentive zoning tools as a more effective approach to land preservation and assess their potential for achieving preservation goals. Elements of this strategy should include the following: (a) Conservation Opportnnities Subdivisions (COS)-The Town would expedite the approval of subdivisions on farmland and open space parcels that protect at least 80% of the parccl and reducc the residential density by at least (,(J'j(,. 1\ COS would be automatically c1assiiied as a Type II actiollunder SEQRA and be subject to an expedited review. (b) The Town should classify standard subdivisions automatically as Type I actions under SEQRA and subject to more rigorous environmental impact regulations and reviews. This would act as a strong disincentive to major subdivisions. (c) Planned Development District for Farmland and Open Space (pDD)- Landowners would be entitled to significant zoning incentives by rezoning to a PDD. Landowners would make a commitment through a term conservation easement to maintain their land in agricultural production or undeveloped for a minimum term, unless during that time they submit a Conservation Opportunities Subdivision. The Town would have the right of first refusal to purchase the property or development rights at the end of the term or at any time during the term. lfthe Town is unsuccessful in reaching a mutual agreement with the landowner, then the landowner is entitled to subdivide based on the zoning stipulated in the terms of the contract establishing the PDD. This is potentially a very powerful incentive to landowners who want the security provided by the term easement. The Town benefits from the preservation of the farmland or open space for the term while allowing time to build sufficient reserves to make an effective offer to the landowner. The effectiveness of the PDD as an incentive and as a conservation tool lies in the way in which the terms and conditions of the easement allow the landowner to exit the PDD and to engage the Town in the possibility of sale of development rights. . The Moratorium Planning Team should consider the use of restrictive zoning measures only if such measures are consistent with and complimentary to the effective preservation strategies in place. Restrictive zoning recommendations, such as upzoning to 5-acre density, should be viewed as a measure oflast resort. With regard to the 5-acre zoning implementation tool, it is the Town's responsibility to evaluate the economic impact on the agricultural sector of the Town and assess the effect 3 of upzoning in creating a number of adverse conditions that work against preservation goals in the following ways: (a) Upzoning causes an immediate loss of equity value for farmers and constrains their capacity to bOlTOW against that value to support production needs and continue farming. (b) Upzoning creates undue risk and uncertainty for landowners, creating pressure to develop instead of facing additional losses. (c) Upzoning subverts the use of other conservation tools such as the sale of development rights or the donation of lane! or conservation easements to the Town or private trusts. . The Moratorium Plauuing Team should consider the implementation of incentive zoning strategies in light of the community's commitment of resources to achieve preservation goals. The overwhelming support for the extension of the Community Preservation Fund in the last election is a clear demonstration of the community's commitment to the goals ofland preservation. This mandate provides the capacity that is essential to pursuing incentive-based strategies for land preservation. The Town now has the opportunity and the means to achieve preservation goals without putting the agricultural community or other landowners in jeopardy. We recommend that the Town provide a thorough analysis of the amount of voluntary preservation that is reasonably likely to be achieved over the next 10-20 years with specific reference to all of the available tools: Town funds, CPF funds, County funds, State and Federal Funds, and Private Conservation efforts. Thank you for your efforts and consideration of these comments. Sincerely, C T~~~field Vice President 4 Town Clerk Elizabeth Neville Town Hall, Southold 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 17135 Soundview Ave Southold, NY 11971 Jan 30, 2003 RECEIVED FEB 1 0 2003 Comments on Public Hearing of Jan 30, 2003; Draft Scope ofDGEIS Southold Town Cleric I attended the session on January 30 and read the document, especially the last page where about 40 line items of possible actions are listed. Apparently the document should have described some or all of these actions in detail so that the audience could discuss the scope of a particular action. Instead we were invited to comment in general and the discussion largely dealt with pros and cons of the first line item, upzoning. Aside from whether or not we wasted our time as stated by the counsel for the :fiumers, I ask the Town Board to initiate some actions not explicitly listed in the 40 lines. PLANNING PROCESS: ZONING 5 Acre Upzoning Please determine as accurately as possible who will bear the financial burden ofland preservation and how much it will cost them over the next decade. Find the burden to the tax: payer as follows: first set your goal for land conservation ( 75% or 8(010) , make your best guess about the appreciation of land values; estimate the fraction of the limn and open space that will come up for sale over the next decade; and provide from this a rough estimate of the money required for preservation given two zoning options; 2 acres and 5 acres. The second step is to determine the current and future funds available or likely from all sources; real estate transfer taxes, private bond issues, county, state , federal and private llOurces. John Holzapfel attempted this for the BRC, but Jacked the professional input from real estate people, bankers, and land trust people that you have available. This will give an estimate of the likely tax burden, if any. 2. Find the burden on land owners in the event of upzoning as fullows; divide up the AC and R80 land by acreage. DetCrmine the appraised value of the real estate in event of2 acre and 5 acre zoning. Even better would be to estimate the net of sale after all costs are paid, such as roads, services, agents, capital glIins etc. then find out the average losses in equity as a function oflot size. Spread sheets exist for this sort of thing Determine the number oflots per parcel For example; Lot Size 3.9 A. 5.9 A. 7.9 A. 9.9 A. 14.9 A. 19.9 A. 39.9 A. 99.9 A. Lots (2A.) 1 2 3 4 7 9 19 49 Lots (SA) 1 I I I 2 3 7 19 Obtain data on the number oflots in each acreage bin. For example, there are about 300 lots in the 5-10 acres non agricultural category. Estimate the monetary yield for 2 and 5 acre zoning and the loss of equity in each acreage bin multiplied by the number oflots in each bin The sum of these will be the burden on the property owners. From the table above it seems likely that owners of 6-12 acre parcels will suffer the largest relative burden while the large land owners will suffer the largest absolute burden. Assuming a 2 acre lot is worth $200,000 and a 5 acre lot is worth $350,000, a 9.9 acre owner would suffer a loss 0[$800,000-$350,000= $450,000. Assuming 100 owners are near this acreage, the burden is $45 million. At 99.9 acres, the loss is $9,800,000-6,650,000= $3,150,000 per owner, and if there were only 10 owners the burden is $31.5 million. Although the assumptions may be inaccurate, the point is that the equity burden of upzoning ean vary widely with acreage. The monetary etl'eets of upzoning should be clearly understood before putting it into etl'ect. 3.The relative financial burdens should be understood as a matter of equity. Assume that 60% of 10,000 acres is to be preserved at $30,000/acre, the cost would be $180 million. About 1/3 of recent preservation costs come from private sources, so $120 million should be left to be covered. There is $10 million now available from tUU...aeI taxes and over 17 years there should be $70 million from that source, leaving $50 million to be covered. Federal, state and county sources can reasonably be expected to pay for at least half of that, leaving $25 million to come from tax-payers. With 10,000 tax-payers this amounts to $2,500 each spread over 10 years. This is a modest amount compared to the hundreds of thousands of do1\ars which the land owners must contribute if the upzoning is put into effect. It is possible that NO extra taxes will be required, and if there are, it seems to me that the cost is :liIr exceeded by the benefits from low population density. Mine are rough estimates. The amounts may be less, perhaps more. Better figures should be obtained and presented to the citizens before an upzone is effected. 4. A study of the financlal effects ofinereased population density should be made and reasonable ~t..... made of the cost ofinereased population compared to the cost of land preservation. If there are 10,000 acres on the table, what would be the 20 year tax costs with 2 acre zoning, 5 acre zoning and 10 acre density from conservation subdivisions? We have heard a lot of ill-informed anxiety about the high tax costs, but what would they actually be? The single and separate sma1llots would have to be included in the estimate. Supposing we are ta1lcing about 5,000, 2,000 and 1,000 new fiJrniliA$ with 2 children each, what would it cost to put the children through school? How does that compare with cost ofbuying development rights? This information must be made available to the public before decisions are made on land preservation. Tree Preservation Ordinance The proposal is to 1imit tree cutting. Befure adopting the proposed ordinance, the Town should establish the need for it. The case is not made in the draft ordinance, which just states that we need to have II lot of trees. To establish the need, II base line for tree coverage should be established from early aerial photographs (eg 1938) compared with current photographs. There have been a lot of houses put up in the woods since 1938 with some tree loss, but then a lot of farm land has been lost and trees planted around homes, so it is not clear whether we are losing or gaining trees. The ordinance is flawed in its lack of specifics. If enacted, it should encourage the control exotic and trash trees, such as mulberry, wild cherry, Norway maple, and ailanthus. It should specifY what is meant by thinning; typically this would be a distance between trees which is twice the diameter of the mature tree branches. It should place an upper limit on the tree diameter which can be cut without need for approval, such as 6" at breast height. It should permit the clear cutting of fallow land that is being returned to agricultural or scenic vista use. EDUCA nON/ ENFORCEMENT Natural Evironrnent ; Coastal Erosion Control I recommend action on bulk-he8i1ir1g fullowing that of Southampton. I refer to the article in the Long Island section of the NY Times, Sunday, Feb 2 where the .town is preventing bulk-heading in front of homes because the result is the remov8I of bea.ch to create impassable conditions at high water and ~ing the erosion at nearby homes. The littoral drift of the sand is interrupted by the bulk-heading which eventually projects wen out from the shore as the adjacent properties erode. INTERAGENCY INITIATIVES Emergency Preparedness There is a plan at County level to prepare for an emergency caused by the isolation of Long Island in the event of bridges being cut. The Town should also have a plan for this contingency; providing fur a month's 8\lPPly of water, food, fuel and medicine. The same plan is needed fur disasters at Millstone an<l Plum Island. Thank you fur your consideration of these _ns. Very truly yours, >;:~~t~~ Paul & Maureen M. Grippa Old Sound Stables 1100 County Road 48 Mattituck, NY 11952-3104 631-298-5501 January 30, 2003 RECEIVED Southold Town Board Members Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road SoutholcL NY ] ] 97 ] FEB 1 0 2003 Soufhord Town Clerl Dear Southold Town Board Members; My husband and I were in attendance at last evening's meeting to hear and comment on the "Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy - Action Classification, Intent to Assume Lead Agency Status, Intent to Require an Environmental Impact Statement, and Receipt and Circulation of Draft Scope of the DOEIS". Thank you for the invitation to present feedback, opinions and comments - involving the town's people makes for good and responsible government. Our comments and feedback are as follows: . We do not believe it is moral for the Town Board to shift land equity from the farmers to the home owners. The farm properties have been passed down through generations or purchased with this value. Southold should continue the Purchase of the Development Rights Program which has successfully provided II acre zomng. . Southold Town Board Members have the responsibility to research and respond to the legal challenges presented by the attorney, Bill Essex. . The information presented is not in a digestible format for the public's review and comments. . The Economic Impact of each and every component must be calculated and incorporated based on the current accumulated and future basis in the recommendations. . The comments of the Supervisor of East Hampton were of the utmost importance. Southold Town cannot afford to make the same mistakes as evidenced on the South Fork. All major initiatives require discussions with other townships on their success or failure and overall impact on the people, environment and economy. Must provide similar testimony from actual townships where these initiatives have been successful, especially when co-mingling so many initiatives with potentially opposing outcomes. . We concur with the comment of Dr. Tom Samuels, it is evident all of the previous unapproved, unacceptable initiatives/studies for the past 20 years have been co- mingled for possible passage this time. The tax payers will be very suspect of this approach - if it was not acceptable before what has changed to make a difference now. · The comments, questions and resources suggested by Betty Wiseman of the Long Island Farm Bureau, Inc. must be addressed to the satisfaction not only to the Town Board but also the Town's People. Please keep us advised on the forthcoming meetings addressing this initiative. Sincerely yours, ~~,~ A~ Paul Grippa A~j.~ Maureen M. Grippa Cc: Elizabeth A. Neville, Southold Town Clerk f8 -r:4- To: Southold Town Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Moratorium Planning Team From: Southold Town Tree Committee Re: Code revision I .'" RECEIVED Dear Sirs: FEB - 7 2003 Enclosed please find copies of the following: I. March 18, 2002 draft of the tree code proposal. 2. July 2, 2002 Tree Committee (TC) report to the Town Board. 3. TC minutes Oct. 11,2000 to Sept. 18,2002. 4. Jan. 14,2002 agenda ofTC meeting with Supervisor Horton. S. Dec. 16,2002 agenda Transportation Commission meeting. 6. Digital photographs of LIP A pruning-practices/clear cutting. Southard Town CIeri Careful inspection of the above will show there are five primary areas of concern that the TC has put forward. Support includes but is not limited to the planning Department, Senior Environmental Planner, Transportation Commission, NFEC, Bay Keeper Kevin McAllister, Audobon Society, etc. Opposition rests with two local realtors and the Southold Business Alliance whose self- interest has held back progress in this area. The issues are as follows: 1. To enact legislation to restrict clear cutting on the 2000 plus single and separate vacant residential lots not protected by subdivisions or commercial property codes. 2. To establish protocol for LIPA, DOT, cablevision, etc., concerning pruning, tree removaVreplacement within Town right of ways and along Scenic Highways. 3. Burial of transmission lines. 4. Protection oflandmark trees catalogued in the book Trees of Southold Town and listed in the Planning Department database. S. Employing a certified arborist to enforce codes pertinent to trees, or creating a new position to protect and manage natural resources. In conclusion the TC has a great responsibility for protecting valuable natural resources - tourism is one major industry that benefits-but lacks a code, authority, or enforcement powers. Councilmen Richter, Moore, and Wickham have expressed conditional support for these measures. Weare hopeful that your team can incorporate these into the code, and convince a fourth number of the board to move this agenda forward. We are available to answer any Questions concerning the above. -~~ Michael J. Domirfo, Co-Chair .' ". -DRAFT- March 18,2002 TREES, GRADING AND LAND CLEARING 1-1 Legislative intent. The tangible benefits that trees provide include but are not limited to: barriers to ~ Iry soil erosion, decrease surface runoff, protect environmentally sensitive areas, . ~ . decrease municipal costs, increase the value of improved and unimproved real ~ property. It is this Town Board's intent and desire to enhance the aesthetic 1~JI ... qualities of lands within the town attributable to existing natural vegetation and to ~. .". preserve the rural character of the town. p:yr Approval required for clearing and grading. 1-2 No person, firm or corporation or entity shall cut down, destroy or remove natural vegetation and/or trees or in any way clear or grade any vacant parcel of land or any undivided parcel of land, without first having obtained the written approval of the Building Department. The Building Department shall have the authority to waive this requirement. This chapter permits normal maintenance activities, 11' including pruning and thinning of natural vegetation, and/or landscape vegetation and/or the removal of diseased or dead trees and/or other vegetation. 1-3 Definitions As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated: NATURAL VEGETATION - Existing and naturally occurring indigenous vegetation which grows and is maintained without need of irrigation or applications of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or other substances. UNDIVIDED PARCEL OF LAND - Any area of land, which has not been divided into lots on a filed subdivision map, also known as "described property." LANDSCAPE VEGETATION- 1-4 Approval Procedure A. A clearing permit issued upon approval by the Building Department shall be required for the removal of any natural vegetation, including but not limited to trees, or in any way clearing or grading of any vacant parcel or any undivided parcel ofland. -1- ," B. The Clearing Standards set forth at Table 1 herein shall apply with respect to all parcels of 10,000 square feet or larger. Parcels with an area less than 10,000 square feet shall be subject to clearing limits as shall be detennined by the Building Department. C. Administration. This chapter shall be administered by the Building Department which shall have the authority to promulgate rules and regulations for the effective administration of this chapter consistent with the legislative intent of this chapter. The Building Department shall have the authority to delegate the administration of this chapter to its departmental personnel. D. Application; issuance of permit. (1) Every applicant for a permit required by this chapter shall submit an application to the Planning Board on such form as may be prescribed by the Building Department. Said application shall include the following information unless, waived by the Building Department: (a) The name and address of the applicant and owner, ifnot the same. (b) The purpose of the proposed tree or vegetation removal or grading activity. ( c) The site of the proposed activity. (d) A site disturbance plan of the premises subject to the application clearly indicating the following: [1] An outline of existing wooded areas and naturally vegetated areas on the site with proposed changes. . [2] The location of all improvements, if any, on the subject property. [3] A topographical survey (one-inch-equals-twenty- foot scale) where grading is proposed. [4] The location of existing trees which exceed four inches in diameter as measured four and one half feet above the base of the trunk. -2- " 'r (:2) In acting upon the application, the Building Department shall take into account the following criteria and considerations: (a) The location, type and size ofthe tree(s) and/or vegetation to be removed. (b) The condition of the tree(s) and other vegetation with respect to disease and potential for creating hazardous conditions. (c) The proximity of the tree(s) and other vegetation to existing or proposed structures and utility appurtenances. (d) The need for the site clearing and removal of vegetation or grading and tree( s) as proposed. (e) The enviromnental effect of the proposed clearing and/or grading. (f) Any ofthe considerations enumerated in the legislative intent of this chapter. (3) The Building Department shall refer the application to a certified arborist or an Advisory Committee for appropriate review and advisement (4) The Building Departement shall evaluate the considerations set forth in this section and any other criteria as the Building Department deems appropriate, as well as the advice and recommendations of the certified arborist or Advisory Committee. (5) The Building Department shall advise the applicant, in writing, of its decision on the application and, upon the favorable determination of such application, shall issue a permit therefore, with conditions if any. E. Prior to the granting or withholding of approval, the Building Department shall perform a site inspection to evaluate the trees, shrubs, natural vegetation, drainage and other physical conditions existing on the property and adjacent property. The Building Department shall approve the application upon a finding that the cutting, destruction, removal, clearing or grading to be permitted would not impair the growth and development of the remaining trees, shrubs and other vegetation on the property ofthe -3- ~* " " applicant, would not impair existing drainage patterns, would not cause soil erosion and/or impair the stability of the land, would not significantly lessen property values in the neighborhood and would not substantially impair the aesthetic values of the area. The Building Department shall be guided, by the intent of this chapter as set forth in 1-1. The Building Department shall have the authority to require reasonable conditions, in order to effectuate the purpose of this chapter, to the grant of approval hereunder. Failure to comply with such conditions shall be a violation of this chapter. F. The Buildifug Department shall render a written decision granting or denying the application within 60 of the date of the application and, as appropriate, shall issue the permit. The decision and permit shall contain the conditions, if any, of the approval or shall contain the reasons for disapproval if the application is denied. G. The applicant shall have 30 days from the date of disaproval to appeal the decision of the Building Department. The applicant shall appeal a disaproval to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). H. The Zoning Board of Appeals, in any case, may on its own motion approve, reverse, disapprove or modllY and approve, the authorization and approval of the Building Department. The ZBA may return the matter to the Building Department for further consideration. 1-5 Exemptions. A. Surveying and soil investigating activities. (1) Destruction or removal of trees or other natural vegetation incidental to surveying and soil investigation activities shall not be undertaken for any parcel of property of any size unless such destruction or removal is in conformity with a clearing plan approved by the Planning Board pursuant to the provisions contained hereunder. (2) Prior to destruction or removal of trees or other natural vegetation incidental to surveying and soil investigation activities, the property owner, or designee, shall apply to the Building Department for permission to remove or destroy trees or other vegetation in order to undertake said activities. No trees or natural vegetation may be destroyed or removed except in conformity with an approved clearing plan. -4- " ~ (3) Said application shall be accompanied by a topographical map of the site; in addition, the Building Department may require an aerial photograph. In the event that the applicant is applying for approval to construct test holes for soil analyses and groundwater monitoring, the applicant shall provide a map from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services indicating their approved test hole and well sites. The applicant shall indicate on the topographical map and on the aerial photograph the boundaries of the site and the extent of clearing needed for the surveying and soil investigation activities. (4) The fee for said application shall be $50 for each existing or proposed residential lot and $150 per nonresidential lot. (5) The application shall be on such form and contain such information as may be required by the Building Department, and, in approving said application, the Building Department may limit the amount of tree and vegetation destruction or removal contemplated by the applicant. B. Any person doing business as a public utility subject to the jurisdiction of the New York State Public Service Commission and any duly constituted public agency authorized to provide utility services shall not be exempt from this chapter. C. In the event that building permits have not been issued for any previously approved subdivision map(s) or site plan, this chapter shall apply, and no building permit shall be issued until all applicable provisions of this chapter have been complied therewith. 1-6 Enforcement. The certified arborist or code enforcement officer for the Town of Southold shall enforce this chapter. -5- .^ r- . 1-7 Applicability This chapter shall not apply to any agency of the Town of South old or to any person, firm or corporation working under the direction of the Town 1-8 Penalties for Offenses Each violation of this chapter shall be punishable by a penalty or fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than 15 days, or both. In addition, any person, firm, corporation or entity violating this chapter may be required by the Building Department to replace each and every tree and/or natural vegetation cut, destroyed or removed and/or replace the original grading of the parcel ofland upon which such violation occurred. Tree replacement will follow tree replacement Density Formula as outlined in "Tree City Bulletin No. 31 of the The National Arbor Day Foundation as annexed hereto and made a part hereof. It shall be considered a separate and distinct offense on each day during which or on which a violation occurs or continues. Second Draft draft 8/30/00 -6- TREES. GRADING. '" I " . ' . rable1 CLEARING STANOAROS $tar\IWd5 it'lCll,lC\e builclinQ 10\5. roe05. drlllf'lBge and olMr imPrO.emen\5 ') L.and Use Ciategory --~._. ,-~" ''l,500 ~~---- \!l,00Q -.-. ,$,500 -" 'lO,OOO - 22,rilJ" ~,OOO <\350010 \~e Ol)) ,28,000 \0,14.000 ..........-- 11",000 \0 ,a,OClQ _~......_'-' I commerci8\ and InclUtlria' . ()\1'Itr or m\J\lId use 60~-"--- 6O'l'o ~,--~---- 60'\10 60~ · 5b"Io --_..-~ ~/ -AI pe<8XI&tlnQ 5Ou\tlO1d TOW1'I . cod. ~----- , , _....,...w_w,.. ,_.....~.-.. _w-"w__......o.--.-........--.....--...-- 01.....~d~. ---..~--_.__...:,..- -- ..-..=--= \ II -----.-'\----.........---'-..-- --. -. ---~..__..._~--_. .. _'___'_ --1--....------------ , ~w_.._----- -----.-~-- ....- ~ Tf,ee('.nm.m.itree repor,ttGl the T.ownBoard 7J.aU!J2{'.nnt'prni..g tr.eeGGde~.o.I. The Tree Committee of Southold Town has written this statement to advise the town .aboatthepropos.ed Tr.ee Cod.e_ The Tree('nmmittee w.as fGI::med m 19&8 aM.iunn,.iot. of seven members. We are all volunteers whose applications for membership on the ('nmmitt"e have beea.appr{}vOO.. apubliG hearmg aM. a voo:by the T.ownBoard.. When there is an opening on the Committee, the Town Clerk advertises the vacancy and oalir.it"p"~nmes ti-.omthepl.lblk, apJ'Jjr~nt..are~by a member d'theboard and the committee chair (s). Presumably those who complete the process are qualified to parti.r.jpatP m <lUC local. g.Gvernnu"..nt This past November Craig Ricl1ter aM. I interviewed. both applicants; Amy Martin became our newest member. She joined a diverse, talented, g,r.oop that feels coafide.at thatllllY pmposal it puts forth deserves seriousconsider.atioR_ Copies of the proposal were provided to Supervisor Horton and each Board Member by the T{}wn Clerk. at my dit:ection {)Il thr.ee sepa1"ate 00l'~<.inn. Copies for the ~al public were on file at the Clerk's office for nearly two years. We've spoken to the Supervisor, all wdl all Boam. UA~hers iadiWlBally.aad. m.srouPS4iboot the GGde- Atthi& point. ao one should be confused about the details. Why -do we need. a tr.eeGGdeat this time? In ...l..l,t.ion to<lUC tr~d.it.u:m~1 responsibilities, the Committee has undertaken the goal of becoming a "Tree Town". The be=.1it. d'~ .d..oig.1Wed a "Tr~ T{}Wn" include great.er dlgibility for State.and. Federal grant funds. One of the requirements of becoming a "Tree Town" is having a Tree Protedioo Statute m plaGe. The C.nm.nUttee ~ this proc.ess over twelve years.ago under the guidance of the former Chairman, Ed Dart. In 1998, he asked members of the ('n~~'''_ to revise the.Qld. Tree COOe. with inpIIt ti-.om the pl.nn;"gDepanme.aL The Committee also noticed an increase in new construction. We realized that efforts to incaase the "'J~ d'treesm Soothold were more than.offsetby theclearingd' ~ building lot. Think of the biomass lost by the recent illegal clearing of commercial pr.gpet:ly __ the la"..ltiIJ verSUS<lUC eftOrtsto pIaRt.aad. ~.intB.in a few ~ streettr.ees annually. Om- Marcil. 18 prGpQsal. seeks to es.tablish a review proc.ess that. will preveat clear cutting of vacant residential land. Statutes are already in place which give the Town j!.JPo..l'MioIl {}veT the clearing.aad. J."..lo('lIJ?'''gd'sulrdivisions, developed.1aad.and. commercial properties. While enforcement is always an issue it does not belong in this .di """o<.inn The prGpQsal. provides for up tQ ninety per.ce.at clearing d' small lots .and. fifty percent clearing of lots over one acre. This provides an ample building envelope for .P.\aGemem d'the house, driveway> pool, t.eImis court, gazebo, etc. Furthermore, under the proposed code, the Planning Board will have the authority to grant exemptions. No one 1G&es any property rp- After moving m the new homoowner <:oold 9ly <:utevery tree without a permit. The hew>SJts tQ the T.own beyood Il'a;".""''>g the &esthetic quality of the land, include but are not limited to, reduced runoff, fewer unsightly storm water recharge basins, protAdinn d'the bays aM. aquifers, SQil. conservation, and preservation d' <lUC rut:al environment. The general public benefits, tourism remains viable, landscapers and other 1oca.1 bIlS'PIlS8eS P; ~n"idpa1 costs go OOWD_ The ecoaomic value d' pr.ote.r.t~ trees is also supported by a plethora of studies which detail the fact that electric and heating bills ace lowered, inti-astru.GtlIre costs.are r~jr.ro by millions of .do1Iacs, and air quality is maintained, if not improved. Average home value is increased by a minimum of fifteen percent, when trees grace the property. While benefits accrue to the general public, the Costs of complying with the code would be less than one tenth of one percent of the. development of a typical pr.operty. Although a survey includes topographic information and tree locations might be required under the proposed rode,. a. ileveloper .orrealtoc antidpatillg 1wBe pnt<>.ntu.l proou would. not be deterred by this miniscule cost. Pre.servingtreessa.~ the toWll money; doesn't raise woos. We doR't flAd tmsGverly restrictive, or idealistic. It's pragmatic, besides being the right thing to do. Preservation d rot rural wa.y d 1ifeis supported by the mlijority d those living in tmstown as pr.ovea by the recent election. The NFEC, the Audubon Society, the average Southolder sees the 11eed fur some sort ofa tree"Code: In addition reams of scientific evirlenceand filets are on our side. A small minority guided by self-interest wants to make this a debate about pr.operty rights bc>.r~J ...there are no facts to support the ilestructioo d oor trees.. The members of the tree committee urge you to adopt the tree code proposal submitted March Ii, 2002. It is time to move~the mark 00 this issue. I .1 , Southold Town Tree Committee MINUTES October 11, 2000 6:30 p.m. Prese nt: Mike Domino, Co-Chair Tom Stevenson Jim Glover Dan Catullo Sally Steiner Martha Jones, Secretary Mike Shannon, Co-Chair Robert Kassner Absent: Dan Catullo and Jim Glover have spent hours these past few weeks, visiting spots to plant memorial street trees. Main St., Southold is now pretty much planted out. Dan talked to Tim Coffey and they are looking at the end of October, or early November for planting. Martha gave Dan signed purchase order and Dan will place 'tree order tomorrow. Mike Domino reported on the September 24 meeting in Orient with UPA and NYSDOT. They showed residents 21 maps indicating trees to be removed, from East Marion to Orient. Only 12 residents showed up. (They had many questions re: underground cable - which was not what the meeting was about). At the end of the meeting, they came to the realization that the trees will continue to be trimmed and most likely die. If individual property owners agree, new trees will be planted to' back from the original spot, and may be on their property. Mike Domino read the Supervisor's memo re: tree legislation too heavy handed. Sally Steiner spoke with Ms. Cochran, indicating that we have been working on the legislation 2 years, and have looked at many codes of various towns. Port Jeff has wonderful trees - and have had a statute in place for 25 years. Ms. Cochran felt the town couldn't enforce the code as written. Sally suggested that as the Tree Committee didn't know what to revise, we'd take our chances with the Code Committee. Sally will attend next Code Committee meeting with Mike Domino. Next meeting - Wednesday, November 8,2000 at 6:30 p.m. in the conference room. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Martha A. Jones Secretary Southold Town Tree Committee MINUTES November 8, 2000 6:30 p.m. Present: Mike Shannon, Co-Chair Tom Stevenson Jim Glover Dan Catullo Sally Steiner Martha Jones, Secretary Absent: Mike Domino, Co-Chair Robert Kassner Tomorrow Dan and Jim will plant 3 evergreens, but Northeast Nurseries is hesitant to dig other trees because of the draught and late onset of frost. We will need to order bronze plaques from DeFriest in December for Spring 2001 placement. Martha will compile list of names and dates and forward to Dan this week. We have had several calls the last few weeks about dead Memorial Street Trees. Dan went out and inspected them, but they did not seem to be dead. However, it was discussed and decided to put a 2 year limit on replacement of these trees. The Tree Committee's book "The Trees of Southold" is now completed and is on sale in the Town Clerk's office. Joe Lizewski attended this month's meeting regarding the tree legislation. He said the Town Board should be writing this legislation, not the Tree Committee, as the Board represents the people. We would have more luck getting the law passed if it was not so heavy handed. He also felt that the law should be the venue of the Building Department and not the Planning Board. The Building Department follows the law. It doesn't interpret, it just acts. The Planning Board is subjective. Sally responded that the Tree Committee initiated the law, but the Town Board gave us authority to draft the statute. Tree Committee's all over the country do the same thing. The Town Board doesn't have to adopt it. There are two trees on Depot Lane that have been destroyed by LIPA pruning. Joe has offered to take them down and will pay for a Memorial Street Tree. Damon Rallis at the Traveler Watchman talked to Jim and offered the Tree Committee space to respond to the Business Alliance's comments on the tree legislation. The Tree Committee will respond. Southold Town Tree Committee MINUTES March 14,2001 6:30 p.m. Present: Mike Domino, Co-Chair Mike Shannon, Co-Chair Tom Stevenson Robert Kassner Jim Glover Dan Catullo Martha Jones, Secretary Absent: Sally Steiner Mike D. spoke to Mary Wilson about the progress of the tree legislation, and to see if she needed any clarification on anything. She is working on it and will send us a copy when revisions are completed. Jean Cochran gave Mike D. a copy of a letter written by attorney Bill Goggins and read by Dave Cichanowicz at the March 13th Town Board meeting, regarding alleged threats made to the Southold Business Alliance, by a tree committee member's spouse, involving the tree legislation. Martha to get a copy of the minutes when they are available. Mike D. spoke to all the elementary school principals last week informing them of our annual Arbor Day poster contest and distribution of Norway spruce seedlings to all 4th and 5th grades. Mike S. ordered 1000 seedlings from Strathmeyer Forests. They should arrive one week before Arbor Day. Martha will run labels on the computer and committee members will get together on an informal basis and affix them to the bagged seedlings. Tom Stevenson to take over remaining Arbor Day details, as 'the Mike's" plates are full. On March 9th, Mike D. and Mike S. met with Bob Berner from LIPA, and Rich Gass and Chris Cotton from DOT re: Orient project, to find new locations for the 75 trees taken down. No permit process with the DOT will be necessary. LIPA put out to bid. Planting to start in 6 weeks. Discussed February 28 letter from Joseph Snellenburg, re: replacement of his late wife's Memorial Street tree that was knocked down by an unknown motorist. Dan will inform Martha when he has found a Japanese Flowering Cherry, before responding to letter. Tree Committee will supply labor, but because of the danger of setting a precedent, we must ask Mr. Snellenburg to offset the cost of the tree. . Southold Town Tree Committee MINUTES September 5, 2001 6:30 p.m. Present: Mike Domino, Co-Chair Dan Catullo Sally Steiner Martha Jones, Secretary Jim Glover Absent: Mike Shannon, Co-Chair Tom Stevenson Mike D. spoke to Bill Moore about the tree legislation, and was told that the Code Committee will be getting back to work on it soon. . Dan C. ordered 27 trees for the 2001 Memorial Tree planting -- 4 of which are to replace dead trees from the 2000 planting -- the most recent being the Mountain Silverbell at Our Lady of Mercy. ' Mike D. got our water tank and pump from the Highway Department and got it in running order. Dan C. and Jim G. are to go out the 3rd week in September to locate sites for the fall planting. We are starting t~ Jp$~.som4"~e older Sugar Maples along Mt. Beulah Rd. Ed Dart had been>replacing them, and it is the plan of the Tree Committee to replace 2 each year. . Next meeting - Wednesday, October 3, 2001 at 6:30 p.m. in the conference room. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Martha A. Jones Secretary \ \ \ \ \ \ Southold Town Tree Committee MINUTES October 3, 2001 6:30 p.m. Present: Mike Domino, Co-Chair Mike Shannon, Co-Chair Dan Catullo Jim Glover Martha Jones, Secretary Absent: Sally Steiner Tom Stevenson Dan ordered four trees from Bissett Nursery. Jim will pick up. The Tree Committee (TC) will respond to a political mailing from Joe Lizewski, that includes erroneous information regarding the tree legislation. Mike D. spoke again with Bill Moore about the tree legislation and was told it was being 'put on the front burner". The TC has not yet determined how many trees will be sent to Fisher's Island. Dan was in contact with Tim Coffey regarding our fall planting. Tim could not give him a definite date. The TC will mulch .and water. Jim to inquire at landfill about mulch. ,...1'>';:' __;r;\!r,>~~?li~iti.l'r:;;;v Don suggestecf.fh; ~C send a thank you letter to Northeast Nurseries for their donation of a weeping cherry tree. . TC will plant a memorial tree for long time member Robert Kassner, in appreciation for his many years of service. Next meeting - Wednesday, November 7, 2001 at 6:30 p.m., in the conference room at Town Hall. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Martha A. Jones Secretory Southold Town Tree Committee MINUTES November 7,2001 6:30 p.m. Present: Mike Domino, Co-Chair Mike Shannon, Co-Chair Dan Catullo Jim Glover Sally Steiner Tom Stevenson Amy Martin Martha Jones, Secretary New member Amy Martin attended her first meeting. Residents Phil and Elaine Goldman also attended this meeting. Dan and Jim planted 2 sugar maples on Mt. Beulah Rd. - with the cooperation of some local residents, who promised to keep them watered. . Dan, Jim and Mike D. removed stakes and wires from some of the more established trees. In the future, these stakes and wires need to be removed after the first year of planting. Dan and Mike D. met with the Superintendent of Southold Schools, Dr. Gallagher for permission to plant the Radich memorial tree on school grounds. Mike D. also called George Hubbard of the Village of Greenport to request a planting spot near the Greek Orthodox Church or Townsend Manor for a memorial tree planting, which he affirmed. Dan reported that NortheaSt Nurs~iE(f, does not want to dig trees yet as they have not dropped all their leaves. Maybe Bd. 15 or 16. Will try to coordinate with Tim Coffey. Jim will call Jim Bunchuck at the Landfill to arrange for mulch. He also will bring to Jim B:s attention that the Tree Committee was charged for disposing of stakes and wires that were removed from established treeS. Dan arranged with the Park Commissioner for the Houghton memorial tree to be planted in the Veteran's Memorial Park in Mattituck. South old Town Tree Committee MINUTES December 5, 2001 6:30 p.m. Present: Mike Domino, Co-Chair Dan Catullo Jim Glover Sally Steiner Tom Stevenson Amy Martin Martha Jones, Secretary Absent: Mike Shannon, Co-Chair NOTE: Correct paragraph 6 of November's minutes to read: Dan reported that Northeast Nurseries does not want to dig trees yet as they have not dropped all their leaves. Maybe Nov. 15 or 16. Will try to coordinate with Tim Coffey. The committee discussed placing an ad in the local papers encouraging Town residents to purchase the Tree Book as a holiday gift. As the Town Board doesn't meet again until Dec. 18, we will send a letter to the Supervisor, asking her to fast track the request. Mike D. congratulated Jim and Dan on this year's successful Memorial Tree planting, which took place on November 19th. They did a great job selecting sites and coordinating with nearby residents for care of the tree. Mike D. has a meeting with John Cushman on Dec. to. He will ask for approval to put future tree purchases out to bid. Mike D. told assistant Town Attorney, Mary Wilson, that the Tree Committee is re- visiting the original version of the tree code, as the highly revised one was. never approved. Tom suggested we try to get resident input in the form of a referendum vote. Amy distributed copies of the City of Mercer Island's tree code. Next meeting - Wednesday, January 23, 2002 at 6:30 p.m., in the conference room at Town Hall. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Martha A. Jones Secretary " South old Town Tree Committee MINUTES January 10, 2001 6:30 p.m. Present: Mike Domino, Co-Chair Mike Shannon, Co-Chair Tom Stevenson Sally Steiner Martha Jones, Secretary Absent: Jim Glover Dan Catullo Robert Kassner Dan has ordered bronze plaques from DeFriest. Mike D., Mike S., Bob and Sally attended the Code Committee meeting on January 4 to outline changes to the tree legislation. The Tree Committee is more interested in saving percentage of trees on lot than surveying and marking each tree. Only trees 14" in diameter would be marked on a survey. Bill Moore suggested there be no site plan approval. We outlined confusion between Town Attorney's office and the Planliing Board as well as need to upgrade enforcement, as there is nothing in code to prohibit commercial property from being clear cut before site plan is applied for, or protect parcels with non-conforming use. Mike D. met with Jean Cochran on Monday. Bill Moore will be working with Mary Wilson on the conflict in Chapter's 100-250 and 100-254 of the town code, with regard to the tree legislation, and Mike encouraged the Supervisor to expedite the process. The Tree Committee is ready for a public hearing. Nationwide, the Planning Board or Building Department enforces tree codes. The Planning Board sent Mike D. a book on planning ordinances, which recommends all fees collected should go to the tree committee. Bill Moore pointed out that drainage and land contour could be addressed in dry well legislation, which might be easier to implement and enforce than contour ordinance. Mike D. filed a complaint with the Building Department about a tree that was cut down on the Stepnoski property in Cutchogue. Southold Town Tree Committee MINUTES January 23, 2002 6:30 p.m. Present: Mike Domino, Co-Chair Mike Shannon, Co-Chair Dan Catullo Sally Steiner Tom Stevenson Amy Martin Martha Jones, Secretary Absent: Jim Glover Mike D. and Mike S. met with Josh Horton on January 14th to discuss concerns about working with fhe Highway Department pertaining to the use of a tanker truck to water newly planted trees and their cooperation regarding the transportation of trees to Fishers Island. Also, the need for notification by outside agencies su.ch as LIPA, DOT, and Cablevision prior to the pruning of town trees; and the clarification of protocol concerning our advisory role in dealing with these agencies, as well as town residents. On the subject of the tree code, the Supervisor said he didn't know how he felt about it yet, but would speak to the Town Board at the next meeting following January 15th. Mike and Amy will attend the January 29th Town Board meeting. The Supervisor agreed also, to entertain discussion of a concert or fundraiser if details were submitted in writing. The committee discussed the need for educating town residents about the tree code, with a possible column in the Traveler, an article in the town newsletter, and/or with information on the website. Amy and Sally will get together within the next few weeks to review the code. The subject was brought up again about putting the tree code before the town residents in the form of a referendum. Ed Dart informed the Tree Committee about 30 or 40 disease resistant elm trees that the committee had planted, while he was Chairman, at an 'undisclosed local nursery." Sally will call Ed to get more information. Martha reminded the committee that it was time to order the memorial tree plaques from DeFriest, and asked for authorization to submit the order, which was granted. Also at this meeting, Supervisor Horton gave the chairmen a copy of a letter he received from Mr. Honerkamp, who was upset about his memorial tree not yet being c. Present: Southold Town Tree Committee MINUTEs February 20, 2002 6:30 p.m. Mike Comino, CO-Chair Jim Glover Dan Catul/o Absent: Residents Phil and Elaine Goldman attended the meeting. Sally Steiner Tom Stevenson Amy Martin Martha Jones, Secretary Mike Shannon, CO-Chair M'ke O. · Mike s. '"'' .lth ..."....... _... M F........" 5" """ dl."-<j ,...,,,,,,, ...... '''h ...."", ...............", P.,. ......~, ..... to.- ,_ wIde '''''0<01 f"':l1PA, oor, """0>;"",,,< _... _...,........, oft""",. 'he "" -, 'oop",,,, " .,.""" <ode., - _.. -. ,FoII"ed... meeting with letter to SUpervisor Horton. . . """'i...d '''''.'... - """mitt.. .""'" .ith '.h, ......"'W, .d,'"", A.y and Sally to develop new tree code proposal. "..,,"'" "'P'" .f ,.tt" ............ ""'M ..'" ,. Oor. UPA, Cab/.w.ion .'c. """""'... """ ,. "'''fy "'.f ""y "'ion ... ,_ ..... O. ..... Wi'h ,,,. l>epury "-int"""", .f Sootho...."'" .h. ","", ..." ..... i'...., d'_ ""~ng ....'h" ,. ""'.p '.... ""'" .... _ """"ti" .. to.-ci"'l1PA t. b""Y lines, "-,'" thot Mike S. hod .........1000 ' l2 ' 24' No".." .."". f... A,bo, Oay "'....,,... ""..", "'P"'.d Apri' ''''. r.... """""tt"'iII"", t. bog "" label SOmetime soon (April 18-22?) after receipt. _'od thot ...,,"" h.d ''''- pl-. ond ""'" plot.. f... _10' T,..", Soli, ..... ,. Ed Do" """'"'''' ". ".... .hi" ." '--''''Iy.t 0... \Vi'''''''''', ....,...". Ex"'........ "'" ""on. So'Iy "qu<"", f .11"",,,,, "F. ASAP. r,on Att..."" f.." ........ i, 0< ''''''t,... "_', b... ."""""""" Southold Town Tree Committee MINUTES May 22, 2002 6:30 p.m. Present: Mike Domino, Co-Chair Mike Shannon, Co-Chair Sally Steiner Dan Catullo Tom Stevenson Amy Martin Martha Jones, Secretary Absent: Jim Glover Attendees: Phil & Elaine Goldman Victor Brown Mike D. distributed copies of the proposed tree legislation, revised by Mark Terry, a member of the Planning Board staff. Revisions were discussed. Victor Brown informed the TC that LIPA is very responsive to any kind of contact with the Town, and has been notifying the Town prior to any tree pruning. Supervisor Horton is interested in the Tree Legislation and Mr. Brown offered to assist the TC on enacting it. Town Planner Valerie Scopaz is also interested in working with us. Mike D & Dan placed the Memorial Tree plaques, and Mike will put up the brass name plates in Town Hall next week. Mike D. contacted LIPA. Bob Berner is not with Keyspan anymore. The trees planted in Orient and East Marion are doing very well. The one year contract is almost up with Tower Landscaping, and they need to replace 5 or 6 trees. Mike S. to go and check. Mike D. spoke with Tom Wickham about temporary permission to plant street trees for future use by the TC, on Town land. Tom didn't see a problem, as long as no soil was removed and no ruts or ditches were left after trees were dug. The TC discussed potting 100 Norway Spruce for future use, and contact Pete Harris about putting on Town property by the Highway Dept. where there is water. over ~ Southold Town Tree Committee MINUTES September 18, 2002 6:30 p.m. Present: Mike Domino, Co-Chair Mike Shannon, Co-Chair Sally Steiner' Amy Martin Dan Catullo Tom Stevenson Jim Glover . Martha Jones, Secretary Attendees: Phil & Elaine Goldman Mike D. found the Tree Committee's pruning equipment at the Highway Department. The pruning shears and compressor are now in his basement. Dan and Mike D. and Victor L'Eplattenier from the Planning Board office met, at the NY SDOTs request, to inspect the trees that the DOT wants to prune and/or remove, on Love Lane in Mattltuek. They agreed that one tree should be removed, and two should be pruned. Rich Gass from DOT called Mike D. and said that they want to remove all the trees, regardless of their input. Mike asked him to put it in writing; which we have not received as yet. Sally thought the situation should be handled through the Highway Department, not the Tree Committee. The tree code is at Q standstill. Tom Wickham suggested we drop it, as the cutting of trees will be ineorporated into the 6-month moratorium. Tom S. suggested one final letter to the editor. Mike S. distributed copies of a memo he wrote to Josh Horton. Sally said the issue is the non-responsiveness of the Town Board and we should re- think the effectiveness of the Tree Committee. We should start to work on a referendum and bring the issue directly to the people. Amy suggested a 'Saving Southold Town Trees" Power Point program at the school, and that we coordinate with other Towns. Mike D. suggested holding an informational event at the 80rghese Vineyard. He also reported that Valerie Scopaz suggested we incorporate the tree legislation into the Planning process. Ed Dart contacted us regarding re- joining the Tree Committee: and that we should concentrate on getting the Elm trees out of 8riarcliff - possibly by digging From: Tree Committee of Southold Town To: Josh Horton Re: January 14, 2002 meeting Immediately after the November election we invited all candidates - elect to an open meeting. We anticipated procedural changes after January, 2002. The purpose of todays meeting remains the same - to clarilJ direction and establish a working relationship. Our position simply stated is this: rural mearns farmland, woodlots, and tree lined streets. Developmental pressure threatens Southold and only by working together can residents hope to preserve the rural character of our town. We are a non-political diverse talented group. Cooperatively, we freely donate thousands of man hours oflabor creating a cost-effective committee. Memorial tree donations exceed our annual budget by a fuctor of 5. We have l! great deal of work ahead ofus this spring but want to be certain of our mission. We need clarification of areas of responsibility concerning the highway department, Fishers Island, the planning department, LlPA, cablevision, etc. We need direction concerning the proposed tree code begun in the late 80's and put furth again after assurances by the previous administration that preservation was a board gual. We did not and do not wish to waste valuable time on dead issues. In conclusion we welcome the opportunity to work with you and the new board and thereby request input and direction. Mike Domino Mike Shannon Co-Chair Tree Committee Southold Town SOUTHOLD TRANSPORTATION OOlVIMISSIQN T... Hall 53095 Main Road SOUlh~d,NYli9l1,ij95g Phone I&H) 7M-19M F",,(6HmHl~~ AGENDA FOR DECEMBER 16, 2002 MEETING: . Cox Lane & County Road 48 . Commission's 1212/02 responsc · l1econic Landing TraJflC' Commissi\>n's 12/2/02 response . R~wotTl)~(;:~~~~ . Mf A1LIRR - Co1111llillslon's 1212102 response . Review ofLIPA & DOT Tree Removal Practices . SEEDS Update . Seavi:ew Trails Update Forming of Sieering & Advisory Committees for Rie 25 Gateway Bridge Rmppointnwnt to thG Commissn;~ . . . Old ~\!ii!!~ . New Business . Ad.iOllfl1.tllelll JOSHUA Y. HORTON SUPERVISOR TOWN HALL - 53095 MAIN ROAD Fax. (51~E~Ei\lfb TI3 74 "n/"lMe, /YH,o JAMES A. RICHTER, R.A. ENGINEER TOWN OF SOUfHOLD, NEW YORK 11971 Tel. (516) -765 -1560 FEB - 6 2003 OFFICE OF THE ENGINEER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southofd Town CIeri Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mrs. Neville: February 5, 2003 Re: Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Scope - DGEIS As per your request, I have reviewed the documents contained in the Draft Scope of the DGEIS and offer the following comments: Full Environmental Assessment Form: In the SEQR document "Appendix A" on page ~ of 2, Item #17 indicates that "no Sewer Districts are Present." within the Town. The Village of Greenport has a Sewer District and it extends out beyond the Village boundaries within the Town of Southold. (Peconic Landing, San Simeon Nursing Home, 7th Street, Wiggins Street, etc.) Preservation of the Town's Natural Environment: Land clearing codes need to be addressed. Currently, if a property owner states that he wishes to farm or plant vineyards on wooded parcels of land, he is allowed to do so without any further review. If he changes his mind after he completes the clearing, there is no penalty. Should statements by owners or their intentions to "Farm" property be regulated to contain a guarantee for a minimum duration of time or obligate a self-imposed moratorium from development? Maintain and Enhance Rural and Cultural Character: Parking of commercial vehicles within the Town owned Right-of-Ways has become a problem in some areas. Whenever commercial & residential properties coexist there is the potential for the placement of large vehicles, containers and/or equipment on the shoulder areas of Town Roads for extended periods of time. This would also be true for properties adjacent to private roads. Problems concerning sight distances and traffic hazards can currently be rectified through the Transportation committee and the Police Department. However, the visual esthetics of this problem are not addressed by current Town Code and there appears to be no way of returning to the Planning Department for additional review once the problem has become evident. Item 1. Item 2. Item 3. Page ! of 2. . Elizabeth A. Neville (Cont.) Re: Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Scope - DGEIS February 5, 2003 Page ~ of ~ . Item 4. Ensure Adequate Transportation Infrastructure: Drainage systems within existing Town Road systems are becoming severely overburdened by additional development. Commercial development currently does require drainage under site plan review but the Code never addresses individual homes, driveways or parking lots that do not fall under Planning Board review. The Town Code should require the installation of drainage structures for ALL development or hardening of existing surfaces and should be made a requirement of construction before obtaining Building Permits. It should also be noted that existing watercourses which may meander through or across private property can't or should not be stopped or diverted in an entirely new direction effecting adjacent property that had not been previously effected. Any run-off generated by development within watershed areas that discharge directly into tidal or fresh water wetlands should be given a high priority for containment. Town Road Excavation Permits are currently addressed on an individual site basis. Town Code could be written to require permits for all work within town roadways. Issuance of these permits would acknowledge who is responsible for the work and to provide a more stringent standard for reconstruction of the effected road system. It continues to become increasingly more difficult to prevent utility contractors from damaging road surfaces, curbing, drainage structures and other street related construction items. I also can't stress the point enough about what happens every time the electric company decides to "TRIM" Street Trees along one of our Scenic Byways. To be honest, I am not exactly sure what type of input you wanted with regard to this matter. I hope that my concems are of some assistance to you in achieving the ultimate goals ofthe Comprehensive Implementation Strategy. If you have any questions regarding the above, I would be only too happy to meet and discuss the issues personally. Sincerely, James A. Richter, RA cc: Peter Harris (Superintendent of Highways) January 29, 2003 RECEIVED t1~ JAN 2 9 2003 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD SEORA "SCOPING" HEARING )outhold Town ('erl Facts/Issues to Be Analyzed in the SEORA Process 1. Number of acres currently in agriculture 2. Number of acres currently zoned residential and vacant in ownership of 10 acres or less. 3. Number of acres currently zoned residential and vacant in ownership of more than 10 acres. 4. A. Will re-zoning the vacant agriculture lands and/or the vacant lands zoned for residential piJrposes have an effect on the value of lands now improved with residential structures, and if so, in what respect? B. Will the re-zoning reduce or increase the existing and potential number of affordable housing units? C. Will the re-zoning have an effect of (i) reducing the value of the existing vacant unsubdivided acreage, and, if so, to what extent, or (ii) increasing the value of parcels improved with residential structures and single and separate building lots, and, if so, to what extent? D. Will the re-zoning have an effect on the average or median age of the year-round population in Southold, by (i) reducing the number of dwelling units available for . . development and sale and/or (ii) making dwelling units unaffordable by young people? E. Will the re-zoning increase the real estate taxes for the existing improved residential parcels due to (i) escalating values of these parcels from no new lots coming on the market and/or (ii) decreased value of the re-zoned property? F. What will be the effect upon the value of existing homes if the re-zoning is adopted and a ceiling or cap is thus placed on the future population of the Town? G. What effect will the re-zoning have on the ability of the Town to provide housing for: 1) Young people 2) People (e.g., seniors) on fixed incomes 3) Tradespeople (electricians, carpenters, gardeners, etc.) 4) Teachers 5) Police and fire persons 6) Municipal employees H. Will an up-zoning trigger need for town-wide reassessments of existing residential parcels and single and separate building lots to: a) reflect their rising values in the face of reduced supply of new vacant building parcels and 2 , . b) ensure that ever-rising Town costs of government are borne by the fixed number of residential and commercial parcels after any re-zoning that prevents new residential parcels from joining the tax base. 1 If no reassessment to cover the foregoing, then upward change in tax rate will be necessary to keep government functioning. 5. The Town is zoned into the following uses: A. Governmental B. Industrial C. Commercial D. Agripultural/conservation E. Residential The government lands can be increased by Town fiat. The commercial and industrial lands are mostly developed and are subject to repeated demands by residential property owners that they be up-zoned to reduce areas of cornmercial and industrial development. The residentially-zoned areas that are improved with residences (one-family and multifamily) are not affected by future re-zoning and will, with the passage of time, increase in value because of lack of competition from new vacant parcels coming on market. Future development of the currently-improved residential parcels will be 1oar- downs, followed by construction oflarger, more expensive residential stlUctures which, over .3 ,. time, will lead to gentrification of the Town, displacement of existing low/moderate income and worker populations, and consequent increased traffic from tradespeople, government workers, etc., commuting to Town (e.g., South Fork). The vacant agricultural properties and the vacant residential acreage sites are subject to: 1) the present zoning 2) any proposed up-zoning and 3) any subsequent up-zoning in 2005-2008 that occurs after initial up-zoning that may possibly be proposed at the end of the planning process. The foregoing and the present study - which may result in up-zoning proposals - indicate that a farmer must now protect its land values or, with the passage of time, have his land effectively sterilized. The frustration of the Town's residential property owners with the vagaries oftraftic, as well as the influx of owners of new, larger homes, will result in pressure to re-zone all remaining vacant land to try to maintain the then perceived ambience of the Town. Given current development patterns, there will be nothing to re-zone in 5 years, 10 years or 15 years other than the remaining farmlands. Why should the farmer stay in business today? 6. Zoning contracts between the Town and the farmers are unenforceable and beyond the 4 . power of the Town. Agreements to maintain present zoning in the future are beyond the power of the Town absent a State constitutional amendment. Every farmer needs to protect his or her assets the way residential owners are protecting their real property values. Technical Problems with this Hearing:: · A Positive Declaration can only be issued for an "Action." · 6 NYCRR Section 6l7.2(b) defines "Actions" as (1) Projects or physical activities, such as construction or other activities that may affect the environment by changing the use, appearance or condition of any natural resource or structure, that (i) Are directly undertaken by an agency; or (ii) Involve funding by an agency; or (iii) Require one or more modified approvals from an agency or agencies; (2) Agency planning and policy-making activities that may affect the environment and commit the agency to a definite course of future decisions; (3) Adoption of agency rules, regulations and procedures, including local laws, codes, ordinances, executive orders and resolutions that may affect the environment; and (4) Any combination of the above. · The definition of "actiori" that is most relevant to this matter is found in 6 NYCRR Section 617.2(b )(2). However, the purported "action," which is the proposed adoption of the Town of Southold Comprehensive Inlplementation Strategy, does not meet the 5 definition of "action" as it does not "...commit the agency to a definite course offuture decisions." The said "Implementation Strategy" is merely a list of goals compiled in 19 separate documents. . The Town of Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy does not exist - accordingly, an "action" does not exist. If an action does not exist, a SEQRA process cannot be conducted, and a Generic Environmental Impact Statement cannot be prepared . The Draft Scope includes an alternative that is termed "Mitigative Strategies. " However, this is not an alternative at all. It merely appears to be yet another list of planning goals (i.e., Provide for Land Preservation Including Open Space & Farmland, Maintain & Enhance Rural & Cultural Character, Preserve the Town's Natural Environment, Provide a Sound Socio-Economic Environment for Residents & Businesses, Ensure Adequate Transportation Infrastructure.). . The Draft Scope improperly includes sections that are only to be included in a Final Scope (see 6 NYCRR Section 617.8(b) and (f). What is most objectionable is that the Draft Scope includes a section on "Issues Deemed Not Relevant, Not Environmentally Significant or Adequately Addressed in a Prior Environmental Review." One could not possibly identify issues raised during the scoping process that are irrelevant or insignificant before the scoping process is conducted. That section was apparently included in an improper attempt to avoid the necessity for a comprehensive analysis of the effect of the Town's 6 purported "Implementation Strategy" on the value of land, commercial enterprises within the Town, the agricultural community, etc. Esseks, Hefter and Angel Attorneys for More Than 10 Farmers 108 East Main Street P.O. Box 279 Riverhead, New York 11901 7 . ~~3 liD) .(/) fi(/) fa. .CD -(/) ~_. <.0 :J SECOND FLOOR , R , R . . . .---..-. .- " ,.. .. - -. lid FRONT, ELEVATION SECTION Rl.? ~IN PIPING TO & FRON SHAREO STORE 4- . SERVING SEVERAl ~ HOUSES 38 t', . FIRST FLOOR 1f urn' .-_. .- . ,'.-,... . :COM.' -.. . - ---; REAR ELEVATION ~ R13.4 ~ BURIED SllARED STORAGE TAIIK RECElVep q~ JAN 2 9 2003 ~ Sout ~........./:;:. ~1;'-< cc-c"!:- ~ "-;. ~ ~ ... ."", ' Ol " '" I/) :S. E " ,,0 ~c:J:e .2 .Q ffi 5 groooo c:ECI)~o 0>(1)061/)<( "en E I/).ii:: u ~"*-.2,g E J!! Q) ai-cO::: "0 i; ~ (I) co tien In en N .... =ti~ CljM C .... :)... l:JlM ~!e. '>ox <Crf. - ~ Solar Townhouse -Shared Water Auxlll.r~::.l 93% . , GENERAL- DESCRIPTION Four individual units are attached to fom a typical townhouse buflding. Each individual unit contatns 'three bedrooms. two baths, living-dining room with Franklin stove (efftctent heating with low-draft opera-- tion), kitchen-famny roOla, . Net heated area: 1650 sq.ft. 03.GOO c,f.) Gross area: 1690 sq. ft. Estimated 1975 building cost, excluding land. site' improvements. and fees: MINIMUM AVERAGE ~ ~O Heat loss: 9~6SO 8TU/DEGREE DAV / UNIT 8.4 BTU/HR-SF , DESIGN TEMPERATURE BTU CQllected by Solar System: 55.1 BTU/YEAR/UHIT Matena'(s': Foundation and Slab on Grade: poured concrete (10" walls) Walls: 2x4 studs sheathed w. S/8" plywood. 1/2" gyp bd interior. 2i6 studs e end walls. Floors: Wood johts with 5/8" plYWO,od ,subfloo!'. 3/8" underlaysnent, and c~rpet. Ceilings: 1/2" gyp. bd. Roof: Composition shingles on 5/8" plywood sheathing over wood rafterS. \Hndows: Oouble~glued double-hung with wood frllne$~.. Patio doors: Oouble~glazed, . ~eatherstrtpptd Exterior doors: 1 3/4 wood, Wi!:atherstr1pped, with' ' metal storm door. _1- :, : ' Thermal 1nsulation: R...n fiberglass batts in wall(~.R-19 in attic. under collector. and tii;end .alls of btJl1dlng. ~ ~.; four townhouses share a common solar neating and 50111" . domestic hot-water preheating, system cpns1sting of . insxpensive, single.glaZed. water type collector. fanning the 45 south roof of. the house; a centr.al 6ooo-gallon insulated steel storage tank' buried in the ground near the row of houses; and associated pumps. piping. valves. con. trols and insulation. The 'collection cycle' b as fol- lows: When a sensor registers that;; any collector in the row.is 10. wanner than another sensor in the middle of the tank the circulating pUilp goes on aild punps water through'the collector. Collection ceases .and the col. . lector is drained when the collector cools.relative to the tank, or when ,the middle of, the tank reaches zoooF. The house heating cycle is as follows:. . when ~ thermo- stat in any house in, the, row drops below 10oF. the- house heating circulatonfpumps water from,the top of the tank through the baJieboard convectors. of the hou$e ' and back to the stor.g,e tank. If t.he wate,.; in the blnk is too cool to satisfy the. demand, the system continues to run, while an independent system ,of electric has... boards with individual th'ermostau provides Ildd.ttional heat. Although the hot.water.system might"stay on for considerable pertods~ the,pump uses' very ,11~tl. elee. tricity. Sooner or later, the. solar heating win sat.hfy the house demand and,the,slstem will, beg~n~to cycl~' 19ain~ ;" .; l., + ,. l ',<" ( ~: ~ I'; 'J.,., { 1 ";" :~" \ :;~ .J:- ~:'i" t'i "i'I,' 1.'1 ';':.\! ,I, , ,,<~,f,.: \1 . "'-" l' t' ~ .J"':"'{, ~0-'~ "[. I . )i; },-:~'li~"l " ' SOLAR HEATING SYSTEM ,;' Domestic hot water ,is suppl1 ed, to each house by a conventional hot-water heater. with the lIII.in feedwater pipe run th-rough'136 feet. of 3/4" copper ~b1ng. or In equtvalent heat e~chlnge.~. i~ the CCNlIllOn storage tank. , It would be ~.1-bJe.~to, meter.tndtvldual unit usage if 1nd.. .~l1ng 15 desired. I ~" . . \ ,'i' \ ., i\~~, " ",,"<"J';":', ",,!"" ;,..'.'I'. . ~~ .~~~': '\ ..~~;: \ , "-';,' ;,.:;;. : Cl "'~ O"'E O::~8 ~>-:E- wZ_ ~ I-: ~-- ~~@ ClOtS c(Q.2 O::l:2' O::c(f: .HI) . :g~g ~z '\' ."'~ I ,. i" .',', ...~. J'i: :f; h~,: .~ j I .. < _-2 - , ,,,y ,I ~ 'j 1;-1 , ,I ,I -'.f" !:r J! %+ .;;~' '-'1 r 0- k': , HEAT SUPPLIED DURING A TYPICAL YEAR '22 J A SON 106 BTlI 20 IB 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 SPACE HEAT 0 0011 .t. HW 2 D J F M A M J PARAHETE~ y~ ~i-: COLLECTOR AREA' 50s EFFIC., Q SQ FT NET SIZE OF STillE ~ GAlS HOOSE HEAT LOSS 9.650' BTU/DAY of ~ WATER HEAT DEMAND 100 GAlLONS/DAY , MISCELLANEWS IlEAT SUPPLY 120,OOOBTU/DAY , CD HEATAIlILlTY ll,600 BTU/DAY 0, NINlHUH OELIYERY TEMPERATURE 80 F YEARLY TOTALS (l BTlI) ,DOH HW .sPACE ,lIJ , JQIAL m. SOLAR 23.5 32.2 55.7 ' AUXILIARY 3.9 4.1 8.0 :::s MISCEllAHEOUS 35.0 35.0 SOUTH WINDOWS 12.4 12.4 STORE LOSS 0 0 TOTAL 2T.4 '8r.'T IIr.T HEAT lOSS TABLE .BTU/.HR',SFI70~f .PIY.lQ6U SLAB 00 GRADE HA 700 EXTERIOR WALLS 1.62 950 OPENINGS .25 2.500 AnIe AND ROOF 1. 53 900 INFILTRATION NA 2,750 HUMIDIFICATION HA 1.250 1/2 END WALL t.02 ---6QQ. TOTAL ""1:l2'. 9.650 STORE TEJO>ERATURE oooF J MISCELLANEOUS :!iiiiii!!!t.i~!i!t.t~!!!l~:~&R1~@ii!I!!:!ii!!!::'i!!!i!:!:!I!i:!::!!JM;:~::::~" S:L~R" h.,,~.Atjjr~' .-. .~ J~~ ~i1'.~, '" i~;' _" W,H~lh '" l~':.-..,_t. ft';'-i:~t:: PERFORMANCE '~',;'" ,', . This system was' desfgned to"maxfmize the~a~unt of solar . '. heating within the Constraints of II mark.etable tlnd bufld- '~~.:., ;able design. . The resu1 ting system reduces . the auxiliary ': '~heat used by 8] percent when 1:00000ared to the identical . . house ~ithout solar heating (the'Non-SOlar.Townhouse). and .'-.by ?3- perj:ent when compared to the Improved, Cape, Which is .about 12 percent larger. (The performance 'option chart to the- right compAres the Solar TOwnhouse with the Non-Solar " ;L".Townhouse.) The basic des1gn has no basement. but other_ _I.;~.~ w1se resembles 1n constructfon'the Improved, Cape. 'OJ_".'.;>!!, , , ,0' '.-: _"", , '.<~~:.As with every design', 'lower1ngt~ttie thermostat to a 650f' . .:::.:.:.avera,ge, produces a, lar.gefncre,ase in performance. 1n this ,>~:l~tcase reduc1n!;J the auxiliary ,heat ,by an'addition 6 percent~ ': :_.10 93 percent. Reducing the"sfze.of collector would Prob- '~;,-:; ~', ably not change the operatin9~cC!s~ of the 110usevery much. ,,;-,; <:.k.;~ut would increase the. auxiliary ,heat consumption. In- ; ~"~creasing the size was not po'~s_ib_le with the desfgn shown. y; ,~:.';F'>Us'fng 6" studs with R-.19 insulation for the -exterior walls ' ,.;T~,,;~appears. to pay for 1tself: a .was,te water heat. r~covery ~':I' '~1i ~ystelll 15_.: n,o t quite as good -a.,.bIi.Y,' primad 1y l:iecause it : ~t .~:.'i"eqlifres construction :of a,specia1 pit .underthe floor, or; '., :.-:_L'_~#,~n ejec~o~ pump;:~o'r~i_se ,~he:/~wia,~~. water ba,ck to ffrst- . , ~~.Jloor .1evel"ana!'does-(rtO~{prov1 . :enough heat. _, ?'.. ;i, ' '~;~',I~{'i",\Hm "~, . .".J: ,U , " - -- Because the store '15 a centrally located tank for four at- tached houses. the cost of the tank per gallon is substan- tially less than individual tanks. This fs partTyoffset by increased pipfng. but serves to decrease the overall system cost. Larger tanks costcorrespondingTy less per gallon. so that doubling the size of the store. despite a small perfol"llliance 1ncrease. could be an attractive option. It is lOre sensible. however. to provfde tWo tanks. to allow one to shut down for repair or eXIIlinat10n, and .. the cost per year indicated at right reflects the latter usumption. Because of the low overall helt loss of the townhouse. ,and the potential econoartes of a shared store and pos- sf01y shared PUIIIPS and controls. the townhouse seems to be a sensible building type to heat with solar energy. It appears to be econ"Ollically attractive and architectur_ ally feasible to produce townhouses whfch are largely heated by solar energy. and w1thin certain l1mits. to re... late them in a s1te plan to reasonably high dens1ties. Further s_t,udfes _ need to be undertaken to't1l'1lre tIw! pos- sfble densities 1n a non-solar heated townhouse develop- ment with' those. achievable wfth~the additional restraint of co'rrect solar orientation. . PERFORMANCE' OPTION CQlPARISOII WITH TaIIItIIWSE , AUX lLlARY 'HEAT: COST OF cosT OF SIlYEO 'OPT10N ' SCUR HEAT l08BTU/YR L ll!L $/l06BTU.YR , 54.7, :,87, 600- ' '11.00 Basic House lower ThenJlOstat to 650 Average Double Size of Store Add 75 IF Convector Waste Water Heat Recovery System 6" Exterior Walls wI R-19 Insulation Reduce Collector ZOl Reduce Collector4OS Reduce Ins!,l.lation on Store + 3.8 93 n.c. 10.25 + 1.6 90 T' 50 .11.50 + 0.6 .88 + 60 12.00 .+ 3.1 92 .,~ + 75 11.75 + 1.3 89 ,+.20 11.00. " 4.3 ' ,50 '60, 10.75., "10.8, ' 70" .-120 \1.00 3.6, 8Z ,- 25', i1.25 COST ESTIMATE MINIMUM' , , AVERAGE Basic'Unit (including flg $5.500 share of solar system cos't).. '" 37.500 .. 42.500 ", \ ~ ;,~ (i, ,~,;;.: ~q."'~;: 4 }4-..,;..;t~lt, '''.c-~. " ',-. -, .. ,', ~:.,. .'\~ <t ,....~",;-f. C/) o is) ... (} ~ :::s ::r o c en CD , I (J) ::r Q) ... CD C. ~ - CD ... .. . ,W = .- z1 b CO., ' ,...',,,! , """ "?:fl ~"M '/,'~-. 39' t'~..... i-:J Jall) lien len .0- ~CD ":en ~_. to ,:J " ',"'i 40, . . ./ /,/ ..;-::::-.-.... ~.-- . Computtr run was based on "per.un1t" values for parameters. 'Collectol' area, store size, and store loss to env1ronment were calr.ulated for 4-un1t townhouse bui Id1ng and divIded by 4 to c'btaln "per-unit" values used 1n run. This is a day-by-day printout of the house pei"fnr. IIIanee for the year_ 1958. A quick scan of the printout shows the genera 1 qua 11 ta Uve performance of..the systemnthose times in the year when aux- iliary water heat. auxilia~ space heat. solar space'heat. etc. are required. This information 1s summarized on the preceding pages, but is presented here in full to enable the interested reader to interpret the data for himself. "umber of day; starting July 1 Hean daily temperature Daily insolation on vertical south. facing surface Solar contribution to water heating Auxiliary contribution to water heating Miscellaneous contribution to space heating South 'window contribution, to sp~ce heating Solar contribution to space heating through conduction Josses from the store Col. 9: Solar contribution to space heating through normal dlstrtbutlon 10: Auxiliary contrtbution to spact heating 11: Total space h.at'ng 12: Stor.e tenperature It !!!! of the day Col. 1: Col. 2: Co1. 3: Co1. 4: Col. 5: Col. 6: Col. 7: Col. 8: Col. Col. Col. For- COIlplttt explanation of the printout, set pp. 44-047 For discussion of parameters, set pp. 50-67 For discussion of small error in weather data for days 354-365. see p. 41. SOLAR TOWNHOUSE SHARED. WATER SYSTEM -- .FLOOR AREA COLLECTOR AREA / inIlT STOR'", SlIE / UNIT SOU1l1 WINDOW HOUSE HEAT LOSS THERMOSTAT WATER HEAT llEHAND HISCELLANEOUS HEAT COLLECTOR EFFICIENCV STORE LOSS TO HOUSE STORE LOSS TO ENVIR / UNIT STORE E"VIR. TEMP. HEATABILITY MINIMUM DELIVERY TEMP. VEARLV TOTALS (106BTU) SOLAR AUXILlARV MISCEllANEOUS SOUTH WIUIlOIIS STORE LOSS TOTAL \.650 115 1.500 86 9.650 70 100 120.000 50 o 250 50 11.500 80 'OD< U>I 23.5 3.9 Z7.4 '... SPACEHT 32,2 4.1 35.0 12.4 o BIT SQUARE FEET SQUAREFUT . GALS/ UNIT SQUARE' FEET 8TU/DAY "r FO GALLtNS/IlAY BTU/IlAY S BTU/DAV'.... ,BTU/DAV ... ',' OF 8TU/IlAV OF r" ',F' 'TliT~ 55.7 8.0 35.0 12.4 '0 . m:r JULY AUGUST I'" Q.I"AIK 'MUCH "....1 WUtIAlll.a.:. '".,,,,' .... u. ~ "'l""'Woa,lIClUolil'lW-" I", onl_ . ft HO 'J$ISO 313 I'. 'rIno .,. I:M nno 5.. ..nl50 610 0 nlSo T" 1)3 "no . 11 ultnuo It TO as5 nlSO 10. l6' .5. 1'SlIO 1171 101'1'5110 II,. I'" 'SISO 1361 ...,5ISO 1"..lunllD Isn 111I lSl5.0 1676 130TSISD Il''' 11'5 nlSD "61' ".lSllD 1'" In fSl'JD \ Ion ...un.o' II" "1'SlIO I." III nllD n.. lOT l!Us.:J 1.15 .9. nno as 11 It. nno I". e1lSI$:) 11'" 0 T'ISO II '"~ 0 15150 "76 19. nno 311 13 n. nuo,' 3I'!iI IInlSO 0 3311 UIUISO 0 3"TO 11115150 0 UT.I"nlt(! 0 :M TO III nllo 0 3' T:I I,. uno 0 813 ".15)50 0 :It 11 153 1'S11O '~'O 40.. .,1 nit(! ~'O "I" lIS TSI50 '. ',~ 0 "'0' 31l'nlSO ',1';0 U TO 3<W TSUO. 0 44 Te 117151$0 0 U 1'0 113 751S0' 0 4671 ....'5150..,.',0 :;':: ~I~::: ~ 2: .,....:11'75150 ,,:0 so ",3M "I!II!IO ,~~ 0 51.T J66 lSl50 '/""0 51" 311'A150 ;;\-0 :::; ::.~::'~,-'t.: ':::: ~": ~::= ,J~i: 51 .. 0 15110' ,~, '10 !lo1'1 In lSISO"'~~'o :: :~< ::: ~;:: :;'1":: II 71 H:I ""0 'I~O SEPTEMBER , II I' ,A ~ " " '11"", ."',-, .....,... inu.... loUUIk ""''''0' JUT..... "I~".... W:U _, "MI ......" ...........-....................................-............ IlIU".. 1MI', . . . . . . . . . " . . o . . . . . . . . , . . ,. ;'0 10 }j.O '. .~. 0 . . . . ..- ..... .''"'0 . . . . . IUO:) ..~ , . ..... N'~ ..... ..~ alI'oo ..... S1"l'OO . , :'1'1OU naGo ,UtO:;l . , . . . . . . o . ..... .... . . . . . 6nso !InDO 'snbo "'.. N... . .... ..... "... .... ..... ..... ..... 7'800. , . . o . . . . o o o . . . . . "~i' 0 ~~:: . , . ';,r;o ',:' 0, 1..',0 '!,\i,O ~",i~:': (., o. . . . ." '" .I'lSl$o..;\ho ''''100 0 :::: :~ ~::: _i~ 't,g ~~= . ':} : ".. 11'7'ISO lio '>>6OllI 0 .. 61 n. nlso '0 11300 'f~ 0 6969. ISlnlSO '0 ~ 0 ~~;; :~ ~:= ,;: .:::.' 1';r,:, : lI!t1t SJ Ul!lO 'i'rio 1061100 '''.,~'O un,,, UolSO,''':O IIIOODO 1M7!1ol1 "" U "". TlolSO '~,; ~o IlIDOOO ....t:>> 15" ":16 TSISO' :'~!o 106I!1iO. I) T6.. ,3$1 ntsa ".0 1'11100 0 11" U'" "'ISO ,;' 0 IUoO " ,.'" 1:1, 1IIto ,:0,"'0 Htoo 0 "" 0 nuo h',jO 1110OOO i'" H SS 0 nno ',0 IIOOOD . 0 'I SII 011150 ': :0 .iklDoD, < 0 .. S4l' I.... nno (,.',0 IItOOOll UtOO un IU nlsa .,..0 llDODO MIlO at.O 3n nJId ,.'.Ii,lt.,.MIO ;t ... ., ...." nlMl : "":"0' '.,~ ~ 0 ..., :111"'1110 ,I) ."U .,u ..,.. ...0 1lI111O 0 awu II 'Ill ,. 31\1 ""0 '.0 0,' 0 "" GUIlD Ol~ 0 ~ ". Ilia 151110 0 I~ ;'-11,. "I so ~. nno 0 11DOO3' 7JOOO .,.~.' " . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . , . . . . " . . . . . o . . . . ., . , . . . . . . , . . . , . . . . . . . , . . . , . o , . . . . . . . ., ,,~!~~ .: :.,~~~ ,. . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . .. , ,. . . . . . . . o 0, . o . . '~~ '0 ..::',~' :.: ^' " 0 ~ t;..o ,:i~~ l;.;'.r~ 0' : .':~ii:: ,:;,--0 't~~,t": " ",/';00 iI -"I':t:. o. : 'oJ 0 Q '-':'1': IJ .:;,,,,,,. ~ .~'~:: II .,;{.("O : 't~ ~ . - 0 . 0 o 0 . 0 U I141UO o IMIno o ,~'tOO o .". 0 0, v~ 0 g :;.'1: . . , . , . o :'.....0 (I lIlt:U~ . 0 o 0.. \ . . . . . . . . . . . , o o . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . },: 'Ii ;~ ~~ -~, o Ultll II ....11>1 II UIH II IJI". 0- TlWO u". G ""~3 I... \I l"alXIua II . a I"~ o I) H'" o :;II.} I) II h'" o 31-#1 o I,,:.ua U. o '6:00 UI) a 0 l~.) o 01'1/:>> o 19:100 U". o ....lI-SOI'I/. II )01600 hl>l l,l .....~ I~. o ~.Olll#.., O. .....111;11.... :;I ~},jIlO u. o ;) hI" I) 0 I#~ O. :l1';'1/1J1... o HoWal',.. u n:ilO1l ... o :;I I',. o ;)1..,1< ..,....'...,... o ,.l> ~ o 0 1~. U 0 h':' o U I~" o 01"" o 01"" o ~ \I 1'16 II ,', II II" o a.~.", o ''''.$01'''11 o 1111;1 o U Hi! o 0'''' o' II 1611 o 0 Ill. o ,1UQ 190 0:.' 51'VOO I". 0: 57VOQI"i! 0:. naOQ I"': ":O"<IllI"to Us..j,^ I'O~~~' 0.'- ~j :~';;~ == S:'tg ':'!~,~:::' O"(<i,...14 Ie'!:' O.....w I.. 0'" "IIOU lIMo >0",. 0 h" . ct""'~I'" '0. 11*'01'" 0"ltl"lW I":. 0'- ,.eogg I..... o 'W~I".. '0 . "'.!to 190 '0 iK&IN 161 o 1,",190~ 'U- ICMoIW I." U l44'rtoOl.... "..,~Wl"" o I""":.l,/,.,lt o. nloUu I.. V;:,"'~ If', II" :'~OO I,,;, .0.'1....,"'" 1"1lI . O~ loM?N ". II l'.llW au 0,1:11"'0;.11":> o lKhalJ lH II "'.IAAII,., >I' ..,.... III oJ ..,10,.",,, III "..6W 1"1 " U I~. ,U.I:.........I.I III 1I111a;,1,/1',. U' I"l/I)UU l~~ .o~!U ::=.,!! 5 ~=~ ~ ~? E~ 2 ~!::; ~ f::~ ~:i S it r - ~~ 2:: i ~: il~:! 3; iS~; tE ~ E t: i S i:i :;_-,,:I,.~ ~-~~; ~ ~::Q"':::::: 8;::;; ~;: =::;=:: ::lil~: =; l;:t It: ~ & t:: :~~:: ::a ~:: t: at::: r!:S.t ~lf"- t;.1!l"':-..t:e~=.~.lo1t;;t!::n:= !~ ""g e ~;a:=s;"....' = :;:": _"'_ III ..... ~ou~.t-:~o~"~....wwi_._~~_"_UU.A ~.ooo..w...-t-ouooo.:.o:e~:!~o:: - ;i!~Si=:z;!:tiig!U~=~eo:!ii~t:=!t~i:=====... .=...=...=...====...=.........: :: _c~p;:;~~~::& ~ =,~= ~ II C te !.:t ~:::e:i !,I~; t t,:~iiiiii=:!=ii ii iiiii i ii siti! ",';' .KJ-.!!I.."'..'tl...........w..:l'...,...!l...w~'" ..' ' .._. ':_:-(:'::!::".:i..:::el:_lI:;:!i:;eg:::",.e.::"'_::...=~ J;:..::" ::::i: .. ..... ~~~~~:~:~~:~t~t~~;::~~:~~~~::::~;:teoooooo:'=oooooo8ooo000:00: '. ,UlmmmmmmmmUrmimmmimmmnUr nmmmnumuumnm l~ . =";;'.i;~i~';::~~~;:-;:i&t;:::!:: . tt I: :" :~f.i::; ':.~e ::::a:: I: ; ~~ :~::: :;:: o::::a:: I:g .. .'..t"........"Ii....."'..tj:i....".....C1<e ..,....., g<lli.~ ... -..... ....x..."'.... !: '" 0.....0... ... ,..,tcc.::..,:,u,;:;:= 11!::~!:~...:';::$U:~:~Qoto z...i!o!;:~;::::g~ooooo:I$!::..;:::..~g~Ql ;:~::';o.;oi!ilioog5~::C1COD8:gg::uo: i '<'~ct';~'.. .~ :r~ ' " .. . . :t:e :.--~'/~,.~.~~,.;,~.~.?..,t~~.D_~O~__r;,:O.,o 0 c:.,o 00 c.. 00 C C>OQ.. C C CI 0 0 CI 0'" 0 DC> 0 Q Oc>co 00 QOOO CI 00 0000 oO'>OOC:OClQO.COO C1", 00 00... ~ooo co. i ~ ._'~~~.c:;:.':.._e~t_~_' ;;_...".. ._~;,t:::.t.~1! ..~~......", l.> .. .. _.... .. ... '"'- .. li 0_ alii - 0 _B: - :..;~~i:~i~-: ~:':~ :a I~~~~; -i:. -1:~~:~8:a...~~ t;'f;" ~ ~~~ H~ ~ig::i!::;i~;:f::i:!i;;~tCl~~t~ tx~t~~~ti:; :.t~ ~~ :~~~:~ !::~~~.:~~"ti!~:; :~~t ~ ::t :_~ - k_ -- ~_ ~C1~O~_-...wo"'go~cc-c"o~~~~c~~~._~g~.o~o,_~~cooo~ou~~ooou<<oo.,c : ~ t: ~ ~g~~~~~E g: :s~ I. ~- ~ U~~~~~~_ ~~ .. .__ .~ccoc~~occoc_~c~~c~_ccoc~_ucc c~cccc~cooo~cc~CCCCCOCUOCOOOOOCOCOCOgooococo~cucouccooUCCoccc : ~c~c.~c.~vv.c.'v.~vvv~...~~~.'....~k~.~'".<<_ ~.--~C....._ .k"'," .k..~....__..._ _~<<._ ---c__<<c_ : ~.".":.~"'-"_'''~''C k":U_tc~..-;u......uc.... "o:~ ..~.._~....~...t~..-..,~"''''"'.......,t:lv..''' ..."'~.v.-.......'"..a..."'...ti....,__..""....._.. I~_ _..-.c........'".t.-c_--~okcc.....c,._."'.c~.""""o_c~__l'"c_eo_..oCKO.. o,__oc"'.~_c_", .cc..~t ....~oc.._: I.C . [ll ii ~tt gg~ i: r; i ~ t g ~ ~ tt~gtf g ~ gg! t &t ltt 0 ~ ~ ~I g! ~ ~i 8 g~ l g ~i ~g ~ ~ g ~ g'" tti~fi gZ~~ligt gii g 8 ~ ~ S ~ gg~~~ ~~i t. : ~; :~t:::::~~=~~:~:~~:~k~~;i~:~t..-ESitt~E;Ei~:;e~;:=~~E::::~~ii'" iSiEii:~g:iiEi~E:f::iiiEi~it:~ i :ii;;:;;:=;=;;!i!i~i8i!g8::=:::: !, Ip ~:~::&:::ua::=~t&::::;=="'t::&~: itiii - Ij:..:rr...t........... ........,......... ... t:;;: o:~oooo..:.g.:...:r~r~,Ja;::=~=t:oo!!" . WI' ...U:.U:==..':;;ltj';l;;li:li!;;l;;li:O:=====t::. .. I!i:=iiiiiiiiiiiigtiiit:~i:i;ii i~ ~ ~B~e. :~ .~._w .. ::~Il:ii:oooooc>.u"c><><><>o<><>oouo..ooooo :_~ . '!!!!9!!!!!!!!!!'!!f!!:!!.!!!!!I! ~c=r~~K.~~e~~~t~~r~.:ts8t~J=.: , . , . , !! 19R!!.JlI!!~R!!!I!! !!!I !~! '~;!!~!!!!!!!!!I'=i:: :::::i!:!:~-'r~ ~ Ie t~~t:!:==I:.,,,.r.;;:;:l!l=U;..ltll:;I!S -l;:t~&~::u:t!S;;:;;:~r:~:-=:;=;.:r=:..:,: IS:;! o!ai~i~!'ooo;!~ooc!!;!~!~!!o:i. 'oiSiiio;;i!~;!i5Ei;00EI!ii Eo"oOQiio:E~ooooo~;!~i!o~!~i!~ jlE t~ mmmmmmmmmm .Hmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmlr ~ . !tm~~ri .:~! .. .i iiJ.lg=' dim I.UbiW1iii I!ill is!fII'ml!ftUhim!lmn'J'if E. 000 ~..15v = .000000001 ~i! e ..1_ 0 ....~ ~~ .. I M.....!...u.. ....~.~~.._.o~&.!v . . il~!iiiiliili!iiii!~!i!~i~iiij i!llill!!!I~~ii!~jli!li!1 iliilll~ii!iiiiii~~i~iji~!!I!i Iii BIll". .St ~'=.-S.~i II :';llltt.. I'::'.' ....- i ;= ;Ot I'I.:~ HUI . n t= ~.t ~I: w."!~.i.. .. ~: 53E15~ E~IRI KI ~M . !t~ :~_!! : & o.~ oEI~tooo!S..Ogo:'t::~r: o~ o:e: 01; to '.I-;:oo~rc;o oqooo;...c~: 00000 a ..uo_t. _0 I _ . :(~ ... .::-J: pooooooooooooooooooooooopo O~ooooooooocooeoooooooooooooooo . .~~ 'i:!=.!! .i'~.i!!;eit.!I!i l!t . t..~:..~ ;.t.~i~=.I:-':il' ~ ooor~z5tg;~ooo=!0~o ww: .~.~ 0 i ~ iil:. lih. . iU . Isi~o.oooo..lzlloooooooooooooEo : ei:!m!li~m!~~i!ft~.lumu lis it itttlltlittl'ritl:t li...il' , . --- --- ------------- if ~t~~:i:=~t:::~~~.:~-,:~::;&~~~ _ oooooco~ooooooooocoooooooooooo i::il=:~~r;5if~i!!i~w;=il:.:i:, tt!.o=~;:..Ot...:i~2~1~!~~&r:!..._; o.~.o~o~.ggow~~Zoowf...c...u_Zt_.. i--........i....tt.II..tl- '11"'1.'-< -'0-0.-' .,-.: 0._ ...5 _... U~.... .... ._ .~. .~- .-. ..0 .. I...~... ...._I c--is.voo;.E.: \ a - ! I r .. . oooooooooc~oooooooloooooo~ : I ~ooocoeo~oooccooocooo~oooo!ooo .j=t-.r'.'=~~t"itit.tll'.ltll '" ...... kl............ . 10,," "!:oJ'" ilg~,&g!if'itil ligll Itit f ~-~---- .--~-~~--~~~~-~---. c~:z~t~~~:~t~:fs~:e~t~~:,~:.=:c .'.. ~ .. ~~!~!~~l~~l~!!~!~l~l~~~l~~M~...I""M"~~~~~~!~!k;;;;;;;;:;~lMl. MlMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;;!!! i:" ~ :~::::::::~:~~:~=:~::~:::==:t :::~:~=:=:=:::t:sg=:r;t3ee::~~ :.tl:=::t::~:~=~:~t~~~~::~~~~ :i~~ ; 00bo:oooooooE~5EE!!~i:!!!:!=0 !;o~ioa;=!EE!!o:ii!i!!oo;~ioe oo~~II=o;~!t:~=:~ooai:o~iiooc:l!" ;~~;~=:;:;~:=;':;==i~==;====:=. ~~:=:=::==~:=:::::2:=E=::=:::_ ;;=;;;;i;;;=;;=:~:=::;:::!ti::2 ii~ii:iiiiiiiii~iigiiiii~iiii SZtsSgSSISZSE~ICllllt;III:ZSI i;iiiiiliiiiiiis:SE;g:II:~!.I:~ Is . . . ~ ~ ..!i= : i ooooooooooooooooooooorlooooDo OOUOOODODoooooou.ooookou:;.to ~ iiliiiiiiiliiiiiiiliiiiilliii iiiiljiiilliijiijiliiijii!j~il:l ; : . : e:e: =: ~~I t ~tl . l;t1t::i =~: -i- :6i - - t s: r . oc.......... .-.!:! ... r .... tl:c:c_ i.~i :...:' : ogu:ooZclotoogo:.tlo:IDo~g:O~. co:c ~ooo IIS~ooooo ... O~..OOO:r~ . ore ... . .' . : ooaOOOGOOCOO~ouaoooooao~cc~cc: - .~ ---- -..:lE 'li f i:!f! i:i=iii iii;~ ", , ~~:.~inim~~ :-~ ool=o!o~o.ooool!;_oo~cil=i.lo Iliicooiooooooos5~'2~1~.~:tfl!e! :.... oooocoouooooooooocccooooccoc~: lilliii~ii~iliiiiiii!ilji~ii~l!i it:!:~i;Siliiiiitii5E:iiSi:=;o. ouooooooooooooooooouoo<>ooouou 1~I~l.:jiiiiiii~it. iti:=ii=jii: cciiiiiIEI!8igBiE;oggii~R~lii . .' . . !. !;r;r. UOCoooeoooco~~<><>ucuufooggogto cucoc~eueouoouooccoocucocuooo oooooooooocoooooooooooooooooo , , r.. .' , ~.~ooocouollioo,"coc~oo~o~oouoo cecoooooocoooooo<>uuccco~ococc oooooooooooooooooocoooooooooo i rrt~:i:: i~~it t ~i ..tiiiRlf.l~ fiii[~.ii [~ fi~~i-'!~ii!li~i!iif~ilii~flilllllil -...~---~......... n:~H::t::t ---~--- :::OHH' -_...._~~-----~--~--~-_..._.._-~.. e) ~::::~ .~~tt::~~:~~::~::::::::et::==: . o n -I o tD I'Tl ~,. ~ :z o <: I'Tl .d5 I'Tl ;;0 . . . . , C I'Tl n I'Tl 3:' C:J I'Tl ;;0 . . ,. ~i '~, > :z e > ;;0 -< ." ,1'Tl C:J ;;0 e > ;;0 -< . . . . .' ~ ~ ::I: . , i V> >0 ~..!;;: ;::;;0 :-1 ~~ -<::I: o e ~V> el'Tl :z ':"".1 , I V> ::I: > f:': c :E: > -'"I I'Tl ;;0 V> ,-< ,VI -'"I , I'Tl ,3: . E . . . , . . -i.o .. .it ; ,.0 . {) J g(oul""~ ~ ON lONG ISlAND lonG Islanb ~aum BUU€aU, Inc. . 104 Edwards Avenue, Calverton, NY 11933 Phone: (631) 727-3777 Fax: (631) 727-3721 TO: Joshua Horton, Supervisor Southold Town Board Southold Town Clerk Southold Town Attorney RECEIVED <1J.,,1""~ ,JAN 2 9 2003 FROM Becky Wiseman, Associate Director Long Island Farm Bureau Southold Town efert DATE: January 29,2003 RE: Draft Scope Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement As the 'voice of commercial agriculture' Long Island Farm Bureau's foremost responsibility is to review, and provide comment on legislative changes that may negatively impact the agricultural industry. It is important that Southold Town's draft generic environmental impact statement (DGEIS) recognizes the economic impact of the agricultural industry. Agriculture is New York's Iargest industry. Suffolk County leads the industry in market value of agricultural products sold. As well as employing over 10,000 people agriculture provides the landscape and scenic beauty that makes Tourism Long Island's largest industry with over $2 billion in revenues annually. Of grave concern to Long Island Farm Bureau is what appears to be a decided shift in Southold Town's goals. The Town's stated goal is, "to preserve land including farmland, open space, recreation and working landscapes", but our perception is the Town wants to preserve farm1and only for its open apace, recreational and aesthetic value. We are deeply concerned that the foundation of the farming industry is at stake. If the business of farming is sacrificed to open vistas, then Southold Town's rural integrity will be lost forever. The historic and cultural tradition of farming dates back to the 1600's. Very few places in our country bave this unique and irreplaceable asset. We urge you not to abandon your past principles and policy commitments to the Town's agricultural industry, as are recorded in the 20 documents reviewed by the moratorium team. Long Island Farm Bureau is requesting that the following issues and answers be included in the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement, as tbe Town of Southold moves forward in drafting ita Comprehensive Implementation Strategy. . 1.) In the event of a cbange in zoning. What is the economic impact: a. On production agriculture? b. Land value and equity? c. Farm businesses? 2.) In the event of a cbange in zoning to decrease density, what is the impact on existing private and public preservation programs? 3.) 'Open Farmland' Long Island Farm Bureau requests that 'farm' be defined according to New York State Ag & Markets Law section 301 as amended. :) '--) " , . 4.) 'Buildings on PDR land' Long Island Farm Bureau opposes any undermining of Purchase llf Development Rights program. We would ask the Town to consider NYS Ag & Markets 305-a # l.a. "Local governments, when exercising their powers to enact and administer comprehensive plans and local laws, ordinances, rules or regulations, shall exercise these powers in such manner as may realize the policy and goals set forth in this article, and shall not unreasonably restrict or regulate farm operations within agricultural district in contravention of the purposes of this article unless it can be shown that the public health or safety is threatened." Greenhouse, barns, fencing, etc are all necessary tools and normal components of the fanning business. 5.) 'Mobile Home housing' Long Island Farm Bureau requests farm worker housing be considered under the affordable housing policy. 6.) 'Monitoring Program' As the Rural Incentive District is reviewed and codified, a monitoring program of land preservation and development must be included. Please note that this was a goal Long Island Farm Bureau had requested be completed during the Town's term of moratoria. As decisions are made by the Town of Southold to implement policy that has the powerful ability to impact agriculture for future generations, it behooves the public and elected officials to turn to other examples and resources for guidance. · Town of Sonthamoton Final Geoeric Environmental Imoad Statement: "The Town understands that maintaining the economics of farming is key to preserving farmland. The initiatives pursed by the Town are not strictly for preservation of open space, but rather to preserve and protect farmland as a viable agricultural industry." · THE CATO REVIEW OF BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENT fall. 2002 Has Zoning Hurt Affordable Housing? "In the nation's tightest housing markets, Iand-use regulation contributes heavily to high housing costs." Page 30 CONCLUSION: "If policy advocates are interested in reducing housing costs, they would do well to start with zoning reform." . Michael Caracdolo. Suffolk County l........tor "Farming requires a critical mass of activity to sustain the infrastructure of related business on which it depends. Despite all of our accomplishments, we must do more." · Nathan L Rod.en. CommissIoner New York State Deoartment or Amculture and MarkeU "Suffolk County leaders understand that profitable farmers keep land in production, viable farms mAint.in open space, protected open space sllot.illS a healthy environment, and a sound environment with a balance of rura1 and urban uses mAint.in. the highest quality of life. Innovative, incentive-based approaches to protecting f'ann1and can help streogthen these key relationships." . Long Island Farm Bureau understands according to page 7 of the scoping document, that under SEQRA the economic -analysis on business operations is not appropriate for analysis in an environmental Impact statement. But understsnding this as a public policy goal we feel the economic Impact on a major industry in Southold Town must be considered. Thank you felr the opportunity to provide comment. I. il 'J -, . Neville, Elizabeth From: Sent: To: Subject: Gwynn Schroeder [gwynneds@optonline.nel] Wednesday, January 29, 2003 5:00 PM e.neville@lown.soulhold.ny.us NFEC comments for SCIS Scope RECEIVED -..5: CJt);O~ . pr iN tp h /!..cd N'J JAN 2 9 2003 rfj CommentsScopeSCI D.doc (33 KB) Dear BettYI South old Town CIeri Below are my comments on behalf of NFEC as well as an attached word document. I will follow up with a hard copy on NFEC letter head. G'wynn Schroeder NFEC Southold Coordinator January 29, 2003 Members of the Town Board Southold Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Re: Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy: Comments on behalf of North Fork Environmental Council January 29, 2003 Members of the Town Board Southold Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Re: Southold Comprehensive Implementation strategy Comments on behalf of North Fork Environmental Council Dear Members of the Board, One of the most telling statements made by the TO~l'S consultants during a preliminary discussions on the work plan for the moratorium was that although the Town had wonderful goals for preserving Southold, the current Town Code would never meet those goals. Inherent in that observation is the need for the Town to proactively take charge of it's own destiny and a<;L a<;<;o!'dlllgly. Through the SEQRA process and utilizing the tool of DGEIS, an optimum outcome can be achieved. Many hours of professional and volunteer time, as well as ten of thousands of taxpayer dollars, have been spent over the yeaL.:; Lo develop plan:;, LhaL would pL.etsei"ve our: valued rauulctnd, open :;space, and threatened natural environment,. The failure has been that many of the most effective and proven tools recommended in these various studies and 1 reports were never adopted. 0;':) the Town has revisited the nU::>ous plans through the DGEIS, pubic input is considered and the findings are pret)enLed, lL will be up La you La ClcL OIl Lhose flnding::;. AL the end or this process it will be your responsibility to act in the best interest of all the residents of the Town. We can not afford to monitor the pace of development, conduct further studies or to rely on unproven preservation tools to meet our goals. . I . Specifically, NFEC requests that the following be included in the DGEIS: The MlnoL"l Ly Repo.r"L of the Blue Ribbon COllulLl::n;lon, also known Cll::5 the CAP Plan, signed by two members and two alternate members of the BRC, should be included as one of the documents reviewed in the DGEIS, rather than as an alternative. The Minority Report calls for the adoption of 5-acre upzoning in the A/C and R-80 zones in conjunction with the formation of a Rural InceuLlve DlsL.r:lcL, conLlnued clul:lLerln<j reyulaLlOIll:> and the couLlnuClLloIl of the current Purchase of Development Rights Program. This will guarantee the Town meets the minimum preservations goals set forth in the BRe majority report. This report offers numerous examples of preservation successes throughout the country in which zoning was utilized as a tool. The formation of a Rural Incentive District and the potential outcomes must be considered in the context of a concurrent upzoning, as well as compared La the RID wlLhouL upz"onlny. When eXamined Cil:;) a sLand alone p,r"eservaLloIl tool, we would ask that specific examples of success be offered as proof of the efficacy of such a plan. Possible exit strategies from the RID, both those which reward farmers with an increased development rights and those which guarantee preservation minded landowners that the Town will purchase developmenL L"lyhLs OIl lhelL" Lime frame and aL Lhe CUr".r"enL z.onln<j designation must also be evaluated for potential outcome and landowner participation. Submitted by, Gwyrul SChL"Oede.I: North Fork Environmental Council Southold Coordinator P.O. Box 799 Mattituck, New York 11952 (631) 298-8880 2 ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 8, 2003 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold adopted resolution number 22 at their regular meeting held on January 7, 2003 setting a oublie seooin!! meetin!! at 7:30 o.m.. Wednesday. January 29. 2003 at the Southold Town Ban. 53095 Main Road. Southold. New York. on the Southold Comorehensive Imolementation Stratel!v. Copies of this resolution classifying it as a Type I action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, assuming lead agency, declaring it a positive declaration, and initiating a public scoping meeting are attached. Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me in the enclosed self-addressed, stanIped envelope at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning. Long Island State Park CommissionV Village of Greenport Town of Shelter Island Town of River head Town of Soutbanrpton Southold Town Supervisor's Office Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Planning Board SouthcldTownBoardofA~s Southold Town Buil Department Si cr~/"TI O. r;(ui~ Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Suffolk County Department ofHea1th Suffolk County Department of Public Works Suffolk County Water Authority NYS DEC, Commissioner, Albany NYS DEC, Regional Office, Stony Brook NYS Department of Transportation NYS Department of State US Army Corps of Engineers Date: 3~c/o3 , DUPUCATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK IN RETURN ENVELOPE ~b1.(f'~lo '7 .. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDSMANAGEMENTOFflCER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: ALL SOUTHOLD TOWN LIBRARIES FROM: TOWN CLERK ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE RE: DGEIS of the Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Volumes I & II DATE: JUNE 4, 2003 Transmitted please find two (2) of both volumes of the above described document. If you would be so kind to make it available to the residents of your library. I suggest perhaps using one complete copy as a loaner and making the other set available at the library at all times during regular business hours. If you have any questions, please call me at 765-1800. Thank you for your cooperation. ~J{//~ Received By for ~I..-/) Name of Library ~l)/Q3' Date ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: ALL SOUTHOLD TOWN LIBRARIES FROM: TOWN CLERK ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE RE: DGEIS of the Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Volumes I & II DATE: JUNE 4, 2003 Transmitted please find two (2) of both volumes of the above described document. If you would be so kind to make it available to the residents of your library. I suggest perhaps using one complete copy as a loaner and making the other set available at the library at all times during regular business hours. If you have any questions, please call me at 765-1800. Thank you for your cooperation. ~~ 1-) ~ Recelv By for Wc.A o~ - f\L~Lcib <0 - q-Oj Name ofLiti ary -'Tf}"""Date ELIZABETH A. NEVll.LE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 Boutholdtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTH OLD TO: ALL SOUTHOLD TOWN LIBRARIES FROM: TOWN CLERK ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE RE: DGEIS of the Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Volumes I & II DATE: JUNE 4, 2003 Transmitted please find two (2) of both volumes of the above described document. If you would be so kind to make it available to the residents of your library. I suggest perhaps using one complete copy as a loaner and making the other set available at the library at all times during regular business hours. If you have any questions, please call me at 765-1800. Thank you for your cooperation. -/Co(J-td Received By ~A/rt/ for /l1el.'Hrh( ck - Name of Library Lo.AA-rer 6/0( Q3 Date ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: ALL SOUTHOLD TOWN LIBRARIES FROM: TOWN CLERK ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE RE: DGEIS of the South old Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Volumes I & II DATE: JUNE 4, 2003 Transmitted please find two (2) of both volumes of the above described document. If you would be so kind to make it available to the residents of your library. I suggest perhaps using one complete copy as a loaner and making the other set available at the library at all times during regular business hours. If you have any questions, please call me at 765-1800. Thank you for your cooperation. e~ ,ltco\ Received By r(07fJ M VMOY'{J 0.c;.o3 for Name of Library Date ", Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net ELIZABETH A, NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTH OLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO, 261 OF 2003 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON APRIL 22, 2003: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of South old (the "Board") has assumed lead agency status in review ofthe Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy and for the purpose of of compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Action (SEQRA), as codified in 6 NYCRR Part 617, and WHEREAS, the Board is familiar with the scoping process as outlined in SEQRA Part 617.8 Scoping, and WHEREAS, the Board has established a team of professionals to assist with the comprehensive implementation strategy, consisting of the Town Attorney, the Town Planner and Town supporting staff, two (2) planning consultants and two (2) consulting attorneys, and this team has prepared a draft scoping outline for the purpose of determining the scope and content of the DGEIS, and WHEREAS, the Board received this, deliberated upon its contents for the purpose of initiating the scoping process pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617.8, and found the draft scope to be adequate to commence the scoping process for the DGEIS pursuant to SEQRA Part 617.8 (b), and WHEREAS, the Board has provided an opportunity for interested agencies and the public to provide input into the scope of the DGEIS through circulation ofthe draft scope and solicitation of public comments at a public scoping meeting, and ... WHEREAS, the Board held a public scoping meeting on January 29,2003 at the Southold Town Hall meeting room, and a period of 10-days were provided following the public scoping meeting to allow for submission of written comments, and WHEREAS, the Board forwarded the transcript of the Scoping meeting and written comments to the planning team for incorporation into and revision of the Draft Scoping document, and WHEREAS, the Draft Scope has been revised to the satisfaction of the Board. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board authorizes the Town Clerk of the Town of Southold to file this Final Scope ofthe DGEIS with the following parties: Town of South old Supervisor's Office Town Clerk of the Town of South old Town of Southold Planning Board Town of South old Zoning Board of Appeals Town of South old Town Trustees Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works Suffolk County Water Authority Suffolk County Planning Commission NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Commissioner, Albany NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Regional Office at Stony Brook NYS Dept. of Transportation NYS Dept. of State US Army Corps of Engineers Inc. Village of Greenport Town of Riverhead Town of Southampton Town of Shelter Island Parties of Interest Officially on Record with the Town Clerk (if applicable) Pt~_L ~Q.~~"J.I.. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk Final Scope for the Draft Generic J\nvironmental Impact Statement SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY Southold Town Board Action ~-ApriI4, 2003 This document provides an outline for use by the Town of Southold Town Board (as Lead Agency) in detennining the content and format of the Draft Generic Enviroumental Impact Statement (Draft GElS), for the proposed action known as the Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy (SCIS). DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The proposed action involves the evaluation and, where appropriate, the implementation by the Southold Town Board of the recommended planning and program tools and measures as described in the planning studies undertaken within the Town over the past 20 years. The studies, plans and recommendations have been reviewed in terms of current needs and Town goals to achieve the Town's vision as articulated in the following plans. . Parks, Recreation & Open Space Survey (1982) . Town Master Plan Update (1985) . Fishers Island Growth Plan (1987-1994) . USfUK Countryside Stewardship Exchange Team (1991) . Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan (1992) . Town Affordable Housing policies and program (1993) . Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Study (1994) . Seaview Trails of the North Fork (1995) . Peconic Estuary Program (1995) . Economic Development Plan, Town of Southold (1997) . Community Preservation Project Plan (July, 1998) . Southold Township: 2000 Planning Initiatives . County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study (1999) . Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy (1999) . Town Water Supply Management & Watershed Protection Strategy (2000) . Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (200 I) . Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (200 I) . North Fork Travel Needs Assessment (2002) . Blue Ribbon Commission for a Rural Southold, Final Report (July 14,2002) These recommendations (consolidated and summarized in the attached table at the end of this document) would be considered by the Town Board for implementation in the form of amendments to Town procedures, the Town Code and various Town regulations, in conformance with the Town's Master Plan. As a result, the proposed project involves legislative changes, with no specific physical changes proposed. The Town Board intends to initially consider all FInal Scope Sonthold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS prior recommendations with an emphasis. on those that protect farmland, and open space, promote affordable housing and preserve natural resources. The Board may prioritize, narrow down or select implementation tools that best achieve the goals of the Town. The basic goals of the above-referenced plans and studies include: . The Town's goal is to preserve land in!il\Iding open space, recreation and farmland. . The Town's goal is to preserve rural, cultural and historic character of the hamlets and surrounding countryside. . The Town's goal is to preserve its natural environment; to prevent further deterioration of resources and to restore degraded resources back to pristine or near pristine quality. . The goal of the Town is to preserve and promote a range of housing and busiuess opportunities that would support a socio-economically diverse community. . The Town's goal is to increase transportation efficiency and to create attractive alternatives to automobile travel, while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of the Town, State, County and local roadways. The Board will solicit inter-agency and public input, and will consider potential impacts under a public forum provided through a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) procedure. The proposed action will provide a means to ensure that the above-listed Town goals will be achieved through a comprehensive, well-established and well-considered land use decision- making framework. FORMAT AND CONTENT OFDEIS COVER SHEET (Indicate that the document is a "Draft" GElS; name of project, location of action, name and address of Lead Agency, as well as name, title and telephone number of contact person at the Lead Agency; names, addresses and contact iriformation of all persons or organizations contributing to the document; date of acceptance of the document by the Lead Agency; and date by which written comments on the document are to be received by the Lead Agency.) SUMMARY (Provide brief summary of the proposed action, to include: location of the Town of Southo/d, the need for and benefits of the action, a description of the action, the anticipated significant adverse impacts of the action, corresponding mitigation measures of those impacts, alternatives considered, and the permits and approvals required to implement the action.) 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 1.1 Background, Need and Benefits ofthe Proposed Action 1.1.1 Background and History (Provide brief description of the existing pattern of land use within the Town. Describe the various Town, county, NYS and private planning efforts in regard to land use decision-making, and the interrelationships between these plans and the agencies proposing or implementing each. Discuss the status vis a vis adoption of each prior Plan or Study. Discuss the forces and/or conditions which have caused this effort to be proposed at the present time. Describe GElS process as it pertains to this action.) Page 2 Final Scope South old Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS 1.1.2 Public Need and Municipality Objectives (JustifY proposed action in terms of Town goals, including that to provide affordable housing for various segments of the To,wn 's population. Discuss the need for this action and fulfillment of public desires.) 1.1.3 Benefits of the Proposed Action (Provide brief listing/discussion of the benefits to accrue.jrom the proposed action. Discuss the logic and rationale for the choices being addressed.) 1.2 Location of the Proposed Action (Indicate that proposed action is applicable within all of Town. Describe locations of individual types of land uses as distributed within Town, in terms of roadway access, the various zones, districts, utility services, etc.) 1.3 Description of the Proposed Action (ClarifY which areas would be considered for upzoning. Include analysis to ensure that CIS recommendations do not interfere with each other, or impair existing programs. Indicate whether it is advisable to set a policy on subdivision of farms during preservation process and if so, if a minimum farm size should be established. Provide definition of "Open Farmland" as per NYS Ag Law.) 1.3.1 Planning Process, Zoning and Zoning Code Mechanisms 1.3.2 Education/EnforceIp.ent Mechanisms 1.3.3 Capital Improvements/Expenditures 1.3.4 Direct Town Management 1.3.5 Inter-Agency/Quasi-Agency Initiatives 1.4 Mechanics of Implementation (Discuss programs, staffing, and needs of Town to ensure that implementation of tools that advance Town goals will occur.) 1.5 Additional Action Thresholds and Permits & Approvals Required (Provide thresholds and conditions that would trigger the need for supplemental determinations of significance or site specific EIS's. Provide brief di~cussion of the remaining SEQRA processes and review stages required for the proposed action; list all required permits, reviews and approvals.) 2.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND FUTURE BUILD-OUT CONDITIONS 2.1 Geological Resources (Provide information on the existing soil, subsurface and topographic conditions of the Town, particularly in regard to those characteristics pertinent to suitability of the soils to support the uses resulting from the proposed action.) 2.2 Water Resources (Describe current status of groundwater quality, quantity, elevation and flow direction in the Town. Relate areas of current groundwater impact to land use types, patterns and intensities. Provide information on Town surface water bodies.) 2.3 Ecological Resources (Describe/discuss the existing vegetation resources of the Town, including habitats found, acreages of each habitat type, significant species and/or habitats found, etc. Describe/discuss wildlife species found or anticipated, based on habitats found, significance of wildlife species found, etc. IdentifY wetlands and unique habitat linkages. Document contact with NY Natural Heritage Program and .findings regarding unique habitats, species, or information recorded in their files). Page 3 Final Scope Sonthold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS 2.4 Transportation Resources (Describe the existing roadway characteristics and levels of congestion at pertinent 'intersections and roadway segments in the Town. Relate areas of congestion to land use types, patterns and intensities. Present information on current types, levels of usage and routes of public transit resources serving the Town, and document road improvement plans.) 2.5 Air Resources (Describe/dimss existing meteorological and climate characteristics of the Town, air quality in the Town, and briefly describe the applicable air quality standards and regulations.) 2.6 Land Use, Zoning and Plans (Describe current land use and zoning patterns in the Town. Description of current development regulations and both public and private land preservation efforts in Town, and discuss efficacy/success in meeting Town goals of each. Describe/discuss the various land use plans, studies, etc., on which the proposed action is based, along with the recommendations of each. Include appropriate maps, such as PDR land, TDR land, public land, other preserved.) 2.7 Demographic Conditions (Provide description/discussion of the existing and anticipated demographic characteristics of the Town, including population size, households, income and other relevant data. Relate housing costs to land use type and density.) 2.8 Community Services (Relate costs of each public service listed below to land use type and density. Provide information on the current status of the following public/community services which serve the Town): . public schools . police protection . fire protection . recreation . local government 2.9 Infrastructure (Provide information on the current status of the following infrastructural elements): . solid waste removal and handling, including recycling . water supply (indicate geographic area from where potable water is pumped) . drainage (discuss existing public drainage systems) . sewage & wastewater treatment (indicate presence and limits of districts) . electricity . natural gas, ( if available) 2.10 Community Character (Describe the existing and emerging character of the community, including those of its residents. Describe the visual character of the Town, for observers along bordering roadways and from other public vantage points, for: hamlets, rural areas, and the transition areas between hamlets and rural areas.) 2.11 Cultural Resources (Describe/discuss the history of the Town and the established and potential for the presence of significant pre-historic or historic and/or archaeological resources.) 2.12 Economic/Fiscal Conditions (Provide information on the current tax generation and economic characteristics of the Town and the allocation of taxes to the Page 4 Final Scope Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS various taxing jurisdictions_ IdentifY and evaluate various economic sectors within the community, major employers and sources of jobs.) 3.0 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Key issues involve concern over 5-acre upzoning and potential socio-economic impacts; ensuring the long-term stability of the Town with respect tonatural!cultural resource protection; the need for affordable housing; and how the proposed action relates to achieving Town goals and minimizing adverse environmental impacts. To achieve the necessary level of analysis, a number of assessment techniques will be used. A build-out analysis of the Town will be performed to determine future conditions; an impact assessment will be prepared based on expected future conditions, as well as those aspects that are quantifiable with respect to impact assessment; land preservation efforts will be identified to document past land use review practices and effects; based on recommended changes in the land use decision-making framework. Each of the 43 Implementation Tools will be assessed in relation to environmental resource categories. In addition, the potential impacts of each implementation tool will be assessed and beneficial and adverse impacts will be noted. The following outline identifies the format and contact of these assessment techniques in more detail.) 3.1 Future Conditions Without the Proposed Action 3.1.1 Build Out Analysis (Perform build-out analysis of the Town based on current zoning, to predict population and describe fiiture conditions.) 3.1.2 Regional Impact Assessment for Build Out Conditions (Based on the build out analysis offuture conditions without the project, determine potential impacts with respect to use parameters, coverage, water resources, demographics, tax revenue, school taxes, solid waste and trip genera ton.) 3.1.3 Land Preservation Efforts (Discuss the various mechanisms of land preservation and status of each. Discuss relationship between potential development density and intensity of land preservation effort.) 3.2 Potential Impacts of the Proposed Action 3.2.1 Regional Impact Assessment for the Proposed Action (determine potential impacts with respect to use parameters, coverage, water resources, demographics, tax revenue, school taxes, solid waste and trip generaton, for quantifiable aspects of the proposed project) 3.2.2 Resource Impact Analysis (Discuss potential adverse environmental impacts on a regional basis with respect to each environmental resource parameter identified in Section 2.0 of the DEIS) Geological Resources Water Resources Ecological Resources Transportation Resources Air Resources Land Use, Zoning and Plans Demographic Conditions Community Services Infrastructure Community Character Cultural Resources Economic/Fiscal Conditions Page 5 Final Scope South old Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS Use and Conservation of Energy Resources 3.3.3 Potential Impacts of Implementation Tools (Determine beneficial and adverse impacts associated with each of the 43 implementation tools contemplated by the Town; once determined, assess potential impacts for those tools that are identified as having udverse impacts) 3.3 Cumulative, Secondary and Longaiferm Impacts (Analyze cumulative impacts in conjunction with those of the proposed action. Describe secondary or indirect impacts that will result from the proposed action. Address impacts that might be expected to occur over a long period of time, resulting from the incremental execution of various elements of the proposed action.) 4.0 MITIGATION MEASURES (Each of the 43 Implementation Tools will be assessed to determine the mitigation available to reduce impacts identified in Section 3.0, with respect to each of the following resource categories; mitigation will only be identified where necessary to minimize identified impacts and may include: site plan/subdivision review parameters, zone changes and land use decisions, performance standards for specific site use and possible fUrther SEQRA review, and inter-agency coordination.) 4.1 Geological Resources 4.2 Water Resources 4.3 Ecological Resources 4.4 Transportation Resources 4.5 Air Resources 4.6 Land Use, Zoning and Plans 4.7 Demographic Conditions 4.8 Community Services 4.9 Infrastructure 4.10 Community Character 4.11 Cultural Resources 4.12 Economic/Fiscal Conditions (In addition, mitigation will be considered with respect to each of the 43 implementation tools, in order to minimize potential impacts associated with the various methods the Town has identified to achieve Town goals. Mitigation may include: landowner equity measures, modification of Town review procedures, continued use of purchase of development rights. cross reference to implementation tools that may help mitigate an impact with respect to a specific tool, interagency coordination and coordination with conservation organizations, and pursuit of grant funding.) 5.0 ADVERSE IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED (Provide listing of those adverse environmental impacts described/discussed previously which are anticipated to occur, which cannot be completely mitigated.) 6.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES (Provide listing of the various environmental and human resources which will be permanently committed to the proposed action.) Page 6 Final Scope Sonthold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS 7.0 GROWTH-INDUCING ASPECTS (Describe and discuss those aspects of the proposed action which may result in additional growth and/or development in the Town, due directly to the proposed action, or indirectly as a result of changes in the community which are caused by the proposed action. The document will consider growth that is related to the proposed action such as infrastructure improvements, utilities, job creation, etc. to the extent that the p,.~t will be linked with such growth in the area. The potential for additional development in downtowns, local commercial centers and communities outside the project vicinity will be included. Identify "triggers" that will cause growth.) 8.0 ALTERNATIVES (Reasonable alternatives to the proposed action are noted asfollows) 8.1 No Action (The current land use decision-making framework of the Town remains in its current condition, based on build out analysis prepared in Section 3.0; the Town would not embark on a comprehensive implementation strategy.) 8.2 Alternatives to Implementation Tools (Analyze reasonable alternatives to each of the implementation tools, either independently or as combinations of the proposed implementation tools; include analysis of not implementing an alternative to each implementation tool (no action). Alternative strategies will be considered for each of the 43 Implementation Tools in order to fully assess the range of alternatives. The relative change in impacts will be assessed for each alternative as related to the proposed action. In some cases, no action may be the only alternative when considering a specific Implementation Tool.) 8.3 Alternatives to the Proposed Action (Ensure analysis of each of the following specific alternatives:) . Consider changing target land mass for 80% preservation and 60% density reduction to one zone (create an agriculture and open space district). . Consider applying 80% open space, 60% density reduction to all zoning districts. . Creation of tax incentives for landowners to preserve their open space and agricultural use. . Remove all uses other than agriculture from allowable uses within the A-C district. . Consider upzoning to a minimum lot size for yield purposes larger than 5 acre. . Consider 5 acre upzoning of a larger area than proposed. . Consider creation of an R-60 zoning district to apply to R-40 zoned lands. . Consider 5 acre upzoning a smaller geographical area than proposed. . Consider mandatory clustering that would limit the maximum lot size to I acre. . Consider creation of an affordable housing overlay district. . Consider allowing farm labor housing only on farms through incentive zoning which ensures permanent preservation of open space. . Modifications to the Cooperative and Assured Preservation Plan. . Allow regional govemment/utility to establish watershed protection zone. . Combination regulatory/voluntary program for farmland and open space preservation. 9.0 REFERENCES Page 7 Final Scope Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS EXTENT AND OUALITY OF INFORMATION NEEDED , The SEQRA process and the Draft GElS prepared in conformance with this scope are intended to provide comprehensive and important information in the decision-making process for use by involved agencies in preparing their own suppl~al findings and issuing decisions on their respective permits. The document will be concise but thorough, well documented, accurate, and consistent. Studies for traffic, cultural resources (if any), and other aspects of the project, prepared by qualified specialists, will be appended and referenced. Technical information may be summarized in the body of the document and attached in a separate appendix. All pertinent correspondence utilized in the document will be contained in appendices, as well as excerpts of pertinent publicly available materials. INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN APPENDICES All pertinent information and correspondence included, presented or discussed in the document shall be included in appendices subdivided for ease of reference. Such appendices may include, but not be limited to: ecological documentation, eIlvironmental and socio-economic impact data and analysis, groundwater and air quality data and information, maps, plans, regulations, etc. ISSUES DEEMED NOT RELEVANT. NOT ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT OR ADEOUATELY ADDRESSED IN A PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This section is required for a complete scoping document under SEQRA. In regard to the appropriateness of economic analysis on business operations, SEQRA is quite clear. As stated in The SEQR Handbook (NYSDEC, November 1992, pg. 60), such an analysis is not appropriate for analysis in an environmental impact statement: Are there economic or social factors that are inappropriate for inclusion in an EIS? The potential effects that a proposed project may have in drawing customers and profits away from established enterprises or in reducing property values in a community may not be considered under SEQR. Potential economic disadvantage caused by competition or speculative economic losses are not environmental factors. In summary, it is ncither intended nor required that a GElS address the potential impact of the proposed action on the operations and/or economics of any 131lsinesses (presumably including agriculrural businesses) in the vicinity, on what would be considered competition between bllsinesses, on values (market or assessed) of e)dstiFlg or potential AousiRg stock or properties, or OR taKes derived from such properties. Page 8 Final Scope Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS There was a comment suggesting that land be. made available to establish a "clean, organic solar-powered farm community ", on the order .of 100 acres, for educational and pilot program purposes. Funding for construction and operation would be obtained from unnamed private grant sources. While such a project may be laudable for its utopian character, such a scheme is outside the purview of the Town's proposed actios-;.and will not be included in the Draft GElS. There was a comment suggesting that the Town establish a preparedness plan "..for an emergency caused by the isolation of Long Island in the event of bridges being cut." The comment indicated that the plan should provide for "...a month's supply of water, food, jUel and medicine. The same plan is needed for disasters at Millstone and Plum Island." This comment is not applicable to the proposed action, and will not be entertained. No other issues have been identified to date. This applicant's intent is to thoroughly disclose and analyze relevant potential impacts associated with the proposed action. This final scope has been prepared in conformance to the scoping process delineated in SEQRA Part 617.8, as conducted by the lead agency. ..,J> Page 9 Final Scope Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS ~ Insert Matrix of Implementation Tools, I:/02303/MATRCNS2 ~e.P Page I (I TABLE 1-1 IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS AND KEy GOALS L- -... ....... This table represents a consolidation of the recommendations of planning reports and studies over the past 20 years (43 specific recommendations); some measures may apply to more than one sub-category, the most applicable subcategory was chosen as tools/mechanisms are listed only once; if each of these mechanisms/tools were implemented, the Town governmental/educational/social framework would be consistent with the comprehensive plan as defined by past initiatives and recommendations, thus implementing the planning reports and studies of the past 20 years; the current need for certain measures and their urgency based on current conditions must still be detennined, and policy decisions concerning implementation must still be made. Note: Status Column intended to indicate programs exist (E) and will be reviewed and improved/enhanced; or, are proposed to be created (P). 1. A-C District Use/Dimensional Parameters (mechanics of zone; now essentially same as other residential zones) E 2. Rural Incentive District (based on incentive zoning; exchange of benefits, i.e. maintain open space/fann use for period of time in exchange of PDR at anpronriate yield/density) P 3. Agricultural Overlay District! A-C Zoning Review (geographic definition and goals) P 4. 5-Acre Upzonine: (A-C District town-wide or soecific area) P 5. Review Special Exception Provisions (Winery-Vineyard; adeauate farmstand parking) E 6. Review of Zoning Code (mandatory clustering, recreational requirements, revise Sign Ordinance; review R-O, LB district; water dependent uses; accessory apartments, AHD standards E (exnirations), B&B's, home occupations, discourape strin shonning- centers & fast food in HB, flag lots, encouraoe common driveways; chanlle of use reauirements) 7. Review Zoning Map (Matti tuck Creek, industrial on Route 25 west of Greenport, HD in Greenport; water dependent uses, AHD - repeal or expand) E 8. Review Subdivision Regulations (road roouirements; drainage; lighting; infrastructure) E 9. Review Hillhway Soecifications (road reauirements; drainage; lillhting; infrastructure) E 10. Conservation Subdivision Program (define and implement 75-80% land oreservation through land use tools and density reduction) P II. Plannin2" Process & Encourage Committee! Agency Participation (formalize ore-submission conference, review deoartmental ore:anization; review committees; emere:ency service orovider inout) E 12. Transfer of Develooment Rights (mechanism for annronriate density relocation/management) P X X 13. Planned Development District Local Law (provide for flexible development/yield in exchange of special public benefits, i.e. affordable housing, infrastructure, dedication, etc.) P X X 14. Tree Preservation Local Law (limit removal of trees unless through subdivision/site Dlan review; define tree size and annlicable acreage) P X X X 15. Critical Environmental Lands Local Law (steep slopes and escamments, shallow groundwater, wetlands, waterways; define for yield ourposes) P X 16. SEQRA Local Law Review/Revision (Type I List; oossibly add Scenic-Byways; Critical Environmental Areas) E X 18. Agricultural District Review/Education (Agriculture and Markets Law; encourage participation; maintain existing participants) E X X 19. Create General Guidance Documents (Design Manual, transportation management/traffic calming, develoo illumination standards; BMPs; cross access agreements; side road access) P X X X X 20. Natural Environmental Education (ensure good Quality surface/llTound surface waters; BMPs; IPM; coastal erosion control; beach width monitoring) E X 21. Watershed Protection Zone/SOPA's (signage, educational distribution materials, link with land use controls) E X X X 22. Encourage Use of Public Transportation (relate to Transnortation Manal!ement Plan; create hubs; ferry linkages; winery shuttles) E 23. Transportation Management Plan (Transportation Commission; encourage transportation/pedestrian improvements; encourage public transportation; create hamlet hubs; feny linkages, winery shuttles, sirna.e "best route to"; work with LlRR) P 24. =~~ic Development Plan (manage tourism; commercial fishing; recreational boating; unique of agricultural opportunities; mariculture; capital improvement program; B&B's, network ofvisito!" P X X ~ 26. Imorove Waterfront Access (acauisitions; obtain/maintain; inventory Town land and improve) E X 27. Administer Parks of Town-wide Silll1ificance (inventorv Town land, confonn to park plan; public beach auality imnrovements) E X 28. Prioritize and Supplement CPPP (additional acquisitions; scenic by-ways acauisitions; sensitive land; orioritize) E X ~ 30. Affordable Housin2 Policy (geographi~ diversity, tarllets and new development, review every, 2-5 vears; nrovide incentives, accessory apts., financial assistance; Housinll Authority) P X 31. Concentrate Develooment in Hamlets (define hamlets; ensure annrooriate infrastructure; affordable housimz; link with land use mechanisms/tools; caoital imnrovement nrogram; traffic calmin,g) E X X X X 32. Park District/School District Boundaries Confonnity (detennine need and reconcile districts) E X 33. Update Park Inventory and Mana.ement Plan (orior 1980 studv needs uodating; inout into GIS; mana.e recreational resources) E X 34. Create a Parks and Recreation Department (manage parks, recreational resources, non-church cemeteries) P X 35. Scenic By-Ways Manapement Program (Route 48/Route 25 currently desie:nated; sie:nage, link with Overlay for standards/guidelines/land use controls) P X 36. Trail Inventoryffrail Committee/Bikeways (Transoortation Commission exists, determine aporooriate committee; inventory, innut into GIS, manage, trailhead directional infonnat1on in kiosks) P X 37. Inventorv and Mana;!e Cultural Resources (archaeolollicallv sensitive areas; Historic District designation; olaaues; landmark desi,gnation; input into GIS, mana,ge) E X 38. Architectural Review Board and Desi,gn Parameters (detennine need; establish body; generate guidance; integrate into land use review process) E X 39. Scenic AdvisoryBoard~(~ete~nine need for new Committee;~";:ana~:;s,:;enic corrido~~;, town-wide scenic resnurces\,., ,,_ _, P ~_ 40. HOUSingFinanciaIAssistanceprogram(NorthForkHousin.AllianCe;re~~~~ X 41. Develoo Water Suoolv Master Plan (Tnwn involvement, SCW A prenaring; manage infrastructure with other agencies) P X 42. Emergency Preoaredness (groundwater contamination, droue:ht management; ensure adequate emer2"encv services (oolice, fire, ambulance); flood hazard mitigation plan; erosion) E 43. Social Services Programs (senior citizen care, adeauate community facilities, day care, meals on wheels, churches, libraries) E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Page 1 ,. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENT AnON STRATEGY GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SCOPING SESSION -" JANUARY 29, 2003 PRESENT: Supervisor Joshua Y. Horton, Councilman William D. Moore, Councilman Craig A. Richter, Councilman John M. Romanelli, Councilman Thomas H. Wickham, Town Clerk Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Attorney Gregory A. Yakaboski. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Good Evening and welcome to the commencement of the Scoping Session for the SEQRA document. Before we commence, would you please rise and join with me in the Pledge to the Flag. I appreciate you all coming out tonight, we will commence, sitting before me is Patrick Cleary and Chick Voorhis. Both of who are members of the Town's moratorium planning group and I will turn the meeting over to the both of them and they will explain the SEQRA process, the purpose of tonight's Scoping Session and when there has been appropriate and clear direction from both Chick and Patrick, I will open the floor for public comment. There are a number of people in the room tonight, I would ask if we make an effort to keep our comments to somewhere in the neighbor hood of 5 minutes. So with that being said, welcome Patrick and Chick. CHICK VOORHIS: Thank you and good evening. My name is Chick Voorhis as Josh said. I am a member of the team and we are here tonight to assist the Town Board in conducting a scoping session for the purpose of determining the content of a draft generic environmental impact statement. Of course, we will seek to conduct the meeting in an orderly fashion. We do have a sign up sheet that the Town Clerk has asked that you use so that you can be identified. The purpose of this meeting is that the Town Board is currently involved with consideration of implementation of planning tools that have been identified in past land use studies. These have been inventoried and Patrick will speak a little bit about that because that is essentially what constitutes the proposed project that the Board is considering. So just in terms of overview, any Board that takes an action is responsible to consider the environmental consequences of that action. This is required under state law known as the State Environmental Quality Review Act, also known as SEQRA. It essentially requires that the Board take a hard look at the action that they may improve on. grant or implement. One of the best ways to do this is to use a dratl gcncric cnvironmental impact statement. A drat! GElS is a document that will be prepared by the Town with the assistance of the planning team and it will be circulated for public comment, for the purpose of your input on the planning initiative that the Town Board is considering. So that the public will have additional opportunities to comment on the specific content of what the Board is contemplating. And we have included a graphic board, the one to your far right, that specifically outlines the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. The first step is to determine the content of the EIS and that is our purpose in being here tonight. The Town Board took a number of very important actions back on January 7, at which time they dctem1incd themselves to be the lead agency in review of this action, Patrick will speak about that, and they required the preparation of a draft generic environmental impact statement. This evenings meeting has been advertised in at least two local newspapers during two consecutive weeks at least 15 days prior to tonights meeting. I 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session should point out that scoping is optional but the Board felt that it was important to get the communities input with regard to the scope of the environmental impact statement. There are a number of ways that the scope has been made available, after January 7 it was available here in Town Hall, it was placed in several local libraries, it was available on the Town web site and it was mailed and circulated to all of the agencies that may ultimately be involved with future decisions that affect land use in the Town of Southold, as well as any parties of interest that were on record at that time. Now, scoping, which we are conducting tonight, is essentially defined as the process by which the lead agency or the agency which oversees the project identifies the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts related to the action. And these are the items that would be addressed in the draft generic EIS. So, I hope that you have been able to look at the scoping document that has been prepared, it goes into the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and we will seek to gain your input on that tonight. With that, Patrick is going to speak about a couple of items pertaining to the lead agency role and the proposed action specifically. 2 '. PATRICK CLEARY: Lead agency is the term that Chick has used tonight, it is a term that describes the body that is running this process. In this case, the Town Board has designated itself to serve in that capacity. The Town Board will make certain critical decisions as we move through this process but their job is effectively to drive this bus, to make sure that this process runs according to the regulations. The lead agency will adopt the information that you bring to us tonight in this scope, will decide its content, the lead agency will determine the suitability of this impact statement when it is prepared and will the lead agency ultimately will produce (inaudible) findings and make decisions about the actions. The action is really what we want to talk about tonight, one of the many things that we want to talk about tonight, it revolves around the action. The action in this case is somewhat unusual, typically the action is a project. It is a subdivision, a commercial building; in this case, the action is 20 years worth of pI arming efforts that the Town has worked on. The scoping document that many of you have before you tonight list those studies and they go back to 1982 and we are talking about 18 different studies that have been produced by the Town over those years. Now of those studies there have been a number of ideas, recommendations, there have been policies, there have been goals and objectives set forth. Our action in this generic environmental impact statement is to put all of those together in a single package, see how they integrate and to make decisions on bringing those actions forward, implementing those actions. This table that you probably can't see in front of you up there, but what that table does is list from all those studies the things that should be done. The various tools, techniques, policies, objective goals, all of those things articulated in different languages, spelled out in different ways are identified on that board and they range from a couple of categories there, what we call planning process, zoning and zoning code issues, education and enforcement issues, capital improvement issues, direct town management issues, and issues of sort of inter-agency coordination, and inter-agency initiatives. Now there is a range of these actions and as I said earlier, the language used in describing these are a little bit different. Some of them are old and some of them are relatively new. Some of them are well accepted and some are controversial. It is our effort this evening in gaining your input in to how we create effectively the table of contents for this exercise and Chick will talk about that in a second and if you sort of get involved with us and we hope we are getting a hook into you tonight, if you are interested in this process to get you to participate with us in this process because the process is at its base, a very public process. And this action that we are describing tonight, the nature of the input we are seeking from this tonight, will come back to you over the course of this exercise and you will be asked for your input again and again. I think what I would like to do know is . )> 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session have Chick go through the scoping docwnent and effectively the draft generic environmental impact statement content. 3 MR. VOORHIS: The first section involves the proposed project and Patrick has indicated what that constitutes and identifies here, the Town has had a number of polls,' that they have (inaudible) and put it to the test of how they envision Southold to look and this has been through many administrations and many studies and those goals are reflected on the second page of the scoping outline, so that is essentially the proposed action. The EIS consists of the existing environmental conditions and since this is a town-wide initiative it is going to affect many areas of the town, the town environmental study will be broadly defined. (Inaudible) entire studies that inventory the Town and there have been a number of new efforts that we are very pleased to have been able to take place, with the assistance of Planning staff and the Town Board guidance, such as wetlands mapping, mapping of (inaudible) slope areas, and assembling the Town's GIS data base into a very usable form. Upgrading a lot of it that has already been collected and essentially making it workable for the purpose of describing the Town's environment for the environmental setting section. So there will be some very useful tools coming out as a result of that that will be portrayed both graphically and in text form. One of the primary sections is to take that proposed action and look at the environmental consequences of it. How it will affect the Town, how it will affect the land use and the decision making aspects of the Town and this section will look at all of the various resources, geology, water resources, ecological resources, transportation, air resources, land use owning and plans, demography of the town or population aspects, community services and various jurisdictions. The Town's infrastructure, community character, cultural resources which may include archeological distortions such as (inaudible) and visual resources, economic and fiscal conditions and conservation (inaudible) and these all will be evaluated in terms of each of the proposed initiatives. Additional sections will be prepared including cwnulative impacts and (inaudible) whether these are primary impacts or secondary impacts and in some cases, long term impacts. Each of these will be reviewed to determine if there are mitigation measures that are appropriate to incorporate or review as part of the process. And then there are a couple of other required sections, we are really getting into all of the more interesting topics of conversation and that is, are there alternatives that the Town could look at in order to achieve the goals or perhaps no action at all. And that would essentially be to allow the Town to continue on the course that it is currently in. We have identified some framework for consideration of alternatives and we have certainly seeking input to that extent tonight. So we are very near the time when we would be looking for public comments, as the Supervisor has indicated, we are very interested in hearing those comments, please come up to the sign up sheet, put your name on record, use the microphones at the two podiums and present your comments, speak clearly and slowly so that you can he understood. After the conclusion of tonight's meeting, there will be a period of time for additional written comments but we will he beginning to synthesize those comments, review them and there will be a transcript in the future (inaudible) and utilize that to revise the scope and issue a final scope that the Town Board will ultimately adopt. I will just point out that if an issue has been covered there is no need to repeat it, that we will make notations with regard to that comment. So, in closing, the introduction here tonight there has been no final decision, the Town Board ultimately makes the final decision, this is the beginning of the process, the SEQRA process; there will be an official public hearing on the Environmental Impact Statement (inaudible) prepared based on the scope that you will be commcnting on tonight and that is what we wanted to express to you, to try and frame out how the meeting is intended to be conducted. So with that, I think the Supervisor would like to have the public express their comments to the Board and we will be here to clarifY issues at the Supervisor's direction. 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session 4 4, MR. CLEARY: I would like to add a point, the way that we are going to organize this tonight so that it is as useful and clear to us as possible, if you would like to break down your comment into three groups: the first is if you could ask your comments on the project description; the second group is to comment on those impact areas that Chick described in some detail and finally we ask you to comment on alternatives, so you may return to the podium three different times to IIffer comments so that way we are able to keep our thoughts relatively clear through the process. And again we are not seeking substantive comment on the plan, we are seeking your input on what becomes sort of the table of contents of this study that will continue for a number of months down the road. The first area will be comments on the project description. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank-you, gentlemen. So essentially, in a couple of short sentences, the purpose of this meeting is to introduce new ideas, alternatives to the scoping or to the SEQRA process that the Town has not incorporated thus far. So at that point, I will offer the floor to members of the public and I think what we will do is put this down at the podium. Would somebody care to address the Town Board? Basically, we want the name and address as a matter of record so we know who has participated. STEPHEN MUDD: I would like to ask for clarification from the Town Board as to which classification of zoning that we are talking about possible zone change that this environmental impact study has been put on. We have attended a lot of meetings and I don't have it clear in my mind as to the delineation of what zoning that you are talking about consideration of a change of zone. And I don't know if you have gotten to that level or is that still up for finalization but I would like to, if possible, get clarification on that. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: I would like clarification on that, too because I would like to get us to a further discussion of zoning but as the two consultants have said, we are looking for input on this meeting of other alternatives. That is what we are here for. All alternatives. MR. MUDD: So as it stands right now, it is a town wide consideration for anything that is... COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: From the way they explained it to me, anything goes. MR. VOORHIS: We have conducted a very detailed review of the 20-year history of studies. Patrick mentioned approximately 18 studies. So what was in those studies is csscntially what is on thc tablc for the Board to consider to implement. There were a couple of areas that involved change of zones but that is certainly not the exclusive focus of this project, it goes beyond that looking at economic development plans, affordable housing initiatives and many avenues of techniques to make the Town a better place. The several specific areas that did involve zone changes that come to mind are ones that the Town has considered in the past, five acre zone and that has been reflected in several reports and so that is part of the consideration. The Town has also considered through reports, adoption of an ordinance that would allow to plan zoning districts and this would create a planning tool that is being used not only on Long Island but throughout the country to look at incentives for various types of mixed use and appropriate uses in the contemplated, for certain areas of the Town. And there were some areas that had also been identified where looking at the AC zoned lands and the R-80 zoned lands to make sure that they were in the appropriate locations for what they are intended to do based on , 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session the legislative intent of those zoning districts. Those were a couple of the areas, again, what I will call a matrix in the middle on the board which you are welcome to go up and take a look at, spelled out each of the (inaudible) that are being considered under this plan, you may want to take a look at that for areas that involve zoning changes. So effectively, how this works now, if your concern was the five-acre upzoning, it is in the analysis. It is in the mix to be explored, studied and evaluated, if you think it should be a ten-acre upzoning, let's say, a 50-acre upzoning, you should tell us that that should be considered as an alternative and the Board will consider that as one of the alternatives to an action that is already effectively on the table, that being the five-acre upzoning, which is something that carne out of a previous report. So that is how this system will work. This is an action, it is described as the stuff that the Town has already done and your job tonight is to say that 'you have got it all, you have covered all the bases' or you missed them, 'I really think you should do more or less or different'. That is what we are talking about in terms of alternatives. :; MR. MUDD: If at some point in time, I would assume that through the input and everybody's focus on this that there will be clarification of what zoning would be considered based, again, on this five- acre potential zone change. Are you going to start over ~t that point and do a new Environmental Impact Study on those particular zones because what you have done, everything is on the table for discussion, I understand that, but if it gets defined down to certain types of zones wouldn't you have to do a different Environmental Impact Study based on the zonings that are going to be considered for inclusion at that point. MR. VOORHIS: What will happen throughout this process is that we will move from a fairly local approach throughout evaluation to findings where the Board makes some judgments. So there is a draft environmental impact statement, there are public hearings associated with that, during those public hearings you are able to say if we should refine, change, modify or reduce in size or enlarge in size. The Board will take those into consideration as comments and provide answers to that during the public environmental impact statement, so the nature of the beast is that these ideas will gain focus as we move through the process. If there is no focus at the end of the day and there is no conclusion and the Board says 'I am not sure, you are absolutely right' the Board would then have to re-visit this issue if there is no conclusion to it. If they say up-zoning is good but we don't know where and that is their finding, then they would have to re-visit this if they chose to up-zone and do SEQRA again, if they chose to up-zone a particular parcel ofland. MR. MUDD: Thank-you. A point of information, the 18 studies that previously have been made... MR. VOORHIS: Actually there were 20. MR. MUDD: 20 are they (inaudible) SUPERVISOR HORTON: Would anyone else care to address the Town Board? JOSEPH LIZEWSKI: The fact that these studies are being used is very interesting to me simply because they are studies and they really should be put in the right perspective. The fact is that they were studies and they were not passed on by the Town Board's at that time, reflect that the people at that time didn't feel that there was enough merit in some of those studies to adopt them. And I think that you have to realize that some of these points that you may be picking out of these studies actually 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session toppled Town governments at that time because of the controversy of, or some of the planning that was done in those Town studies. So I think that you should start to reflect on really what is there and not on the studies that are there because those studies were not passed or were not all adopted for a reason. And if they were all good studies, you wouldn't be here right now, correct? So taking those studies and taking those studies apart seems like a very, very backwards way of looking at the future, simply because people have already made a judgment. That is like saying all of j}e governments before us didn't know what they were doing. All these studies were wonderful and they all were no good because they didn't pass on these studies, now we are going to reopen these studies and we are going to look at them at a different time and a different place and not realize the reasons for these studies not being adopted. There is a reason why those studies weren't adopted, there is a reason why those studies weren't adopted and the governments at the time either wisely or unwisely may have decided not to adopt them so I think you should look at the legality of what was put in place and not so much of what the studies represent. If you are going to do that kind of thing, it is a funny thing that when you are looking at government, we always looked at government in, if you are sitting on the Town Board people come to you and say, you know in East Hampton they just passed this wonderful, regulatory law. We are behind, we need that over here, about six months later we would go to Southampton and then finally it would start to work its way into our agendas. When it comes to this whole study, when you look at East Hampton and the way that it is going with its upzoning and the problems that it has and Southampton, it should be very easy for you to start to realize the direction that your studies are taking you because it has already been done and the problems that they have, we are going to have over here. So I think that the studies should be looked at in a much different light than what is reality and find out what are the legal things that we have really done and what did we really put on the books, not just the studies that were done. I mean, study after study after study always gets done but the truth of the matter is, when the study is not adopted it means that the people that sit on that bench at that time are not happy with that study. So when you are looking at all these studies, there is a reason why you have 20 studies and not everything was adopted. So I think that you have to look at the negative side of this, not just the positive side and realize that there are an awful lot of things and a lot of issues that came to bear and you are taking it out of context at this time because they were done years ago. And some of those studies were really not big studies, they were just a meeting in this hall like the Jones study and it was presented for a very short period of time and it was gone. So, when you are looking at this stuff I think that you should realize that these studies haven't been implemented for a very good reason. 6 . BILL ESSEXS: My name is Bill Essexs, I am an attorney from Riverhead, I represent several fanners who are prescnt and several who aren't here. They arc land-owners in the Town, they arc interested in this proceeding and I understand that I am going to have several opportunities to speak tonight because you are going to have different topics and the first one somebody said was a project but I think it also falls under the definition of the description of the action. My first comment deals with that because I do not believe that what you are doing is an action under SEQRA. If I am correct on that, you are investing time and a lot of money in a project that is not yet a project and you should see whether I am right or whether your advisors, if they are giving you this advice, are correct. The Environmental Conservation Law has regulations adopted pursuant to it and six-I hate to speak in shorthand but where I am making a record-but 6 NYCRR section 617.2b defines what an action is and in your resolution, Town Board resolution of January 7, 2003 which I think started this and caused us to be here tonight, there is a description of the action and then they list 20 different projects or studies done in the past, the first one is 1982 and the last one is 2002. Examining those matters is not a SEQRA action. A . 7 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session positive declaration, which you have already done, can only take part as part of an action and an action is defined in the SEQRA regulations and the one closest to you is an agency planning and policy making activities which, that is okay so far, that may affect the enviromnent, so far okay, and commit the agency to a definite course of future decisions. That is not what is happening here. Someday you may decide that you want to adopt a Local Law or amend your code or do any number of things that are specific. Buy a new Town Hall, hire personnel, rezone something, change some of your planning regulations, there are any number of things that you can do that are actions and maybe you are thinking about those things but there are not part of what you are doing today and if the cornerstone of what you are doing and how you are getting people involved and how you are putting people at risk for what they think is there future and their economics is something that you should get advice on and I respectfully request on behalf of my clients that you get a written opinion from your attorneys, special counselor regular counsel, on this very issue. Because I am going to give an opinion to you and I believe that the opinion that I am giving will be a correct opinion and I don't want to waste my time on that but I am going do it but I am going to charge them and they are going to pay me and we are going to have it but if I am right and you are wrong, you are going to be embarrassed and you are going to have wasted a lot of time and it may be that this should not be a SEQRA scoping session, this may be a discussion, it has nothing to do with SEQRA because there isn't any action, you can still do these things and you will start your SEQRA in the future when you have an action that you ought to pursue. I think that you have the heart and the course and the cart in the wrong direction. I want to touch on one other thing right now before we get into the next part of what I think will be an extensive discussion. And that is in one of these pieces of paper that I managed to get over the last week, there was some discussion by someone on your staff that economics is not before you now, that is not true. Economics are before you, the Chinese, there was a Court of Appeals case in 68 New York second that states that economics are involved, the SEQRA regulations themselves state that economics are to be taken into account when you make a decision. The name of the case is Chinese Staff and Workers Association vs. City of New York, 68NY2nd359 and it has been cited hundreds of times and if you are to go ahead either now, as you are headed or in the future as I think you should do it and you keep economics out of your study, you are giving the people who are going to be upset with what you are doing at the end a free shot. And don't waste the taxpayers money and your time if in fact, I am correct and your consultants are incorrect on that. You must take into account the economic consequences of what you are proposing to do because those economic consequences are not only economic but they show up in who is going to live here. Now, that part and who is going to leave and what the real estate taxes are going to be and so on, but I think that is part of another part of this evening and I will get to that. So, my first two statements are: you shouldn't be doing this now, please get legal advice in writing on the subject and I will maybe wc will cross on that and then respond but you should put that to rest, I think you owe it to the taxpayers to put that to rest, you owe it to everybody, I think. And the other issue on this procedure issue is that you have to take economics into account and there are a lot of cases on the subject, there are treatises on the subject and I am willing to share those with your counsel and your consultants. And I expect and hope that I get the opportunity to speak on the alternatives and also on the impacts because I think that if you are going to go ahead, over my objection, I want a list of what the impacts are so they can be discussed. Thank-you. A YTUG UNALDl: My name is Aytug Unaldi. I would like to stm1 with quoting from President Bush from his speech last night. "Our third goal is to promote energy independence for our country while dramatically improving the environment. I have (inaudible) comprehensive energy plan to promote energy efficiency and conservation, to develop cleaner technology and to produce more energy at 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session home. I have sent you clear skies legislation that mandates a 70% cut in air pollution from power plants over the next 15 years. I urge you to test these measures for the good of both our environment and our economy, even more I ask you to take a crucial step and protect our environment in ways that generations before us could not have imagined. In this century the greatest environmental progress will come about not through endless lawsuits or command and control regulations but through technology and. innovation." And I am grateful to hear that from our Presment, that is a sign of a changing world and the world is not going to be the same from now on. Being here, we have our vision of energy protection, economy and income generation, we are here to provide solutions for those titles. Energy, locally produced, clean, renewable and efficient, that is what we look for in energy. Protection, we need to protect our global environment, we need to protect the world that we live in, we need to protect our farmland, we need to protect our soils and aquifer and we need to protect our health. Economy, in the existing economical situation of Southold Town, affordable housing is an issue and synergetic community living is kind of lacking and local production, to locals, local farm production is not going directly to locals and locals can not benefit from the farm protection but we are having a produce which is produced in California or Florida and with conventional methods, with artificial fertilizers. For income generation, we have energy production from produce, food processing, tourism income, homeopathic medicine, staying healthy and fit and local arts and crafts in mind. So we would like to propose a project for covering all of these at once. It is a solar, organic, community farm. It is a farm community, it is affordable, it is clean, it is protecting farmland and it is protecting soil and aquifer, protecting our health, saving energy and water, creating and generating its own energy, generating income, utilizing renewable energy resources, being self- sufficient, activating clean tourism, educating society, forming a global example, supporting local arts, artists and crafts, creating synergy by community living, developing social relations, activating local economy and promoting our town. This is an organic farm, it is just a sketch, if we consider this page, it is about 90 acre piece of land and it is, the occupied place part of the land is 15% or 20% in this page and it is possible to build affordable, it is possible to farm organic, it is possible to activate the community, the group of people with some income generating measures or let's say a hall, or a sports center, an activity center, an organic food restaurant, a craft center, an artist guild, some (inaudible) for people to meet and talk and it can be done by using all solar and renewable wind powers. It can save us water, it can collect water, it can re-use the used water, it can clean itself up and it can do farming organically in a clean way, so that kids can walk in the farms, not being afraid of the pesticides being used there. This is an idea, I don't know what you think about that. We can work on it, it needs to be worked on. We spent some time on it but it is not sufficient, of course, and it needs to be put on the table and designed, we need land for an example project-like 100 acre land, that we can convert to solar, organic farm community. That was the first point, I have two more. I have a solar house project as well, to decrease the pollution and to supply the energy et1iciency. It is a passive and active solar heating, it is passive and active cooling, it retains the temperature-ambient temperature, produces its own electricity, it saves at least 90% of its own energy needs. It generates minimal waste, it collects and saves water, (inaudible), complies with and exceeds code requirements, forms an example for social education and broadcasts the data on the internet for people to learn what is happening in a solar house, how can it save that much? As an example to that, I brought with me a town house complex, built in 1958 in Massachusetts and it's saving 93% of its auxiliary heat needs. I can give you a copy, if you would like. 8 . SUPERVISOR HORTON: Yes, if you would leave that with the gentleman up front for the record. 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session MR. UNALD1: It was possible in 1958, it is possible today and with the existing information and technologies we have, we can do better than that. It just needs some curiosity and some support to implement. And the University, SUNY Farmingdale, Professor Datarty is very much interested in building and sponsoring such a project. He is ready to do the project and calculations, through me, he told me to convey this message to you as well. The Department of Solar Energy is supporting our request for a solar home project, we just need to request from him. And tile third is a solar powered garage and workshop. It is a simple two-car garage, which can produce in 20 years let's put it that way, it saves us 163,000 pounds of carbon dioxide, 1,100 sulfur dioxide, 420 pounds of nitrogen oxide, it produces 150,000 kilowatts of electricity, which is worth $20,000. And with the thermal collectors, it produces 35,000,000 btu's per year. This is a tiny project, it is not residential, it is not heated, it is a space which can be located in the backyard and it is very cost effective and efficient project in terms of using clean energy. And if anyone is interested in the details, 1 can supply you with the details of this project, as well. Thank-you very much. (Solar Townhouse information available in file) 9 SUPERVISOR HORTON: Supervisor Schneiderman is here from East Hampton, he is here to announce that the ferry. ... JAY SCHNEIDERMAN, EAST HAMPTON SUPERVISOR: It is good to be here. Good evening, Town Board members, Supervisor Horton. Actually, I had a little bit of trouble finding Town Hall in the snow in particular, I stopped at the firehouse and I guess a lot of the firemen are involved with the snow removal, and they were out front and they said it is right before Horton Avenue, so I think it is very nice that they have named a street after you, Josh, they haven't done that for me yet in East Hampton. Actually, not only am I the Supervisor in the Town of East Hampton, I am also the Chairmen of the East End Supervisors and Mayors Association. All of the towns are grappling with similar issues. We are all thinking about our future and trying to figure out what to do in light of incredible development pressures over the last few years. In a conversation with Supervisor Horton, we were talking casually about the upzoning that the Town is considering and I was talking a little bit about East Hampton's experience with upzoning, which the gentleman who spoke before mentioned some of the problems. I was reading through, and I am not familiar with the legislation that you are proposing, I take it it is a moratorium over large sections of land, as you study what the proper zoning of the land should be but as I looked at the intent here, water supply, agricultural lands, open space, recreation space, rural character, natural resource and transportation, I thought I would comment on some of those things. Because sometimes you don't get exactly what you think and there are some benefits to upzoning, in East Hampton upzoning largely came out of the 208 Study, which Dr. Koppelman conducted. And it was to protect ground water and there was a belief that at five-acre zoning and even less in Dr. Kopplemans report, it would bring the nitrate levels down to a point where you could protect your ground water. So it is important to figure out what the purpose of that upzoning is. Now, as I go through this, in terms of water supply-that might be perfectly valid but at the same time, this is a heavy agricultural area and I know everybody wants to preserve your agriculture and agriculture is water depend, it is also, and I support the efforts for organic farming but agriculture as an industry can't always be organic. So there is a lot of nitrogen, there are often agri-chemicals used and that does have an impact on ground water. So you have to think ahead and figure out how are you going to constantly be able to rely into the future on your aquifer here or will you have to reach out possibly into the Pine Barrens or other areas and if the main goal is water protection, you really need to think about whether that is really going to be the dominant reason, if that is going to hold out for you. I am going to get in a moment to another impact on agriculture that is not entirely positive. Open . 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session space preservation, it is a tool for open space preservation but it tends, in East Hampton we have carved up our landscape. We have chopped it up into these five-acre blocks s.o instead of preserving large, contiguous blocks of open space we tended to segment it. So as an environmental tool, it also has its down sides. It forces everybody to use their cars, because you have got these big parcels that aren't near anything so everybody has to get into their cars, so you have your transportation issues, it has an economic impact, which I will discuss in a second, too. But frOJIl the environmental prospective, I prefer a model that you identify the large areas that you want to preserve and then you concentrate your density where it should go rather than just carving up your landscape. Recreation, if you mean recreation in terms of playing fields, I think you have got to identify where those playing fields are going to be because what we find with five-acre zoning you end up with very big homes, not the kind that the average person can afford, so you end up with the mansions and the mansions seem in my experience seem to be very vocal against playing fields anywhere near them because there is going to be a lot a noise and you know, we have an increasing Latino population and it seems to raise a lot of flags for people, so our efforts lately to provide for playing fields has been met with very staunch and well-funded opposition. Rural character, you have to define what rural character is because to me rural character is the community, the people as well as the environment. What has happened in my community is by upzoning everything, we have taken away all the lots that working people can afford. And with that, a lot of people have left the town and a lot of these big houses are become summer homes, because working people can't buy them so they end up being summer homes and those summer homes demand services. People have to take care of those homes and those people have to live somewhere. So either they are living in basements, we actually haven't had the density reduction, the population reduction we hoped for because we end up with all these people that now have to service those homes or people commuting into the area because they can't live there. And what has happened in my town, is the price has gone up so high that the bottom of the housing market is now $400,000. That is the bottom, $400,000. That means that you need basically a family income of around $200,000 to buy a home. 98% of the working people, based on the 2000 census figures are priced out of the housing market. That is serious. Because we can't get nurses to live in the community, we can't get teachers, town employees, things are unraveling and we can't replace these people and they can't live in the community. And what does that say to a community? What is that impact when your kids school teacher, they can't run into them at the pizza parlor at night? What kind of commitment does that teacher have when they can't live in the community? And it is getting worse and worse in that direction. I would say every week, a young person comes to me and tells me that they are leaving town and there is really no hope. Those who have houses, some of them are staying and some of them are cashing out. They can't believe the prices that they are getting for their homes. They arc moving to North Carolina or Florida. places where there are more opportunities and those homes thcn becomc summer homes, those summer homes demand more services and you end up with this domino etIect, where it gets worse and worse. So what appears as a good environmental initiative, may not actually be that. In terms of the transportation, as you bring your density down you believe that you are changing your transportation, but once again if you make everything go outside our your hamlet centers, everybody needs a car, every member of the family needs a car, you have all these additional vehicle trips and then if the working people can't live in the community, they are commuting back and forth and the people that are living there are living 20 to a house because that is the only way they can afford to live is by splitting thc rent 20 ways, you end up with more people than you thought you were going to have so it really, you really have to study these things. I guess I am really here to say, don't make the same mistake we've made. Upzoning can be a valuable tool but look at it comprehensively. Don't do it without figuring out the affordable housing component, figure out- 10 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session maybe transfer some of your density into your hamlet centers, figure out areas where development can occur. Because if you don't, you are going to find that it is very hard to correct these things. You will find that it is hard to pass your school budgets because it is more and more a summer community because working people can't live there. You will find all these impacts that you had no idea that you were going to face and now, I am trying to face that. We have brought in some really good planners who have done affordable housing in Nantucket, in Aspen, Colorado and other affluent communities and we are trying to find these solutions but we are working at a disadvantage because most of the land has been carved up. So just think about it carefully and I will answer any questions. There may be some good merit to it but do it comprehensively. 11 COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Do you have in East Hampton, clustering with your upzoning to five acres? SUPERVISOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: You did. Do you think the town would have been better off today, if they didn't upzone? SUPERVISOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I think the town needed to do affordable housing, 20 years ago. Real affordable housing. So I think that a certain amount of upzoning would have made sense but I think that it is a shame that so many of the small lots have been taken away. Because those were the lots that working people can afford and there is really nothing right now for working people. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Did East Hampton do an upzone across the board on every lot? Or did they do it on specific districts? SUPERVISOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Not every lot but much of our land mass is in the SGPA which is the special groundwater protection area, that area was largely upzoned to five acres. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Right. SUPERVISOR SCHNEIDERMAN: And that is a big chunk of the landmass. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: But as a whole... SUPERVISOR SCHNEIDERMAN: The area that is outside of it is mostly coastal, so you end up with high property values to begin with. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Right. But as a whole do you think the town would have been better off doing nothing? SUPERVISOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I think what the town needed to do was plan more comprehensively, it needed to include people in its definition of rural character. That is critical. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Supervisor. Would anyone else care to address the Town Board? 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session 12 TOM SAMUELS: Torn Samuels, from Cutchogue and thanks, Jay for making the ferry ride. History has a way of repeating itself. My primary business is in Southampton and East Hampton and I have seen this progression as it has happened in those two towns and it will happen here. It is predictable. You can talk about what is in the scoping document all you want. What you just heard is the result of < five acre zoning. Five acre zoning, exclusionary zoning is amoral. It is bad stuff. :1 had a meeting this afternoon with the largest building contractor in Southold Town. Not one of his employees can afford to own a home in the town. Most of them have to have their rent subsidized by the contractor in order to stay in town. You have got fire departments, you have volunteers at the hospital, you have volunteers at the blood bank all alone. It is a real situation and I hate to see what happened to East Hampton happen in Southold. And I have said it for years, not in just this area, the natural resources permits are another area of complaint that I have. And you have served on that Board as Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The real reality of what you are contemplating and that is what this hearing is all about, it is not about other solutions, it is about five acre zoning. That is why I am here. I wouldn't have corne for any other reason. Because the meetings and the hearings and the decisions, let's go back to the US-UK study. You remember that one, Torn. That one was to have all the new housing around the hamlets. Save the open space out in the farm fields and so on and so forth. But what happened? Every proposition that came for housing around the hamlets, met NIMBY in the hamlets. It was predictable. It was predictable. And it was predicted and it happened. Now, all the other studies that Mr. Cleary was talking about was driven by a narrow constituency. They were in response to appeals made to the Town Board to solve various problems. Number one was let's keep the town the way it is, how can we do it? So you had a narrow constituency corning to elected officials who felt they had to respond, let's do a study. What did Bob Wagner say in the city? If you have a problem, do a study. By the time you get the study done, the problem will not be apparent. So that is what happened since 1982. To use those studies as an outline for five acre zoning is patently ridiculous. Now, you have some decisions to make, it is true. And I, for the life of me, John; I know you are driving this but I don't understand it. Because you have employees, do they live in the Town? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Yes, some of them do. I just want to clarifY, are you saying that the 20 years of studies, all those administrators over the last 20 years, we shouldn't look at any of them? Discount them? MR. SAMUELS: Well, you can look at them. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Is your alternative to do nothing~ Is that, what you arc saying is your alternative is to do absolutely nothing and... MR. SAMUELS: There are two things that have to be done in this Town. Number one is affordable housing. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Okay. MR. SAMUELS: Okay, number one, before you do the five acre zoning, give these kids some hope. Number two, affordable rental apartments. So they can live in them reasonably enough to get some equity to buy a house. God forbid they are going to be at $400,000 in this town. But what you are 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session doing to these kids is telling them that we don't want you here. It is like the old gag at Southold High School, pump our gas, cut our grass and get out of town by 5:00. That is what the kids say. 13 COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: So, your alternative is to address affordable housing but to leave density and zoning alone. It is okay? I wanted to clarify that. . MR. SAMUELS: My alternative is, leave the farmers alone. If they want to enter into an agreement with you like they did in Southampton, well and good. That is not a bad plan or an alternative for it. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: But if they don't want to enter the plan, just leave zoning alone and leave the density potential alone? MR. SAMUELS: Absolutely. You cannot take their land away from them. It is all they have got. They have been screwed for years, it goes back for at least to 1959 when I moved here. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: So your alternative is to leave the zoning and density potential alone? MR. SAMUELS: Until you have addressed the real problems in the Town. COUNCILMAN ROMANALLI: Affordable housing? MR. SAMUELS: Affordable housing. That is what you have got to do. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: And if we address that? MR. SAMUELS: Well, let's see what happens. I read about, the scare tactics that are repeated and repeated and repeated. Let's go back. The most ludicrous thing, Steve Jones of the Water Authority says here you don't have enough water for Southold Town. We can't give everybody water. You come up with a five-acre zoning plan. What does Steve Jones say-'we have got water for 100,000 years'. Now what does that tell you about what has gone on here? It is a joke. The only reason he said that was to push the five-acre zoning initiative. That is why he did it. That is hypocrisy of the grandest order from a public official. That is real hypocrisy. That is shameful. If you are going to, leave the town alone. Now, the actual population increase in Southold Town, since the last time I looked, is about 800, of full-time residents. Of course. they can't, you can't live here. It is no coincidence that we have so many very good Latin-American people because the town can't exist without them. The restaurants, the farms, the nurseries, the landscapers. I don't know how many plumbers there are but you probably, I have Latin workers and they are great. But they are going to want to live someplace. Right now, they are 20 to a room. Where the hell are they? I don't know. But we have got to address this. The services that this town requires are tremendous. People that are moving into town aren't self-reliant. They need a plumber to change a washer, they need somebody to fix the screen. That is the problem, you are not addressing those problems, you are pushing them aside and saying, well, if we have less people, wc will have less problems. I don't know that we are assured of that. I remember Charlie Horowitz' five-acre zoning in Orient that was forced on him. And he finally accepted it, after years. To date, there are three houses and there must be 14 sites left. Five- acres is too much land to buy. Now, if you are going to cluster them, you are going to have trouble 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session selling the lots. Because somebody who pays for a five-acre lot, wants five acres, or two acres, or three acres. But if you are going to stick them in one acre, he is not going to be happy. You can't have all the swimming pools and the tennis courts and the three car garages because that is what they are going to want. So let, here is the alternative, John. Forty acres zoning, nothing but investment bankers living in the town, a paid fire department, no nurses living in the town, no EMS, that is the alternative that you are looking at. The town as got to grow as fast as it will grow. At some point, I don't know what you are going to do but to say that Southold can avoid change or, it is ridiculous. You can't. It is not going to happen. What right have the citizens of Southold to turn their back on the rest of the County or the State? Or the American people. I live in a very, very nice house. I bought it in 1959. I know it is worth 1.5 million dollars. Doesn't mean a gosh darn thing. It doesn't mean a gosh darn thing. Because there is no place for me to go except spend funny money some place else. For the life of me, John, I cannot understand your position. As you know, 1... 14 . COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: But, Tom, again I keep on questioning your alternative, basically is, we are okay. MR. SAMUELS: We are okay. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Address affordable housing and the density and the growth of the town is okay and we don't have to worry about it and all the 20 years of studies are over with but they are a waste of time. That is really what you are saying? SUPERVISOR HORTON: I am going to end the cross talk now. John. Dr. Samuels, do you have any other alternatives that you would like to offer, sir? MR. SAMUELS: I want the EIS, ifin fact you are going to ignore and I would like Town Council to comment on Mr. Essexs contention. But in the event you choose not to comment or in the event we overlook Mr. Essexs comments, I want to see a socio-economic impact analysis of what you are proposing to do. Because I think it is wrong. I think it is dramatically wrong. I maybe haven't gotten that point across. COUNCILMAN MOORE: Tom, one thing for you to think about-and that is: set aside upzoning for a second, but for every acre of development rights that you buy are you not having the same kind of impact when reducing the availability of land for housing stock? You don't need to answer it, just chew on it. MR. SAMUELS: No, I want to answer it. COUNCILMAN MOORE: No, that is okay. MR. SAMUELS: No, I want to.. ..let me answer the question. SUPERVISOR HORTON: We are not going to.. .please, sir. MR. SAMUELS: May I answer the question? . 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session SUPERVISOR HORTON: You may answer the question but what I ask of the Board, is this is the opportunity for the public to address the Board. This isn't a cross talk or an exchange or a narrative from the Board. Thank-you. 15 MR. SAMUELS: The town population has again and again and again approved referendums for bonds for purchasing. Mr. Wickham is right in this case. If the public, the townspeople, want to buy development rights, want to buy the fanners rights-fine. But how can you tell the fanner he has to sell the rights. Why should he if he doesn't want to? The question is if the development rights are purchased or if you buy the land and the density is less, then the town has willed that to happen. But don't regulate the guys land away from him. That is what I am saying. Thank-you. MR.ESSEXS: I have brought an outline, which I am going to leave here with many of my comments. I would like for everybody in Town government to have one. Just think about it for a moment, I live in Aquebogue and I spend a lot of my practice in Southampton and East Hampton and I am astounded that the Supervisor in East Hampton agrees me or I agree with him on so many things. I have been fighting with them since 1959. I want to talk about this issue of five-acre zoning, which is I think a reason why we are here tonight. The town is really, the town consists of property that is governmental, industrial, agricultural, commercial and residential. Those are the zoning uses that you have here. And what is going to happen in the future? The government land can get larger or smaller based on government fiat. You guys choose that and you probably aren't going to make it too much larger. You have some schools, you have some government buildings, you have some parks. Those things are probably static or they are going to grow. And as they grow, nobody is going to live there. So your population is controlled in that area. The industrial and the commercial areas don't contribute to population and probably if they are like the other East End towns, except for Riverhead, you are going to reduce those a little bit because the adjacent property that was vacant is now being developed and people don't want commercial industrial there, so you are probably going to give into some ofthat and not allow rezonings for commercial industrial. The agricultural areas, you are not going to create any more. What is there is there, unless it is changed. And then you have the residential, the residential properties that are in single and separate ownership are protected. That is what really is driving these meetings and driving people getting elected or not getting elected. And the housing stock is going to go up in value with the passage of time and a lack of new housing acreage being available. But what is in play, the only thing that is in play are the large, vacant residential tracks and the agricultural properties. And that is why I am here. People like to look at the agricultural properties as long as the wind doesn't blow dirt in their faces and people like the fanning area for its ambience. However, the values that keep the farmers in business are the potential borrowing power and the future ability that they know that they can convert that vacant land into housing stock if they need to or if they want to. The ones that are there, the thousands of acres that are still there reflect an interest in that investment, in that future, and also in the farming profession. What is proposed is, to take the value off the vacant fannland and transfer it to the houses that exist. That is the natural progression if you go forward and do the rezoning. It is a movement of value, negative to the farmer and positive to the homeowner. There is a lot at risk and spinning around that you guys need to consider if you are going to make that value judgment because you are making it in response, at least in part, to the voters who have these houses, summer or year-round, who want the status quo maintained as long as possible. Is it right morally and is it right politically for you to move that money? And if you are going to move that money, you should at least acknowledge that you are doing it because hypocrisy shouldn't be involved in this. Now, when I go to my Watermill office on Fridays, I get up at 5:00 AM and I leave my home 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session in Aquebogue by 5:30 AM because 9 months out of the year, if I don't do that, a 20-minute trip becomes an hour trip. The people, the Town Hall in Southampton and East Hampton can't get people to work there because they can't get across the canal. The nurses can't get to work, the carpenters and the tradespeople leave their homes in Western Suffolk and in Riverhead, and in Shirley at 4:30 AM and 5:00 AM and they are crowding me at 5:30 AM. Where else do you have anything like that? We .~ are becoming a ridiculous situation where the houses are getting larger, as somebody said, nobody can do anything. You have to have five people serving every house that is out here. It is happening here, it is even happening in Riverhead, of all places. And you either have to find other ways to getting the cars and trucks out here or you have to find a way to keep people here. But what the Supervisor of East Hampton said and what Tom said is absolutely true. We have this conundrum that we have to deal with. You also have to consider the situation of... Southold is sort of unique, you have a large retired middle class and upper middle class group. You don't have as many of the billionaires as they have in Southampton and East Hampton and I say that not sarcastically. However, in East Hampton and Southampton you can jack the taxes up to any amount of money and the people don't care. Just don't care, it is of no consequence. I have clients paying $100,000 a year in real estate taxes, do not care. That won't fly here. As you restrict the nwnber of houses, the ones that are left go up in value and somebody has got to pay those taxes. You have to pay more money to get your cops and your firemen, as you reduce your density, your values go up and your taxes are going to go up. Maybe not as much as they have in some places but you are going to have increased taxes. And you have got to take that into account because you have got a very high percentage of people on fixed incomes maybe they are higher fixed income than other places, but they are still fixed incomes. It is not East Hampton or Southampton where they don't care. Is a rezoning and a transfer of wealth going to result in a town wide reassessment? A town wide reassessment is a great way to find out where your voters are because nobody likes it. You are going to find people showing up at public meetings that you didn't know lived in the town. Also, when you in effect, threaten fanners by saying somebody has got to give and you are the only ones left. Because that is what, the politest way you can say this, somebody has got to help us and there is nobody else around because the housing stock can't be touched, it is grandfathered. So here are the only ones in play. When you do that, what are you doing? You are saying to the farmer, lose your value, let it whither away or you are saying go develop. You are prodding them and is it appropriate for you to go and put that stick in their eye. And if you are going to do that, you should look at the consequences of putting the stick in their eye because you may not like the rush that you are going to force. There has been discussion here, I have gone through some of your records and seen some of the advice that you have gotten from some of your counsel, about making contracts with farmers saying that if you do certain things today, your zoning, your two acre zoning will still he there 5. 10.15 or 20 years. That is not legal. If someone tells you it is legal. they are not telling you the truth. I say that categorically. Cannot make a contract with regard to zoning. If you want to get the Legislation to amend the State Constitution, great. It should be done, it should be a tool. The theory is that one Town Board, one Village Board, one County Board cannot make a decision that binds the hands of the next legislature. That is good government because the history of this, every once and a while there is some corruption, not on Eastern Long Island but in other parts of the world there has been corruption and the State law is unequivocal, you can't make a contractual bargain to give somebody their zoning in the future. And if somebody tells you to the eontrary, let's have an exchange of letters and let's go and try to put that to bed. Because if you are going to ahcad and make rezonings based upon contracts that are non-enforceable, you are either knowingly doing it or negligibly doing it, you shouldn't do it. The issue of what you do in the future, it is a difficult issue that has be addressed in particular, discreet zoning proposals that as far I can see, have not come out 16 . 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session yet and are not on the table. I, on behalf of my clients, will be making some proposals. I don't think that is my position to deal with it tonight, I will try to do it as soon as I can but your problem is your waterfront properties are for the most part zoned residential and no one is about to change that. The forces in the State, County and the local level are not going to allow that. Your farm lands are not going to become commercial and industrial, so you are left with a residential or agrarian economy and the number of alternatives are somewhat limited. You can attempt in different ways to cap your population but when you do that, you must understand what is going to happen. The prices are going to go up, the taxes are going to go up and the service industry is going to have to come out from somewhere else and you are on a peninsula, there is no way in, you can't fly them in, you can't bring them in by boats. And nobody wants to build a new road, so you have some problems that you ought to try to solve before you create the problem. As the Supervisor from East Hampton was intuitive enough to say, his predecessors created the problem and now they can't get rid of it. You cannot get an ambulance from East Hampton to Southampton during the sununer. They use helicopters. There is gridlock. You don't have to worry about walking across the street because you just walk between the cars. There is absolutely, from the middle of June, the end of June you can't in East Hampton Village, you can't get a parking place. Starting in March until the end of October. Those problems should be dealt with before you adopt a rezoning. Otherwise, you are going to do what they did in Southampton and East Hampton, you are going to create the problem. I anticipate that if you go forward with this project in one form or another, once the project is defined, that we are going to have a back and forth, as long as the clients want me involved, I am willing to take part and help move it but I don't yet see what your action is, if you announce it is five-acre zoning, then I know what the action is. But no one has announced that. And I wonder why. Is it pussyfooting? Is there another action and no one has told me about? Or is that the action? If it is, you ought to advertise it as such, you ought to circulate who is going to be the lead agency, elect a lead agency, make a positive declaration, scope it and go forward. But I don't think you are scoping anything tonight and I hope that somebody will take me up on it, having an exchange ofletters on either ofthese issues. Thank-you very much. 17 SUPERVISOR HORTON: Would anyone care to address the Town Board? SUPERVISOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Just very briefly, listening to some of the comments. Particularly, John, some of your questions. It is clear that one of the major driving concerns here is population growth and one thing I might suggest, is for you guys to do a full fold-out analysis. Figure out what the population will be if you didn't change anything and also figure out the carrying capacity of your environment and your infrastructure. So you know, if you are going to bring your population, where you should be-you know, how much YOll need to bring it down and then look at every tool that is out there. Look at TDR's, transfer development rights. look at upzonings. maybe they do make sense in certain cases. But look at all the impacts of those things, too. So if you want to protect agriculture and you are creating large homes around your farmland, you may run into problems with people complaining about the noise of farms, the smells of farms and those kinds of things. You might be better off having large sections of farmlands without all the big mansions around those houses. It might make sense. We have that problem out in Montauk, We have great commercial fishing industry and we zoned around it all residential and now all of the houses are complaining about the smell of fish. It hUlis the commercial fishcnnen when that happens. So just be smart about it. To me, when you try to stop growth you end up with uncontrolled growth. You end up with all these things happening that you weren't anticipating. The better approach is to manage growth and to manage growth wisely. Figure out what the carrying capacity is. figure out how to get there and how to address 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session some of those impacts and I think you will do fine. East Hampton, for all that has been said negative, is still a beautiful place. We have done a tremendous job protecting our environment. We are in some ways victims of our own success. Lots of people want to live there, the property values are high because it is such a beautiful place. So it kind of goes hand in hand but I think there is time here to do this right. Just take your time. Talk to people who are doing this all throughout the country. There are ,. a lot of great ideas emerging and some of these strategies; five acre zoning and upzoning are old strategies, they have their useful applications but there is a lot of other ways to get to where you want to get to. And just look at all the impact. Thank-you. 18 SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank-you, Supervisor. Would anyone care to address the Town Board? BOB VANBOURGONDIEN: Good evening, everybody. I just wanted to read a quick passage from one of your moratorium papers. 'Why is the moratorium team looking at so many issues? Some of our problems resulted from decision being made out of context: in other words, one problem may have been solved but another one was created because due thought was not given to inter-relationships and possible negative impacts that the solutions to the problems would have on other issues.' It is just not going to be one negative aspect. From what I have heard tonight, there is going to be many negative aspects to an upzone. And I am going to read you something that just came in one of my trade magazines, 'Adams County, Pennsylvania has already experienced the unintended consequences of local townships first hand. As new townships have come into being, they quickly they quickly put mandatory density reductions into place. This has caused many farmers and nurserymen to sell their ag land more quickly, as they know it will become almost worthless without development rights.' ERIC KEIL: Good evening. The thing that I would like to say is, both John and Bill mentioned, should we do nothing or should we just accept what is happening now? The fact is that the Town hasn't been doing nothing, we have a very successful development rights purchase program that to date has resulted in the Town essentially having the equivalent of II-acre zoning. Bill mentioned that wouldn't the development rights purchase program have the same negative impact as an upzone. The fact is that it wouldn't. The reason for this is because we have been purchasing development rights over decades and probably will continue to purchase them over decades to come. So that the impacts of the purchase of development rights program are mitigated over a significant amount of time. Also, the results of the, the II-acre density result, hasn't been that all the lots increase in price essentially, what happens is some farms are completely or nearly completely preserved while other tracts of land have been developed. Those have been developed have the same costs that they do today, so that the expense of those lots is not going to be as high as if they were tive-acre subdivision lots. Essentially, we are not doing nothing, we are doing really well right now and I think that the Town ought to consider what the impacts will be on the success that we have now of any action that they consider. That is all I want to say. Thank-you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank-you. Would anyone care to address the Town Board? BECKY WISEMAN, LONG ISLAND FARM BUREAU: Good evening, Supervisor Horton, Town Board, Mr. Voorhis. I am Bccky Weismann, ti'om Long Island Farm Bureau. And I am really glad we have decided to, everyone chip in here because I am not quite sure where my comments fit in to that structure of three different areas we were to speak at. But what I do want to say is that Long Island Farm Bureau, our mission statement so to speak, is that we really are the voice of commercial 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session agriculture. And one of our foremost responsibilities is to review and to provide comment on legislative changes that can negatively impact the agriculture industry. It is important that Southold Town's Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement recognize the economic impact of the agriculture industry. Agriculture is New York's largest industry and Suffolk County leads the industry in market value of agricultural products sold. As well as employing over 10,000 people, agriculture provides the landscape and the scenic beauty that makes tourism here on Long Island in the largest industry with over 2 billion dollars in revenues annually. Of grave concem to me and to Long Island Farm Bureau is what appears to be a decided shift in the Southold Town's goals. The Town's stated goal is to preserve land including farmland, open space, recreation and working landscapes, as read in this scope. But our perception is the Town wants to preserve farmland only for its open space, recreational and aesthetic value. We are deeply concemed that the foundation of the farming industry is at stake. If the business of farming is sacrificed to open vistas, then Southold Town's rural integrity will be lost forever. The historic and cultural tradition off arming dates back to the 1600's. There are very few places in our country that could have this unique and irreplaceable asset. We urge you, the Town Board, not to abandon your past principals and policy commitments to the Town's agricultural industry as they are recorded in the 20 documents that have been reviewed by the moratorium team. Long Island Farm Bureau's that the following issues and answers be included in the Generic Draft Environmental Impact Statement, as the Town of Southold moves forward in drafting its comprehensive implementation strategy. I. In the event of a change in zoning, what is the economic impact: 1. on the product of agriculture, on the production of agriculture; 2. the land value and equity and finally the farm businesses. 2. In the event of a change of zoning to decrease density, what is the impact on existing private and public preservation programs? 3. "Open Farmland", that statement was used throughout the scopes description. We are requesting that farm be defined according to New York State Agriculture and Market Law section 301 as amended. 4. Buildings on PDR lands, also mentioned in the draft document. Long Island Farm Bureau opposes any undermining of the purchase of development rights program. We would ask the Town to consider the States Ag and Markets 305- ala which states "Local governments, when exercising their powers to enact and administer comprehensive plans and local laws, ordinances, rules or regulations shall exercise these powers in such a many as may realize the policy and goals set forth in this article and shall not unreasonably restrict or regulate farm operations within the agricultural district in contravention of the purposes of this article unless it can be shown that the public health or safety is threatened. Greenhouses, barns, fencing etc. are all necessary tools and normal components of the farm and the farm business. 5. Mobile home housing. The Long Island Farm Bureau requests that farm worker housing be considered under the affordable housing policy that the document has set forward. 6. The monitoring program. As the rural inccntive district is reviewed and codified. a monitoring program of land prcservation and development must be included. I would like you all to note that that was one of goals that Long Island Farm Bureau requested and in fact, I was the one who requested it at the moratorium hearing. That a monitoring system be set in place, completed and presented to the Town at the end of the term of moratoria. As the decisions are made by the Town of Southold to implement policy that has the powerful ability to impact agriculture for future generations, it behooves the public and elected officials to turn to other examples and resources for guidance. And in conclusion, I have four resources that I would like to refer to. Thc first one is the Town of Southampton's final generic environmental impact statement whieh states, "The Town understands that maintaining the economics of farming is key to preserving farmland. The initiatives pursued by the Town are not strictly for preservation of open space but rather to preserve and protect farmland as a viable agricultural industry." That was Southampton's final statement. The Cato Review of Business in Government, 19 1/29103 GElS Scoping Session Fall 2002, the topic of that article was 'Has zoning hurt affordable housing?' and Cato's response to that question was, in the nations tightest housing markets, land use regulation contributes heavily to high housing costs. And on page 30 at the conclusion, it stated 'if policy advocates are interested in reducing housing costs, they would do well to start with zoning reform.' Michael Carraciola, who is our Suffolk County Legislator states " Farming requires a critical mass of activity to sustain the "', infrastructure of related business on which it depends. Despite all of our accomplisInnents;,we must do more." And finally, Nathan Rutgers who is the Commissioner of New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets states, "Suffolk County leaders understand that profitable farmers keep land in production. Viable farms maintain open space, protected open space sustains a healthy environment and a sound environment with a balance of rural and urban uses maintains the highest quality of life. Innovative, incentive based approaches to protecting farmlands can help strengthen these key relationships." The key words to that statement from the Farm Bureaus perspective is innovative and incentive based approaches to protecting farmland. In reading the scoping document, Long Island Farm Bureau understands that according to page 7 that states, "Under SEQRA the economic analysis of business operations is not appropriate for analysis in an environmental impact statement." But our response to that is, understanding that this is a public policy goal, we feel that the economic impact on a major industry such as agriculture in Southold Town, must have economics and the economic impact considered as it relates to that industry. Thank-you for the opportunity to provide this comment, I do have copies of this and I will leave it. 20 , SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank-you. Would anyone else care to address the Town Board? DOUG COOPER: Doug Cooper from Mattituck. I think most of my questions were addressed here also but I just would like to reiterate them. Have you or are you considering the negative effects of any of those plans or recommendations that you may be making on the effects of current, private conservation efforts which is now in this Town running at 25% to 35% of the total preservation efforts and which is a major reason for us now preserving on an average over II-acres for every new building lot that is created. It is my fear that any upzoning efforts or perhaps any other plans may have a negative effect on this. I hope that you keep that in mind. Will you also be studying and will you have any estimates on the negative effects to agriculture and the business, particularly the business of farming that may result from future plans and recommendations? I hear that you wish to protect farmland the best way is to protect the farmer by not hurting him. And when I read in your draft scope here, just as Becky before me mentioned that economic analysis is not appropriate, I find this a slap in the face. The economics to protect the environment falls to a large extent with the landowner and if you protect his rights and his investment. he can help protect the environment. Thank-you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank-you. Would anyone else care to address the Town Board? BARNEY SIDOR: This has been going on for two years now. I was involved in this in this Town with upzoning issues in 1991. I did not think I would have to come back twice in one lifetime to defend my rights. It would be a sad commentary for this Town that the only way to preserve its rural heritage would be through regulation. I have heard from Town Board members that we can't do anything. Twenty years of local government burying their heads in the sand and they come up with the idea and it is nothing more than five acre zoning on the table. There are no new concepts here and by the very nature that we are still sitting here today discussing how to preserve open space and farmland says something is working. So instead oftuming everything around and looking for this grand plan of five- 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session acre zoning, why don't you go through some of the details that have lead us to this point? When I overhaul a tractor or a truck, I do not tear the tractor apart to find out it was simply a fuel filter that had to be replaced. You have for example, the concept of cluster zone. Exactly inventory that for me and tell me how much farmland has been preserved through that concept in 13 years? We on our own merit have given you the conservation subdivision, which the town still does not have on code. And also, with no disrespect to Melissa, everybody is so concerned with the responsibility to the taxpayers when they come up with these bonds, the reverse of that is that if a bond was passed in 1995 and there still is money sitting in that account that should have been already used to preserve the farmland at a much cheaper price, then you need to look in a Committee to find out why is there a logjam? What is the problem and don't give me that nonsense, it is the farmer? You need to look at some of these things first before you jump at this. John, I am looking straight at you because you were the one who gave me the best story out of all of this, about the emotion of private property, on your rides on a Sunday afternoon with your grandfather or father and he took you out of the car and put his hand in the soil and said how special this was. Okay? 21 COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Marty, I am going to comment to that in the effect of, you said there is Bond money from 1995... MR. SIDOR: Whatever the bonds were. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: That is not being used. The money is there and we want to talk about land preservation. Come to the table, Marty. Come to the table. MR. SIDOR: Let's look at the program. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: The money is there. MR. SIDOR: Okay. Come take a look at the program. Why is there a logjam? It is too easy to say it is the farmers problem. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: There is no logjam. There is no logjam, Marty. MR. SIDOR: Melissa, $10 million approximately? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: It is not necallse wc don't want to spcnd it. MR. SIDOR: But don't jump from that to five-acre zoning. That is not doing your homework. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Marty, again.... MR. SIDOR: I am asking, please, look at the program, John. That is all I am saying. Okay. If there is a problem there, then I will be the first one to say okay, what is the next step? SUPERVISOR HORTON: This is not an opportunity for cross talk. Marty, Mr. Sidor you are more than welcome to give input and again, Town Board, this is not a debate and we are not here to cross 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session talk, we are here to take input from the public. And if you have more to add, Mr. Sidor, please continue. 22 , MR. SIDOR: Okay, let me finish up by saying that the concepts that we have in place to get us to this point, if they have to be fine tuned and looked over, I would appreciate if you would do that first. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Would anyone else care to address the Town Board? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: I would like to add into the record, comments in advertisements made by the Farm Bureau that says, "A farmland on the East End seems to be disappearing." These are in newspaper ads and print ads, "Faster than a minute and that any housing on the farmland is no good for farming." These are their quotes from the Farm Bureau in their ads. They should be added into the record, also, for future decisions. MR. SIDOR: I have seen some of these conservation subdivisions and the flexibility of what the farmer is giving you is he is selling his development rights on a major piece of that parcel and with the flexibility of the Land Trust is finding and making this very appreciable to both the community and is preserving farmland. SUPERVISOR HORTON: So the overall alternative here, so we can clarify for the record, is to in addition to what you have commented on thus far, is Chick-the addition of conservation subdivision, is that correct? MR. SIDOR: Look at the methodology of the Land Preservation Committee and check to see if Riverhead is doing it the same way and see what these programs are in some of the other East End towns. I believe there are a few other things to be added. Thank-you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: So, as well, part of this enhancements to the Land Preservation Department and the Land Preservation Committee process and methodology. Would anyone else care to address the Town Board? MR. VOORHIS: A very quick couple of points, if I could. Pat and I have been listening and obviously the Board is hearing the comments and I just want to make a couple of points of clarification and Patrick will also too. I wanted to just say that this is not simply about one initiative, this is a package of initiatives that has been identified over the course of the Town looking at tools to achieve the goals of the Town. If you look at it in tenns of a comprehensive planning effort, I believe that will be the best context and there is clear direction. There has been a commitment on the part of the Town through the past studies, through the legislative acts and through the record of decisions that the Town has made toward achieving the goals of the Town. There are many different ways to get there. Some tools have been outlined in the documents, I don't think we should lose sight of the value of those documents and the importance of them as a baseline and a foundation for what we are looking at. The FAQ that was mentioned before that is on the Town website does identify the fact that we are looking at the interrelationship of the various methods. That you can't look at one alone, that you really should understand the interrelationship and many of the comments that I heard tonight speak to that directly. There is no intent to skirt issues that are socio-economic impacts to the Town. These will be identified, we will take and report all of the comments that have been heard tonight and certainly issues 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session that are socio-economic in nature to the Town must be studied and will be studied. Those are a couple of the points that I thought would be helpful to clarify. 23 MR. CLEARY: And to further clarify, the point that you just raised, cluster subdivision and conservation subdivisions are part of the action that is being studied. So that is, that is the reason this ., whole exercise is encouraging, to bring it all in through this processing of public evaluation. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Moving forward, would anyone else care to address the Town Board? Chick, Patrick the amount of time that this will be the scoping session or the public input portion of the scoping session will be left open if I am not mistaken, will be February 10th. Is that correct? So comments should be addressed to Southold Town Hall via the Town Clerks Office, specific to the moratorium planning group. The Town Clerk's Office until February 10 will be taking comment on alternatives and other things that members of the public feel should be addressed in the scope of the environmental impact statement. Address your comments to the Town Clerk's Office, as well, the Town Clerk mentioned that e-mail is an appropriate communication as well as fax. The e-mail address is as follows.. . TOWN CLERK NEVILLE: I will give you my card. SUPERVISOR HORTON: We have those long government e-mail issues. MR. ESSEXS: (inaudible) to deal with the issue of whether we have the proper action, I am going to address that (inaudible) SUPERVISOR HORTON: I agree with you. Actually, I will take that up tomorrow with legal counsel. I appreciate that, Mr. Essexs. Here is the e-mail addresstotheTownClerk.itis e.nevillelaltown.southold.nv.us and for any further information you can call my office as far as how to deliver things to Town Hall. That is 765-1889. Thank-you for coming out and we appreciate your input. * * * * * * * Comments submitted prior to Scoping meeting by Gwynn Schroeder, on behalf of the North Fork Environmental Council: Dear Members of the Board, One of the most telling statements made by the Town's consultants during a preliminary discussion on the work plan for the moratorium was that although the Town had wonderful goals for preserving Soulhold, the current Town Code would never meet those goals. Inherent in that observation is the need for the Town to pro actively take charge of it's own destiny and act accordingly. Through the SEQRA process and utilizing the tool ofDGEIS, an optimum outcome can be achieved. Many hours of professional and volunteer time, as well as ten of thousands of taxpayer dollars, have been spent over the years to develop plans that would preserve our valued farmland, open space, and threatened natural environment. The failure has been that many of the most effective and proven tools recommended in these various studies and reports were never adopted. Once the Town has revisited the numerous plans through the DGEIS, public input is considered and the findings are presented, it will be up to you to act on those findings. At the end of this process it will be your responsibility to act in the best interest of all the residents of the Town. We cannot afford to monitor the pace of development, conduct further studies or to rely on unproven 1/29/03 GElS Scoping Session preservation tools to meet our goals. Specifically, NFEC requests that the following be included in the DGEIS. The Minority Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission, also known as the CAP Plan, signed by two members and two alternate members of the BRC, should be included as one of the documents reviewed in the DGEIS, rather than as an alternative. The Minority Reports calls for the adoption of the 5-acre upzoning in the NC and the R-80 zones in conjunction with the formation of a Rural Incentive District, continued clustering regulations and the continuation of the current Purchase of Development Rights Program. This will guarantee the Town meets the minimum preservation goals set forth in the BRC majority report. This report offers numerous examples of preservation successes throughout the country in which zoning was utilized as a tool. The formation of a Rural Incentive District and the potential outcomes must be considered in the context of a concurrent upzoning, as well as compared to the RID without upzoning. When examined as a stand alone preservation tool, we would ask that specific examples of success be offered as proof of the efficacy of such a plan. Possible exit strategies from the RID, both those which reward farmers with an increased development rights and those which guarantee preservation minded landowners that the Town will purchase development rights on their time frame and at the current zoning designation must also be evaluated for potential outcome and landowner participation. 24 , ~~ Elizabeth A. Ne~l( - Southold Town Clerk TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENT A nON STRATEGY GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SCOPING SESSION AGENDA I. Welcome - Supervisor Horton 2. SEQR Overview - ClearyN oorhis 3. Role of Lead Agency - ClearyNoorhis 4. Description of Action - ClearyNoorhis 5. DGEIS Format - ClearyNoorhis 6. Public Comment - · Comments on the Description of the Action Involved Agencies Interested Agencies Public · Comments on Impact Areas . Geology . Water . Ecology . Transportation . Air . Land Use & Zoning . Demography . Community Services . Infrastructure . Community Character . Cultural Resources . Economic/Fiscal Conditions Involved Agencies Interested Agencies Public . Comments on Alternatives Involved Agencies Interested Agencies Public 7. Wrap-Up, Estab1ishment of Written Comment Period - V. Scopaz F SIGN-IN SHEET 7:30 p.m. January 29,2003 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY GElS SCOPING SESSION Page / . PleasePrint Name MaHin!!: Address Telephone Number/Fax Number [1bV~...Bou1c1~jle~ LJ'8o GrUCT~d fA/--+"- 70J-'f6y2- rn"l5f~<./A1- Do~ ~ot~t~ 2~Voff.?- Z Q~ 1_~~~__t2e/ ~. (j)~~ ~~ U~lVilfli ~DI.~~.t fLJ. ~~ IJJULsr"/'L, Wi I lia.-W\ -ESS'eJq .4-t+..r""i ..Q ll1f'Ih.@....~ TA-'1 s: ("' h ..... 'ide r W\ ""'\ ~Q '" f""-oI i so D 1". -t-.....^, iff E'... 'j,th.~""'f'"-t-""., - , Page .:l SIGN-IN SHEET 7:30 p.m. January 29,2003 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY GElS SCOPING SESSION Please Print Name Mallin!!: Address Telephone NumberIFax Number P-T f(<f Sa C/""MeD ~ ~ 7 ;>,c).~)(,?,1 ~~L ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER cc:1fown Board Moratorium Working Group Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765.6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 sou tholdtown.northfor k.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 11,2003 The attached written comments on the ''Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement" with respect to the "Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy" which were the subject of a public scoping hearing held at 7:30 p.m. January 29,2003 were received by the Southold Town Clerk from the following persons prior to the close of business on February 10,2003: 1. North Fork Environmental Council, Gwen Schroeder, Coordinator 2. Long Island Farm Bureau, Inc., Becky Wiseman, Associate Director 3. Aytug Unaldi, Re: solar design solutions 4. William W. Esseks, Esq. representing farmers (1129/03) 5. James A. Richter, R.A., Town Engineer 6. Michael 1. Domino, Co-Chair Southold Town Tree Committee 7. Paul & Maureen Grippa, Old Sound Stables, 1100 CR 48, Mattituck, NY 11952 8. Edward C. Booth, 17135 Soundview Avenue, Southold, NY 11971 9. Peconic Land Trust, Timothy J. Caufield, Vice-President 10. Southold Town Land Preservation Committee 11. William W. Esseks, Esq. 108 East Main St., PO Box 279, Riverhead, NY 11901 (2110/03) r["1,!iAd/OlJuuM, Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk Attachments (11) ~ ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW 108 EAST MAIN STREET P. O. Box 279 R1VERHEAD, N.Y. 11901-0279 WILLIAM W. ESSEKS MARCIA Z. HEFTER STEPHEN R. ANGEL ..JANE ANN R. KRATZ JOHN M. WAGNER (631) 369-1700 WATER M!LL OFFICE MONTAUK HIGHWAY P. O. Box 570 WATER MILL, N.Y. 11976 (631) 726.6633 TE:LECOPIER NUMBER (631) 369-2065 WILLIAM POWER MALONEY CARMELA M. 01 TALIA ANTHONY C. PASCA NICA B. STRUNK February 10, 2003 RECEIVED FEB 1 0 2003 Town Board Town of South old P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Southold Town CIeri Re: "Scoping" Hearing Held on January 29, 2002 for Proposed Generic Environmental Impact Statement ("GElS") Dear Town Board Members: On behalf of certain farmersllandowners, I addressed the Town Board on Wednesday, January 29,2003. At that time, I stated that I would be writing to confirm my objections to certain aspects of the SEQRA process for the proposed Generic Environmental Impact Statement ("GElS"). ' My first objection is that the Environmental Assessment Form ("EAF"), the "SEQRA Positive Declaration," and the "Draft Scope" all improperly state the SBQRA "action" as the "evaluation and where appropriate implementation" of "recommended planning and program tools and measures" described in some 20 disparate "studies" or "plans" prepared over the 20 years between 1982 and 2002. My second objection is that the "Draft Scope" document improperly includes sections that are only appropriate in a "final" scope. My third objection is that the "Draft Scope" improperly seeks to exclude consideration of the economic impacts of the proposed activity. My fourth objection is that the "Mitigative Strategies" listed as "Alternatives" in the "Draft Scope" are, in fact, not proper "alternatives" to the proposed activity. The foregoing objections are discussed at length hereunder. . ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW February 10, 2003 Page 2 I. The Proposed Generic Environmental Impact Statement ("GElS") Does Not Seek to Review a Proper "Action" A generic environmental impact statement ("GElS"), as authorized pursuant to the SEQRA regulations at 6 NYCRR Section 617. 10(a) (I), (2), or (3), contemplates the review of specific "actions." Such "actions" are specifically defined in 6 NYCRR Section 617.2(b). The "action" purportedly identified by the Town Board in the Environmental Assessment Form ("EAP"), the "SEQRA Positive Declaration," and the "Draft Scope" for the proposed activities (see, e.g., at Pages I and 2 of the "SEQRA Positive Declaration," dated January 7, 2003), does not, in fact, constitute an "action" as defined pursuant to 6 NYCRR Section 617.2(b). The only definition of a SEQRA "action" that might be applicable to the proposed.activities described in the Environmental Assessment Form ("EAF'), the "SEQRA Positive Declaration," and the "Draft Scope" is set forth in subdivision "2" of 6 NYCRR Section 617.2(b). That subdivision includes "agency planning and policy making activities that may affect the environment and commit the agency to a definite course of future decisions." The activities articulated in, for example, the "Description of Action" in the aforesaid "Positive Declaration" merely propose the "evaluation" and "where IIP.propriate implementation" of an unspecified "plan and program tools and measures" set forth in some 20 diffuse and diverse planning studies that have been conducted over a 20-year period. Nothing in the "Description of Action" involves any definitive activity that "commits the agency [i.e., the Town Board] to a definite course of future decisions," as is required to meet the definition of an "action" under 6 NYCRR Section 617.2(b)(2). A GElS may be undertaken, pursuantto 6 NYCRR Section 617.10(a)(4), to assess the environmental impacts of: "an entire program or plan having wide application or restricting the range of future alternative policies or projects, including new or significant changes to existing land use plans, development plans, zoning regulations or agency comprehensive resource management plans." .' ~.., ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSE.LORS AT LAW February 10,2003 Page 3 However, the Town Board's proposed GElS does not set out to assess the effects of any actual "program" or "plan." Rather, the only activity this is now proposed involves the mere formulation of a policy or plan. Such preliminary planning activity, which does not commit the Town to any particular plan or "definite course of future decisions," is neither a proper "action" nor a proper subject for a GElS. The Town Board should not misrepresent, as I submit it has, that the proposed GElS is to review "actions" (for example, the 20 "plans" listed on Pages I and 2 of the January 7,2003 "Positive Declaration"). That statement is in error and should not be perpetuated. To not correct the error is to mislead the public and risk the integrity of the SEQRA process. If the Town Board wishes to conduct a proper process, it must first inform the public of its intended action. 2. The "Draft Scooe" Imoroperlv Includes Sections That Are Onlv AOllropriate in a "Final" Scooe The SEQRA regulations, at 6 NYCRR Section 617.8(b), specifically provide that the content of a "draft scope" should include the items identified in paragraphs" 1" through "5" of 6 NYCRR Section 617.8(f). It is clear, from reading 6 NYCRR Sections 617.8(b) and 617.8(f) together, that the last two items (i.e., paragraphs "6" and "7") of6 NYCRR Section 617.8(f) are to be included in a "final" scope, but not in a "draft" scope. These. two items include "an identification of the information/data that should be included in an appendix. . ." and "those prominent issues that were raised durimt scooing and determined to be not relevant or not environmentally significant or that have been adequately addressed in a prior environmental review" (emphasis added). The "Draft Scope" prepared for the Town Board improperly includes sections entitled "Information to Be Included in Appendices" and "Issues Deemed Not Relevant, Not Environmentally Significant or Adequately Addressed in a Prior Environmental Review." As explained above, these sections, which cover the information described in paragraphs "6" and "7" of 6 NYCRR Section 617 .8(f), are not appropriate in a purported "draft" scope. The section of the "Draft Scope" entitled "Issues Deemed Not Relevant, Not Environmentally Significant Dr Adequately Addressed in a Prior Environmental Review," which purports to preclude discussion in the GElS of certain economic impacts of the proposed activities, is particularly objectionable. One could not possibly identify issues "raised during scoping" as irrelevant or insignificant before the scoping process has even been conducted. It appears that , ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSEl.ORS AT LAW February 10, 2003 Page 4 the said section was included in the "Draft Scope" in an improper attempt to avoid comprehensive analysis in the GElS of the adverse economic effects of the Town's purported "Implementation Strategy" on the Town's land values, existing commercial enterprises, existing agricultural operations, and other matters. 3. The "Draft Scope" Improperlv Seeks to Exclude Consideration of the Economic Impacts of the Propose~Activitv The section of the "Draft Scope" entitled "Issues Deemed Not Relevant, Not Environmentally Significant or Adequately Addressed in a Prior Environmental Review," which appears at Page 7 of the "Draft Scope," states that the GElS will not contain any economic analysis. This preliminary "pre-scoping" limitation on the extent of the environmental review for the Town Board's proposed activity is improper and ignores potentially-significant adverse environmental impacts that may result if the Town formulates and ultimately evaluates a prograIIl\or plan that incorporates substantial development restrictions, such as five-acre zomng. At least since the Court of Appeals' decision in Chinese Staff and Workers Association v. State of New York 68 N.Y.2d 359,509 N.Y.S.2d 499 (1986), review of the economic impacts of proposed zoning changes is relevant and, in fact, required under SEQRA. As discussed by the East Hampton Supervisor, whose Town has experienced the effects of upzoning, including, but not limited to, the exclusionary effects of such a policy, the Town Bomd, before 'it undertakes such a dramatic change in the zoning status of the Town, must examine, inter alia the myriad economic issues and consequences that will flow from such a change. 4. The "Mitil!.ative Stratel!.ies" Listed as "Alternatives" in the "Scopinl!." Resolution Are Not Prooer "Alternatives" to the Prooosed Activity The SEQRA regulations, at 6 NYCRR Section 61 7.8(f), require that a "scope" for a proposed activity include, among other things, "the reasonable alternatives to be considered." The "Draft Scope" includes, at Page 6 thereof, a purported alternative called "Mitigative Strategies. " Examination of the so-called "Mitigative Strategies" reveals, however, that they are not alternatives at all, but merely another list of planning goals (i.e., provide for land preservation including open space & farmland, maintain & enhance rural & cultural character, preserve the Town's natural environment, provide a sound socio-economic environment for residents & . ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW February 10,2003 Page 5 businesses, and ensure adequate transportation infrastructure). There is a material difference between such planning aspirations and actual "alternatives" to a proposed action. Very truly yours w~ tU t~~~) William W. Esseks WWE:lac cc: Town Supervisor Town Clerk ., . TO: Moratorium Planning Team RECEIVED FROM: Land Preservation Committee FEB 1 0 2003 DATE: February 10, 2003 RE: Southold Town Clerl Coordination and Implementation Strategy Input: January 17, 2003 Request for Input The Land Preservation Committee offers the following input: )- The Committee feels that given the commitment of the community (prior preservation bonds, Community Preservation Fund), that it is critical that whatever implementation tools, laws or policies are proposed, that they are reviewed to ensure that they are not counter productive to, or have the potential to undermine the existing preservation programs. )- The Committee does not support the creation of implementation tools, laws or policies that have the potential to limit the current or future agricultural operations on restricted or un-restricted agricultural lands. )- The Committee supports code language defining and clarifying the Conservation Subdivision process. >> The Committee faces an issue in regard to the subdivision of farms into smaller farm parcels (both prior to and during the preservation process). The Committee is looking to set policy in regard to whether or not subdivision should be allowed, and if so, if a minimum farm parcel size should be established. >> The Committee supports implementation of the existing Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy. The Committee would like to reserve the right to make additional comments in the future. - PECONIC LAND TRUST . 296 Hampton Road, P.O. Box 1776, Southampton, NY 11969 (631) 283-3195 p"" (631) 204-0711 www.peconidandtrust.org RECEIVED FES 10 2003 ~outhold Town Cieri Febmary 6,2003 Southold Town Board Members C/O Towll Clerk Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Scope of the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) that is being used in connection with the Town's Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Dear Members of the Town Board: The Peconic Land Trust appreciates the opportunity to provide input into the DGEIS scoping process that the Town of Southold is undertaking to develop its Comprehensive Implementation Strategy. We feel that we can contribute to the work of the Moratorium Planning Team and the Town of Southold in this process, based on the Trust's nearly 20 years of experience in working with the five East End towns and landowners in realizing their conservation goals_ Much of that experience is expressed in several of the studies under review, which were prepared with the assistance of the Peconic Land Trust including: the Southold Town Farm and Farmland Preservation Strategy, the Blue Ribbon Commission for a Rural Southold, and the Community Preservation Project Plan. The Trust supports the Town's overall goal of preserving at least 80% of its existing undeveloped land and reducing residential density by at least 60%. In developing the implementation tools to achieve these goals, the Town must consider the potential impact that any of them may have on landowners and in particular on farmers and farmland owners. So much of what we wish to preserve in Southold Town, in its rural character and natural beauty, depends critically on open space and farmland protection. Without careful planning and consideration of the potential environmental and economic impacts of the strategies adopted, we will certainly fall short of achieving our goals and may cause serious damage to those segments of the community that form the basis for land preservation. In response to the invitation for input to the scoping process, the Peconic Land Trust offers the following comments and recommendations: · The Moratorium Planning Team should specify the term "working landscapes" as used in the first goal stated in the SEQRA Positive Declaration: Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft Generic EIS, Determination of Significance (January 7,2003). A basic goal identified from the plans and studies under review is to "preserve land including open space, recreation and working landscapes." While the references to land that is open space or used for recreation are very clear, the term "working landscapes" is oblique and lacks meaning for the purpose of the proposed action. We suggest that this term be replaced by the term "farmland and land used for agricultural purposes." This would enhance the work of the Team in the following ways: (a) It would allow the focus of the Town's stated goal to be consistent with the specific subject and meaning of recommendations for farmland preservation found in several of the studies and initiatives under review, in particular the Southold Town Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy (1999), and the Community Preservation Project Plan. (b) It would allow for the recognition of the direct connection between the preservation of farmland and the preservation of the business of farming and agricultural activity, since one cannot be achieved without the other. (c) For this reason, it would identifY as entirely appropriate within the scope of the proposed action the analysis of the economic impact of any of the implementation tools on the business of farmiM that may be recommended to the Town Board. This rejects nIrrrow interpretation of~ SEQRA guidelines as presented on page 7 as to the relevance of economic analysis to the scope of review as expressed in the Draft Scope for the DGEIS (January 7, 2003). (d) It would be consistent with the Town's Preservation of Agricultural Lands code (Chapter 25 of the Southold Town Code) which specifically defines the preservation of Agricultural Lands and Agricultural Production as in the ''public interest" and a ''proper public purpose". · ~ The Moratorium Planning Team should evaluate how effective the existing zoning codes have been in achieving the Town's goals in preserving open space and farmland. The Town must undertake a comprehensive assessment of the actual record of farmland and open space development under existing codes in order to establish a real basis for determining whether other tools such as upzoning are needed. The Trust's review of recent trends in subdivisions in the Town of South old over the past. six years reveals that the existing codes are achieving on average II-acre density (better than twice the reduction in density that would be achieved by an upzoning to 5 acres). In 2002 alone, average density on farmland and open 2 space subdivisions was 30 acres. The Moratorium Planning Team must show that 5-acre upzoning is justified and that it would provide results that are potentially better than those results achieved under existing code. . The Moratorium Planning Team should develop an implementation strategy that relies on incentive zoning tools as a more effective approach to land preservation and assess their potential for achieving preservation goals. Elements of this strategy should include the following: (a) Conservation Opportunities Subdivisions (COS)-The Town would expedite the approval of subdivisions on farmland and open space parcels that protect at least 80% of the parcel and reduce the residential density by at least 60'/'u. A COS would be automatically classified as a Type 11 action under SEQRA and be subject to an expedited review. (b) The Town should classify standard subdivisions automatically as Type I actions under SEQRA and subject to more rigorous environmental impact regulations and reviews. This would act as a strong disincentive to major subdivisions. (c) Planned Development District for Farmland and Open Space (PDD)- Landowners would be entitled to significant zoning incentives by rezoning to a PDD. Landowners would make a commitment through a term conservation easement to maintain their land in agricultural production or undeveloped for a minimum term, unless during that time they submit a Conservation Opportunities Subdivision. The Town would have the right of first refusal to purchase the property or development rights at the end of the term or at any time during the term. If the Town is unsuccessful in reaching a mutual agreement with the landowner, then the landowner is entitled to subdivide based on the zoning stipulated in the terms of the contract establishing the PDD. This is potentially a very powerful incentive to landowners who want the security provided by the term easement. The Town benefits from the preservation of the farmland or open space for the term while allowing time to build sufficient reserves to make an effective offer to the landowner. The effectiveness ofthe PDD as an incentive and as a conservation tool lies in the way in which the terms and conditions of the easement allow the landowner to exit the PDD and to engage the Town in the possibility of sale of development rights. . The Moratorium Planning Team should consider the use of restrictive zoning measures only if such measures are consistent with and complimentary to the effective preservation strategies in place. Restrictive zoning recommendations, such as upzoning to 5-acre density, should be viewed as a measure oflast resort. With regard to the 5-acre zoning implementation tool, it is the Town's responsibility to evaluate the economic impact on the agricultural sector of the Town and assess the effect 3 of upzoning in creating a number of adverse conditions that work against preservation goals in the following ways: (a) Upzoning causes an immediate loss of equity value for farmers and constrains their capacity to borrow against that value to support production needs and continue farming. (b) Upzoning creates undue risk and uncertainty for landowners, creating pressure to develop instead of facing additional losses. (c) Upzoning subverts the use of other conservation tools such as the sale of development rights or the donation of land or conservation casements to the Town or private trusts. . The Moratorium Planning Team should consider the implementation of incentive zoning strategies in light of the community's commitment of resources to achieve preservation goals. The overwhelming support for the extension of the Community Preservation Fund in the last election is a clear demonstration of the community's commitment to the goals ofland preservation. This mandate provides the capacity that is essential to pursuing incentive-based strategies for land preservation. The Town now has the opportunity and the means to achieve preservation goals without putting the agricultural community or other landowners in jeopardy. We recommend that the Town provide a thorough analysis of the amount of voluntary preservation that is reasonably likely to be achieved over the next 10-20 years with specific reference to all of the available tools: Town funds, CPF funds, County funds, State and Federal Funds, and Private Conservation efforts. Thank you for your efforts and consideration of these comments. Sincerely, C T~~~field Vice President 4 Town Clerk Elizabeth Neville Town Hall, Southold 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 17135 Soundview Ave Southold, NY 11971 Jan 30, 2003 RECEIVED FEB 1 0 2003 Comments on Public Hearing of Jan 30, 2003; Draft Scope ofDGEIS Southold Town Clerk I attended the session on January 30 and read the document, especially the last page where about 40 line items of possible actions are listed. Apparently the document should have described some or all of these actions in detail so that the audience could discuss the scope of a particular action. Instead we were invited to comment in general and the discussion largely dealt with pros and cons of the first line item, upzoning. Aside from whether or not we wasted our time as stated by the counsel for the furmers, I ask the Town Board to initiate some actions not explicitly listed in the 40 lines. PLANNING PROCESS: ZONING 5 Acre Upzoning Please determine as accurately as possible who will bear the financial burden ofland preservation and how much it will cost them over the next decade. Find the burden to the tax payer as follows: first set your goal for land conservation ( 75% or 8(010) , make your best guess about the appreciation of land values; estimate the fraction of the furm and open space that will come up for sale over the next decade; and provide from this a rough estimate of the money required for preservation given two zoning options; 2 acres and 5 acres. The second step is to determine the current and future funds available or likely from all sources; real estate transfer taxes, private bond issues, county, state , federa1 and private sources. John Holzapfel attempted this fur the BRC, but lacked the profussional input from real estate peoPle. bankers, and land trust people ~ you have available. This will give an estimate of the likely tax burden, if any. 2. Find the burden on land owners in, the event of upzoning as follows; divide up the AC and R80 land by acreage. Determine the appraised value of the real estate in event of2 acre and 5 acre zoning. Even better would be to estimate the net of sale after all costs are paid, such as roads, services, agents, capital gl!ins etc. then find out the average losses in equity as a function oflot size. Spread sheets exist for this sort of thiug Determine the number oflots per parcel. For example; Lot Size 3.9 A. 5.9 A. 7.9 A. 9.9 A. 14.9 A. 19.9 A. 39.9 A. 99.9 A. Lots (2A.) 1 2 3 4 7 9 19 49 Lots (5A) 1 1 1 1 2 3 7 19 Obtain data on the number of lots in each acreage bin. For example, there are about 300 lots in the 5-10 acres non agricultural category. Estimate the monetary yield for 2 and 5 acre zoning and the loss of equity in each acreage bin multiplied by the number oflots in each bin. The sum of these will be the burden on the property owners. From the table above it seems likely that owners of 6-12 acre parcels will suffer the largest relative burden while the large land owners will suffer the largest absolute burden. Assuming a 2 acre Jot is worth $200,000 and a 5 acre Jot is worth $350,000, a 9.9 acre owner would sulfer a loss of$800,000-$350,000= $450,000. Assuming 100 owners are near this acreage, the burden is $45 million. At 99.9 acres, the loss is $9,800,000-6,650,000= $3,150,000 per owner, and if there were only 10 owners the burden is $31.5 million. Although the assumptions may be inaccurate, the point is that the equity burden of upzoning ean vary widely with acreage. The monetary effects of upzoning should be clearly understood before putting it Into effect. 3.The relative financial burdens should be understood as a matter of equity. Assume that 60% of 10,000 acres is to be preserved at $30,000/acre, the cost would be $180 million. About 1/3 of recent preservation costs come from private sources, so $120 million should be left to be covered. There is $10 million now available from transfur taxes and over 17 years there should be $10 million from that source, leaving $50 mi1Iion to be covered. Federal, state and county sources can reasonably be expected to pay for at least half of that, leaving $25 mi1Iion to come from tax-payers. With 10,000 tax-payers this amounts to $2,500 each spread over 10 years. This is a modest amount compared to the hundreds of thousands of dollars which the land owners must contribute if the upzoning is put into effect. It is possible that NO extra taxes will be required, and if there are, it seems to me that the cost is fur exceeded by the benefits from low population density. Mine are rough estimates. The amounts may be less, perhaps more. Better figures should be obtained and presented to the citizens before an upzone is effected. 4. A study of the financia1 effects ofincreased population density should be made and reasonable estims>tes made of the cost ofincreased population compared to the cost of land preservation. If there are 10,000 acres on the table, what would be the 20 year tax costs with 2 acre zoning, 5 acre zoning and 10 acre density from conservation subdivisions? We have heard a lot of ill-infurmed anxiety about the high tax costs, but what would they actually be? The single and separate small lots would have to be included in the estimate. Supposing we are tsl1cing about 5,000, 2,000 and 1,000 new mmiliM with 2 children each, what would it cost to put the children through school? How does that compare with cost ofbuying development rights? This infurmation must be made available to the public befure decisions are made on land preservation. Tree Preservation OrdInance . The proposal is to limit tree cutting. Befure adopting the proposed ordinance, the Town should establish the need for it. The case is not made in the draft ordinance, which just states that we need to have a lot of trees. To establish the need, a base line for tree coverage should be established from early aerial photographs (eg 1938) compared with current photogmphs. There have been a lot of houses put up in the woods since 1938 with some tree loss, but then a lot of farm land has been lost and trees planted around homes, so it is not clear whether we are losing or gaining trees. The ordinance is flawed in its lack of specifics. If enacted, it should encourage the control exotic and trash trees, such as mulberry, wild cherry, Norway maple, and ailanthus. It should specifY what is meant by thinning; typically this would be a distance between trees which is twice the diameter of the mature tree branches. It should place an upper limit on the tree diameter which can be cut without need for approval, such as 6" at breast height. It should permit the clear cutting offaUow land that is being returned to agricultural or scenic vista use. EDUCA TION/ ENFORCEMENT Natural Evironment ; Coastal Erosion Control I recommend action on bulk-heading following that of Southampton. I refer to the article in the Long Island section of the NY Times, Sunday, Feb 2 where the .town is preventing buIk-healfing in front of homes because the result is the remov8J. of beach to create inlpA"8lIble conditions at high water and increasing the erosion at nearby homes. The littoral drift of the sand is interrupted by the bulk-heading which eventually projects wen out from the shore as the adjacent properties erode. INTERAGENCY INITIATIVES Emergency Preparedness There is a plan at County level to prepare fur an emergency caused by the isolation of Long Island in the event of bridges being cut. The Town should also have a plan fur this contingency; providing fur a month's supply of water, food, fuel and medicine. The same plan is needed fur disasters at Millstone and Phun Island. Thank you for your consideration of these actions. Very truly yours, ~~~~~ Paul & Maureen M. Grippa Old Sound Stables 1100 County Road 48 Mattituck, NY 11952-3104 631-298-5501 January 30, 2003 RECEIVED Southold Town Board Members Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Soulhold. NY 11971 FEB 1 0 2003 souf~ord Town Clerl Dear Southold Town Board Members; My husband and I were in attendance at last evening's meeting to hear and comment on the "Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy - Action Classification, Intent to Assume Lead Agency Status, Intent to Require an Environmental Impact Statement, and Receipt and Circulation of Draft Scope of the DGEIS". Thank you for the invitation to present feedback, opinions and comments - involving the town's people makes for good and responsible government. Our comments and feedback are as follows: . We do not believe it is moral for the Town Board to shift land equity from the farmers to the home owners. The farm properties have been passed down through generations or purchased with this value. Southold should continue the Purchase of the Development Rights Program which has successfully provided 11 acre zoning. . Southold Town Board Members have the responsibility to research and respond to the legal challenges presented by the attorney, Bill Essex. . The information presented is not in a digestible format for the public's review and comments. . The Economic Impact of each and every component must be calculated and incorporated based on the current accumulated and future basis in the recommendations. . The comments of the Supervisor of East Hampton were of the utmost importance. Southold Town cannot afford to make the same mistakes as evidenced on the South Fork. All major initiatives require discussions with other townships on their success or failure and overall impact on the people, environment and economy. Must provide similar testimony from actual townships where these initiatives have been successful, especially when co-mingling so many initiatives with potentially opposing outcomes. . We concur with the comment of Dr. Tom Samuels, it is evident all of the previous unapproved, unacceptable initiatives/studies for the past 20 years have been co- mingled for possible passage this time. The tax payers will be very suspect of this . approach - if it was not acceptable before what has changed to make a difference now. · The comments, questions and resources suggested by Betty Wiseman of the Long Island Farm Bureau, Inc. must be addressed to the satisfaction not only to the Town Board but also the Town's People. Please keep us advised on the forthcoming meetings addressing this initiative. Sincerely yours, ~~(~ A~ Paul Grippa A~j.~ Maureen M. Grippa Cc: Elizabeth A. Neville, Southold Town Clerk '" fl3 -q.. To: Southold Town Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Moratorium Planning Team From: Southold Town Tree Committee Re: Code revision RECEIVED Dear Sirs: FE8 - 7 2003 Enclosed please find copies of the following: 1. March 18, 2002 draft of the tree code proposal. 2. July 2, 2002 Tree Committee (TC) report to the Town Board. 3. TC minutes Oct. 11, 2000 to Sept. 18, 2002. 4. Jan. 14,2002 agenda ofTC meeting with Supervisor Horton. 5. Dec. 16,2002 agenda Transportation Commission meeting. 6. Digital photographs of LIP A pruning-practices/clear cutting. Sou/hold Town CIeri Careful inspection of the above will show there are five primary areas of concern that the TC has put forward. Support includes but is not limited to the planning Department, Senior Environmental Planner, Transportation Commission, NFEC, Bay Keeper Kevin McAllister, Audobon Society, etc. Opposition rests with two local realtors and the Southold Business Alliance whose self- interest has held back progress in this area. The issues are as follows: 1. To enact legislation to restrict clear cutting on the 2000 plus single and separate vacant residential lots not protected by subdivisions or commercial property codes. 2. To establish protocol for LIPA, DOT, cablevision, etc., concerning pruning, tree removal/replacement within Town right of ways and along Scenic Highways. 3. Burial of transmission lines. 4. Protection oflandmark trees catalogued in the book Trees of South old Town and listed in the Planning Department database. 5. Employing a certified arborist to enforce codes pertinent to trees, or creating a new position to protect and manage natural resources. In conclusion the TC has a great responsibility for protecting valuable natural resources - tourism is one major industry that benefits-but lacks a code, authority, or enforcement powers. Councilmen Richter, Moore, and Wickham have expressed conditional support for these measures. Weare hopeful that your team can incorporate these into the code, and convince a fourth number ofthe board to move this agenda forward. We are available to answer any questions concerning the above. -~~ Michael 1. Domitfo, Co-Chair .. ". -DRAFT- March 18,2002 TREES, GRADING AND LAND CLEARING 1-1 Legislative intent. The tangible benefits that trees provide include but are not limited to: barriers to~ Iry soil erosion, decrease surface runoff, protect environmentally sensitive areas, V . decrease municipal costs, increase the value of improved and unimproved real Jt property. It is this Town Board's intent and desire to enhance the aesthetic ~~Jl", qualities of lands within the town attributable to existing natural vegetation and to ~ . ,I"'" preserve the rural character of the town. p-"/"J-fr Approval required for clearing and grading. 1-2 No person, firm or corporation or entity shall cut down, destroy or remove natural vegetation and/or trees or in any way clear or grade any vacant parcel of land or any undivided parcel of land, without first having obtained the written approval of the Building Department. The Building Department shall have the authority to waive this requirement. This chapter permits normal maintenance activities, 11' including pruning and thinning of natural vegetation, and/or landscape vegetation and/or the removal of diseased or dead trees and/or other vegetation. 1-3 Definitions As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated: NATURAL VEGETATION - Existing and naturally occurring indigenous vegetation which grows and is maintained without need of irrigation or applications offertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or other substances. UNDIVIDED PARCEL OF LAND - Any area of land, which has not been divided into lots on a filed subdivision map, also known as "descnbed property." LANDSCAPE VEGETATION- 1-4 Approval Procedure A. A clearing permit issued upon approval by the Building Department shall be required for the removal of any natural vegetation, including but not limited to trees, or in any way clearing or grading of any vacant parcel or any undivided parcelofland. -1- ,- .' B. The Clearing Standards set forth at Table 1 herein shall apply with respect to all parcels of 10,000 square feet or larger. Parcels with an area less than 10,000 square feet shall be subject to clearing limits as shall be determined by the Building Department. C. Administration. This chapter shall be administered by the Building Department which shall have the authority to promulgate rules and regulations for the effective administration of this chapter consistent with the legislative intent of this chapter. The Building Department shall have the authority to delegate the administration of this chapter to its departmental personnel. D. Application; issuance ofpennit. (1) Every applicant for a permit required by this chapter shall submit an application to the PlAnning Board on such form as may be prescribed by the Building Department. Said application shall include the fullowing information unless, waived by the Building Department: (a) The name and address ofthe applicant and owner, ifnot the same. (b) The purpose of the proposed tree or vegetation removal or grading activity. (c) The site of the proposed activity. (d) A site disturbance plan of the premises subject to the application clearly indicating the following: [1] An outline of existing wooded areas and naturally vegetated areas on the site with proposed changes. . [2] The location of all improvements, if any, on the subject property. [3] A topographical survey (one-inch-equals-twenty- foot scale) where grading is proposed. [4] The location of existing trees which exceed four inches in diameter as measured four and one half feet above the base ofthe trunk. -2- " , " 'r (2) In acting upon the application, the Building Department shall take into account the following criteria and considerations: (a) The location, type and size of the tree(s) and/or vegetation to be removed. (b) The condition of the tree(s) and other vegetation with respect to disease and potential for creating hazardous conditions. (c) The proximity of the tree(s) and other vegetation to existing or proposed structures and utility appurtenances. (d) The need for the site clearing and removal of vegetation or grading and tree(s) as proposed. (e) The environmental effect of the proposed clearing and/or grading. (f) Any of the considerations enwnerated in the legislative intent of this chapter. (3) The Building Department shall refer the application to a certified arOOrist or an Advisory Committee for appropriate review and advisement (4) The Building Departement shall evaluate the considerations set forth in this section and any other criteria as the Building Department deems appropriate, as well as the advice and recommendations of the certified arOOrist or Advisory Committee. (5) The Building Department shall advise the applicant, in writing, of its decision on the application and, upon the favorable determination of such application, shall issue a permit therefore, with conditions if any. E. Prior to the granting or withholding of approval, the Buildiog Department shall perform a site inspection to evaluate the trees, shrubs, natural vegetation, drainage and other physical conditions existing on the property and adjacent property. The Building Department shall approve the application upon a finding that the cutting, destruction, removal, clearing or grading to be permitted would not impair the growth and development of the remainiog trees, shrubs and other vegetation on the property ofthe -3- ;. ,~ '. applicant, would not impair existing drainage patterns, would not cause soil erosion and/or impair the stability of the land, would not significantly lessen property values in the neighborhood and would not substantially impair the aesthetic values of the area The Building Department shall be guided, by the intent of this chapter as set forth in 1-1. The Building Department shall have the authority to require reasonable conditions, in order to effectuate the purpose of this chapter, to the grant of approval hereunder. Failure to comply with such conditions shall be a violation of this chapter. F. The Buildifug Department shall render a written decision granting or denying the application within 60 of the date of the application and, as appropriate, shall issue the permit. The decision and permit shall contain the conditions, if any, of the approval or shall contain the reasons for disapproval if the application is denied. G. The applicant shall have 30 days from the date of disaproval to appeal the decision of the Building Department. The applicant shall appeal a disaproval to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). H. The Zoning Board of Appeals, in any case, may on its own motion approve, reverse, disapprove or modify and approve, the authorization and approval of the Building Department. The ZBA may return the matter to the Building Department for further consideration. 1-5 Exemptions. A. Surveying and soil investigating activities. (1) Destruction or removal of trees or other natural vegetation incidental to surveying and soil investigation activities shall not be undertaken for any parcel of property of any size unless such destruction or removal is in conformity with a clearing plan approved by the Planning Board pursuant to the provisions contained hereunder. (2) Prior to destruction or removal of trees or other natural vegetation incidental to surveying and soil investigation activities, the property owner, or designee, shall apply to the Building Department for permission to remove or destroy trees or other vegetation in order to undertake said activities. No trees or natural vegetation may be destroyed or removed except in conformity with an approved clearing plan. -4- " ~ (3) Said application sball be accompanied by a topographical map ofthe site; in addition, the Building Department may require an aerial photograph. In the event that the applicant is applying for approval to construct test holes for soil analyses and groundwater monitoring, the applicant shall provide a map from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services indicating their approved test hole and well sites. The applicant sball indicate on the topographical map and on the aerial photograph the boundaries of the site and the extent of clearing needed for the surveying and soil investigation activities. (4) The fee for said application shall be $50 for each existing or proposed residential lot and $150 per nonresidential lot. (5) The application shall be on such form and contain such information as may be required by the Building Department, and, in approving said application, the Building Department may limit the amount of tree and vegetation destruction or removal contemplated by the applicant. B. Any person doing business as a public utility subject to the jurisdiction of the New York State Public Service Commission and any duly constituted public agency authorized to provide utility services sball not be exempt from this chapter. C. In the event that building permits have not been issued for any previously approved subdivision map(s) or site plan, this chapter sball apply, and no building permit sball be issued until all applicable provisions of this chapter have been complied therewith. 1-6 Enforcement. The certified arborist or code enforcement officer for the Town of South old sball enforce this chapter. -5- ." . , ,.. . 1-7 Applicability This chapter shall not apply to any agency of the Town of South old or to any person, firm or corporation working under the direction of the Town 1-8 Penalties for Offenses Each violation of this chapter shall be punishable by a penalty or fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than 15 days, or both. In addition, any person, firm, corporation or entity violating this chapter may be required by the Building Department to replace each and every tree and/or natural vegetation cut, destroyed or removed and/or replace the original grading of the parcel ofland upon which such violation occurred. Tree replacement will follow tree replacement Density Formula as outlined in "Tree City Bulletin No. 31 of the The National Arbor Day Foundation as annexed hereto and made a part hereof. It shall be considered a separate and distinct offense on each day during which or on which a violation occurs or continues. Second Draft draft 8/30/00 -6- . . . TREES. OlVlP1NG. ""'" Table 1 CLEARING STANCAI\DS ~1.r\IWd& iIIclud6 boilclil'lQ Iot&. roac:ls. drlllf\80e and olM' improvements Lend Us. categOry ) M~lIirnllm a t. ....... --~ ,,"Ultlltllll 11'1 _Ii .~ 'I -.,,,-..---.-..--- __~.--,.. ...__ . _, _ 9O'l! ,?..5(lO.-I- O.~- _a_"~\ \ ----.-.,.--------.. --rtO(iO--- I _.-- - - ~ f iiTiiIY 7~ _' _ \~... -- -~':i-- -- ,":!:,::' ----- "'.;;-- 20,000_ 0.48 twO f' . 0IllI\...1OI' &\)'141_.-..--- 22,500 ....S2 =\= faml' eo'lIo ~,OOQ .---r-----(i87 - ---. f*,"1 ~ .. ..'"" -,-, ." ,., ..... "" ,,,,...,,,.. -.:0.,.,- ....... ----,.;r - ".. . ."... ... ,,""'.... .... / ~~"__'-' I comrneroia' and \nou-Iri.1 .. ()ltI6f or mlJWd uSll "'I per exlstlnQ 5Outh01d Town code ~..---- , . -....,....--.-.. . ......~~---.. -.-.---.....-.-..-.--.--..-- of rafl III ondIfIOO"d opeolOl. _...------.-.-..t.-. -- ......----.= \ ~--,.._--------\----_._~._- ._.._...-t=~~=- -=-:~~=- .:= -- ~ -' . Troo.c"mmittt'.e reporUo the T_ Boar.d. 7JfJ2/JJ2 ~rn;ng trooGGdepMp"'oJ. The Tree Committee of Southold Town has written this statement to advise the town .abwtthepmposed TreeCod.e. The Tree-Cnmmittee wasfurmed.ia lW.aadit.~Ilim:. of seven members. Weare all volunteers whose applications for membership on the .c"mmitt....e have heea.appr.oved..aft,er apubIiG bearing.aada v.oteby the T_ Boar.d. When there is an opening on the Committee, the Town Clerk advertises the vacancy and ~it.. .a>~uw>s <<.om. the public, ....nt..are interviewed by a member .of the bo.ar.d. and the committee chair (s). Presumably those who complete the process are qualified to participate in oor local goverrunpnt Thi.s past. November Craig Richter and I ~ both applicants; Amy Martin became our newest member. She joined a diverse, talented, group that feels confideat that any pc.oposal it puts forth .deserves serioo.scons.ider.ation. Copies of the proposal were provided to Supervisor Horton and each Board Member by the T.owu.clerk at my.d.irectioa.on Woo sepacate oc",.Ilin.n. Copies for the general. pab1ic. were on file at the Clerk's office for nearly two years. We've spoken to the Supervisor, .a& wdl.a& Boar.d. ;t.4Pmhers iadh,;,1"olly aAci ia gt'.oupIl.aOOuttheGGde. Atthi& poiat 00 one should be confused about the details. Why.do we need a trooGGde at this. time? In.additioato oor tr..ditinno.l responsibilities, the Committee has undertaken the goal of becoming a "Tree Town". The bt'.1lP..fit. .ofbe.illgn,.,~.g a "Tree T_" i~ gt'o.to" digiliility for State aAci Federal grant funds. One of the requitements of becoming a "Tree Town" is having a Troo Pr.otectioo Statute ia pIa.Ge. The C.nmrnitl,ee bwa this. prooess.over twelve years as9 under the guidance of the former Chairman, Ed Dart. In 1998, he asked members of the C"onon;tto'l' to revise the ~ Troo ~ with input <<.om. the pl.nn;~DepartmeaL The Committee also noticed an increase in new construction. We realized that efforts to iacr_ the JIW1Iber .of trees in So1Jt401d were more than.offs.et by the clearing.of.oDe building lot. Think of the biomass lost by the recent illegal clearing of commercial pr.opeIty __ the llmdfill. versus oor etfortsto plantaAci m.int.Din a few .Qo.zen skeettrees annually. Our Mardlli proposal.s=b to establish areview prooess that will prevem. clear cutting of vacant residential land. Statutes are already in place which give the Town FO,l;ctioo.over thecleariagaAci lon,l""'iping.of sub-divis.ions, 4eveloped.1amlaAci commercial properties. While enforcement is always an issue it does not belong in this .giSCI'.1lin.n The pr.oposalJl[.Qvides for up to ninety per~clearing.ofsmall.lotsand fifty percent clearing oflots over one acre. This provides an ample building envelope for p.l"".ement .of the house, driveway, pool, telmis court, gazebo, etc. Furthermore, under the proposed code, the Planning Board will have the authority to grant exemptions. No one loses any pr.operty rights. After moving in the new hruru>.owner ~ ~y cuievery tree without a permit. The h.>.1lPf'1ts to the T_ beyon.d. ma;p+oining the aest.4etic ~ .of the land, include but are not limited to, reduced runoff, fewer unsightly storm water recharge basins, protection.of the bays.aad .aquifers, soil conserv.atioo, and preserv.ation.of oor rural. environment. The general public benefits, tourism remains viable, landscapers and other local b\lS;P~SSt'i .saia; m'ln;<:ipa!. cos.ts go .down. The economic v.uue.of pr.otect~ trees is also supported by a plethora of studies which detail the fact that electric and heating bills are lowered, inbstru.ctllre cos.ts.are re4lJr~ by millions .of dollars, and.air quality is maintained, if not improved. Average home value is increased by a minimum of fifteen percent, when trees grace the property. While benefits accrue to the general public, the costs of complying with the code would be less than one tenth of one percent of the development of a typical prq>erty. Although a survey includes topographic information and tree locations might be required UDder thepr<lpOSed. rode, &.developerarrealtor 8.DticipQt;~ huge F"tA"tuu proiiU woo1d. not be deterred by this miniscule cost. Pres.ervingtrees saves the t.oWR money; doesn't raise tax.es. We .doA't fiDd tbisoverly restrictive, or idealistic. It's pragmatic, besides being the right thing to do. Preservation {){ oorrural wa.y {){ life is supported by the majority of those living in tbistoWR &8 proveR by the recent election. The NFEC, the Audubon Society, the average Southolder sees the need fur some sort of a tree~ode: In addition reams of scient me evirlenceand facts are on our side. A small minority guided by self-interest wants to make this a debate about pr~ rights be.("~I""there ace no facts to suppartthe.destmction{){ oortrees. The members of the tree committee urge you to adopt the tree code proposal submitted March l&, 2002. It is time to m<weoffthe mark 00 this issue. . ,t January 8, 2003', PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold adopted resolution number 22 at their regular meeting held on January 7, 2003 setting a uubHe seouin!!: meetin!!: at 7:30 n.m.. Wednesday. January 29. 2003 at the Southold Town Hall. 53095 Main Road. Southold. New York. on the Southold Comurehensive Imulementation Stratel!:v. Copies of this resolution classifying it as a Type I action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, assuming lead agency, declaring it a positive declaration, and initiating a public scoping meeting are attached. Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Attachments / cc: SlIffall.. CUll"!) B"p".t..."..lllfl?lanning Long Island State Park Commission 'Tillage sf C1\;,cnpurt '"Po ".1l vf SI.l\.tlb...J I~I<.uld TQ'I-1Jl afRir.efltead :fnurn Qf SelHhampton llelithold Tv""" 8UPClVi,ut', Office SQ111lw~r1 Tnum An!lrn nfTrustees Sllllthela Te'.\'B Plltll11i"6 BearQ - Southala rVWll BUu.ld of .:'allfU:alS . SOlltholrl Town Building Department RETURNED RECEI PTS D~;'t-'t:I a.~ Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk ~~ ~::~ ~=:~-;:~: \XTndcs !hJLlI ~ _ . L rity NYS DEC, Commissioner, Albany ~r~ I;: ~,J(L",:L_l g~ . nl ... B ~ K'TC'1 p-jr--u.....u.. '-'.I. .l.Jwli:l!^,.lLadvl! . )l'V"Q D r (r~.L~+r US Army Corps of Engineers . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 sou tholdtown.northfork.net January 8, 2003 DEPARTMENT OF SiAiE COASTAL PROGFlP.NIS I"'fm , 7 M- RECEIVED OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Tt'lwn of Southold adopted resolution number 22 at their regular meeting held on January 7, 2003 setting a public scopine: meetine: at 7:30 p.m.. Wednesdav. January 29. 2003 at the Southold Town BaD. 53095 Main Road. Southold. New York. on the Southold Comprehensive Implementation Stratee:v. Copies of this resolution classifYing it as a Type I action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, assuming lead agency, declaring it a positive declaration, and initiating a public scoping meeting are attached. Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Long Island State Park Commission Village of Green port Town of Shelter Island Town of River head Town of Southampton Southold Town Supervisor's Office Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Board of Appeals Southold Town Building Department s\4~ Signature, Received By ~pPIT.l O. r;~ui~ Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Suffolk County Department ofHea1th Suffolk County Department of Public Works Suffolk County Water Authority NYS DEC, Commissioner, Albany NYS DEC, Regional Office, Stony Brook NYS Department of Transpopation NYS Department of StateV' US Army Corps of Engineers Date: ~IIA 14 ~ RECEIVED DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK IN RETURN ENVEWPE JAN 2 8 2003 Southold Town CIeri ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER ,)f}v~ ~ Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 8, 2003 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold adopted resolution number 22 at their regular meeting held on January 7, 2003 setting a public scopin!!: meetin!!: at 7:30 p.m.. Wednesdav. January 29. 2003 at the Southold Town Ban. ~s Main Road. Southold. New York. on the Southold Comprehensive Implementation' 8tratCl!V. Copies of this resolution classifYing it as a Type I action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, assuming lead agency, declaring it a positive declaration, and initiating a public scoping meeting are attached. Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me in the enclosed self-addressed, stanlped envelope at your earliest convenience. Thank you. cc: Attachments Suffolk County Department of Planning V Long Island State Park Commission Village of Green port Town of Shelter Island Town ofRiverhead Town of Southampton Southold Town Supervisor's Office Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Plarming Board Sou old Town Board of peals ou old Town Buil g ent ~r"IT-I Q. J?-"'I~~ Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Suffolk County Department ofHeaith Suffolk County Department of Public Works Suffolk County Water Authority NYS DEC, Commissioner, Albany NYS DEC, Regional Office, Stony Brook NYS Department of Transportation NYS Department of State US Army Corps of Engineers " Date: t!;7-J;!O,? , I RECEIVED ceived By DUPUCATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUmOLD TOWN CLERK IN RETURN ENVEWPE JAN 2 3 2003 Southold Town CIeri COUNlY OF SUFFOLK RECEIVED H' 2 Jp,;, 8 2003 ROBERT J. GAFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNlY EXECunVE South old Town Clerl DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING THOMAS ISLES, AICP DIRECTOR OF PLANNING January 22, 2003 Town Clerk Town of South old Re: Application of the Town Board to conduct public scoping for a comprehensive Implementation strategy for the Town of Southold (public hearing: 1/29/03) Gentlemen: Pursuant to Sections A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the above referenced application is not within the jurisdiction of the Suffolk County Planning Commission, Very truly yours, Thomas Isles Director of Planning S/s Gerald G. Newman Chief Planner GGN:cc G:\CCHORNY\ZONING\ZQNING\WORKINGINON-JUR\2003\SD12903.JAN LOCAllON H. LEE DENNISON BLDG. - 4TH FLOOR 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY . MAILING ADDRESS P. O. BOX 6100 HAUPPAUGE, NY I 1788-0099 . (63 I) 853-5 190 TELECOPIER 63 I) 853-4044 ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 8, 2003 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold adopted resolution number 22 at their regular meeting held on January 7, 2003 setting a public scopine meetine at 7:30 p.m.. Wednesdav. January 29. 2003 at the Southold Town Hall. 53095 Main Road. Southold. New York. on the Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strate2v. Copies of this resolution classifying it as a Type I action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, assuming lead agency, declaring it a positive declaration, and initiating a public scoping meeting are attached. Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me in the enclosed self-addressed, stanIped envelope at your earliest convenience. Thank. you. Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Long Island State Park Commission Village of Greenport /' Town of Shelter Islandv' Town of River head Town of Southampton Southold Town Supervisor's Office Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Board of Appeals Southold Town Building Department ~ ..' . /.J c(2 ~ Signature, Rec ved By ';t D~hIT,O.YJm/J~, Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Suffolk County Department ofHeaJth Suffolk County Department of Public Works Suffolk County Water Authority NYS DEC, Commissioner, Albany NYS DEC, Regional Office, Stony Brook NYS Department of Transportation NYS Department of State US Army Corps of Engineers Date: /-11-<<3 RECEIVED DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK IN RETURN ENVEWPE JAN 2 2 2003 ~oufhold Town Clerl ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Maln Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 8, 2003 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold adopted resolution number 22 at their regular meeting held on January 7, 2003 setting a public sconine meetine at 7:30 p.m.. Wednesdav. January 29. 2003 at the Southold Town Hall. 53095 Main Road. Southold. New York. on the Southold Comnrehensive Implementation Strateev. Copies of this resolution classifying it as a Type I action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, assuming lead agency, declaring it a positive declaration, and initiating a public scoping meeting are attached Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me in the enclosed self-addressed, stanrped envelope at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Attachments Suffolk County Department of Planning Long Island State Park (;9mmission Village of Green port V Town of Shelter Island Town of Riverhead Town of Southanrpton Southold Town Supervisor's Office Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Board of Appeals Southold Town Building Department ~ ~~- ~ 7--4c...acL Signature, Received By cc: &rh~:t;f O. r;wi~ Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Suffolk County Department of Health Suffolk County Department of Public Works Suffolk County Water Authority NYS DEC, Commissioner, Albany NYS DEC, Regional Office, Stony Brook NYS Department of Transportation NYS Department of State US Army Corps of Engineers Date: /I?~J I ' RECEIVED DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK IN RETURN ENVEWPE ,JM! 1 7 2003 Southold Town Clert ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 sou tholdtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 8, 2003 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold adopted resolution number 22 at their regular meeting held on January 7, 2003 setting a public scopin!! meetin!! at 7:30 p.m.. Wednesdav. January 29. 2003 at the Southold Town Hall. 53095 Main Road. Southold. New York. on the Southold Comprehensive Implementation Stratel!V. Copies of this resolution classifying it as a Type I action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, assuming lead agency, declaring it a positive declaration, and initiating a public scoping meeting are attached. Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Long Island State Park ComInission Village of Green port Town of Shelter Isllq16 Town ofRiverheadV Town of Southampton Southold Town Supervisor's Office Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Board of Appeals Southold Town Building Department 'VV1dA A~a . rj ~ ~ Si~~t&.-i:~eived BY C'4rhTIO.Y1wi~, Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Suffolk County Department of Health Suffolk County Department of Public Works Suffolk County Water Authority NYS DEC, Commissioner, Albany NYS DEC, Regional Office, Stony Brook NYS Department of Transportation NYS Department of State US Army Corps of Engineers Date: I II Co/OJ I RECEIVED DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK IN RETURN ENVELOPE JAN 1 7 2003 Southold Town Clert ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box II79 Southold, New York II971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 8, 2003 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold adopted resolution number 22 at their regular meeting held on January 7, 2003 setting a public scopinl! meetinl! at 7:30 p.m.. Wednesdav. January 29. 2003 at the Southold Town Hall. 53095 Main Road. Southold. New York. on the Southold Comprehensive Implementation StrateI!V. Copies of this resolution classifYing it as a Type I action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, assuming lead agency, declaring it a positive declaration, and initiating a public scoping meeting are attached. Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Long Island State Park Commission Village of Greenport Town of Shelter Island Town of River head /' Town of Southampton V Southold Town Supervisor's Office Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town P Board Southold Town B ar of Appeals Southold Town B . iog Department 7 ./. DploTIO."Y1mi~, Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Suffolk County Department of Health Suffolk County Department of Public Works Suffolk County Water Authority NYS DEC, Commissioner, Albany NYS DEC, Regional Office, Stony Brook NYS Department of Transportation NYS Department of State US Army Corps of Engineers Date: /~/~ ~oJ RECEIVED DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK IN RETURN ENVEWPE JAN 2 8 2003 Southold Town Clerl ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTH OLD January 8, 2003 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold adopted resolution number 22 at their regular meeting held on January 7, 2003 setting a public scopin!!: meetin!!: at 7:30 p.m.. Wednesdav. January 29. 2003 at the Southold Town Hall. 53095 Main Road. Southold. New York. on the Southold Comprehensive Implementation Stratel!:V. Copies of this resolution classifying it as a Type I action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, assuming lead agency, declaring it a positive declaration, and initiating a public scoping meeting are attached. Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Suffolk County Department of Planning Long Island State Park Commission Village of Green port Town of Shelter Island Town of Riverhead Town of Southampton Southold Town Supervisor's OfficeV' Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Board of Appeals S'Who~:ill;Z;- Signature, Rec By DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK JAN IN ltE"f'trRN EM'EWf'E Attaclm1ents cc: C'~""TI O. -r-;mi4, Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Suffolk County Department ofHeaIth Suffolk County Department ofPubIic Works Suffolk County Water Authority NYS DEC, Commissioner, Albany NYS DEC, Regional Office, Stony Brook NYS Department of Transportation NYS Department of State US Army Corps of Engineers Date: RECEIVED 9 2003 Southold Town Clert ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box II79 Southold, New York II97I Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 sou tholdtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTH OLD January 8, 2003 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold adopted resolution nwnber 22 at their regular meeting held on January 7, 2003 setting a public scoDin!!: meetin!!: at 7:30 p.m.. Wednesdav. January 29. 2003 at the Southold Town HaD. 53095 Main Road. Southold. New York. on the Southold Comorehensive Imolementation StratCl!:V. Copies of this resolution classifying it as a Type I action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, asswning lead agency, declaring it a positive declaration, and initiating a public scoping meeting are attached. Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Long Island State Park Commission Village of Green port Town of Shelter Island Town of Riverhead Town ofSoutharnpton Southold Town Supervisor's Office / Southold Town Board of TrusteesV Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Board of Appeals Southold Town Building Department (/~? ~ - h .7-, Signature, Received By p C"4pIOT! O. "J')>mi~, Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Suffolk County Department of Health Suffolk County Department of Public Works Suffolk County Water Authority NYS DEC, Commissioner, Albany NYS DEC, Regional Office, Stony Brook NYS Department of Transportation NYS Department of State US Army Corps of Engineers Date: 1//1 / 0 l' DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK HT -fTITllN J(1\J-TI .APE vs ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 sou tholdtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ~."""~I...,,, ,:-~ JAN 09 2002 January 8, 2003 :" ''''Itho!d Town PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town oj s()uih~i~(,.l rg~~~ resolution number 22 at their regular meeting held on January 7, 2003 setting a public scopine meetine at 7:30 p.m.. Wednesdav. January 29. 2003 at the Southold Town Hall. 53095 Main Road. Southold. New York. on the Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strateev. Copies of this resolution classifying it as a Type I action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, assuming lead agency, declaring it a positive declaration, and initiating a public scoping meeting are attached. Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me in the enclosed self-addressed, stanlped envelope at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Suffolk County Department of Planning Long Island State Park Commission Village of Greenport Town of Shelter Island Town of Riverhead Town ofSouthanrpton Southold Town Supervisor's Office Southold Town Board of Trustees/' Southold Town Planning BoardV' Southold Town Board of Appeals Southold Town Building Department I~~/ f~~ Date: /.0'7_03 Signature,Recei By r ,.a~ ~ DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK 1fT REJ'URH IlHUJl.6IE Attachments cc: C"4p~iTI O. r;mi~ Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Suffolk County Department of Health Suffolk County Department of Public Works Suffolk County Water Authority NYS DEe, Commissioner, Albany NYS DEC, Regional Office, Stony Brook NYS Department of Transportation NYS Department of State US Army Corps of Engineers RECEIVED JAN 1 0 2003 Southold Town CIeri ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 sou tholdtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 8, 2003 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold adopted resolution number 22 at their regular meeting held on January 7, 2003 setting a nublic seonin!! meetin!! at 7:30 n.m.. Wednesday. January 29. 2003 at the Southold Town Hall. 53095 Main Road. Southold. New York. on the Southold Comnrehensive Imnlementation Stratel!V. Copies of this resolution classifying it as a Type I action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, assuming lead agency, declaring it a positive declaration, and initiating a public scoping meeting are attached Please sigu the duplicate of this letter and return to me in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Attachments Suffolk County Department of Planning Long Island State Park Commission Village of Greenport Town of Shelter Island Town of River head Town of Southampton Southold Town Supervisor's Office Southold Town Board of Trustee/s Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Board of Appeal Southold Town Building Department d~ z,(3fl Signature, Received By ( cc: ~pl-~T.f O. r;wi~J Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Suffolk County Department of Health Suffolk County Department of Public Works Suffolk County Water Authority NYS DEC, Commissioner, Albany NYS DEC, Regional Office, Stony Brook NYS Department of Transportation NYS Department of State US Army Corps of Engineers ~--L/ Date: 1~1~'{)3 (DeIYL RECEIVED DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK JAN 9 ~ wuthold Town aerJt IN UTlltlN IC'T""*'tf'TT AVW . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145. Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net RECEIVED F--------- -.......,--, OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD '-9 L..__~mJ~~~' . .)--.J JAN 1 0 2003 January 8, 2003 Southold Town Clert PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold adopted resolution nwnber 22 at their regular meeting held on January 7, 2003 setting a Dublic scoDine meetine at 7:30 D.m.. Wednesday. January 29. 2003 at the Southold Town Hall. 53095 Main Road. Southold. New York. on the Southold ComDrehensive Imnlementation Strateev. Copies of this resolution classifying it as a Type I action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, asswning lead agency, declaring it a positive declaration, and initiating a public scoping meeting are attached. Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Long Island State Park Commission Village of Green port Town of Shelter Island Town of Riverhead Town of Southampton Southold Town Supervisor's Office Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Board of Appeals / ./' Southol~ Town B~DepartmentV Si~~ ~rhT.lO.y?mi~ Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Suffolk County Department of Health Suffolk County Department of Public Works Suffolk County Water Authority NYS DEC, Commissioner, Albany NYS DEC, Regional Office, Stony Brook NYS Department of Transportation NYS Department of State US Army Corps of Engineers Date: 01 ~? ~3 " , DUPUCATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK JoN" RI?.'t'TTRN If.~~. .. .1Yh ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD JanulU)' 8, 2003 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold adopted resolution number 22 at their regular meeting held on JanUlU)' 7, 2003 setting a public scopin!! meetin!! at 7:30 p.m.. Wednesdav. Januarv 29. 2003 at the Southold Town Hall. 53095 Main Road. Southold. New York. on the Southold Comprehensive Implementation Stratel!V. Copies of this resolution classifying it as a Type I action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, assuming lead agency, declaring it a positive declaration, and initiating a public scoping meeting are attached. Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope at your earliest convenience. Thank: you. Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Long Island State Park Commission Village of Greenport Town of Shelter Island Town of River head Town of Southampton Southold Town Supervisor's Office Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Board of Appeals So old Town Building Department ~p"ITI O. Yfn{i&. Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk . Suffolk County Department of Heal V Suffolk County Department of Public Works Suffolk County Water Authority NYS DEC, Commissioner, Albany NYS DEC, Regional Office, Stony Brook NYS Department of Transportation NYS Department of State US Army Corps of Engineers Date: 112--1j- cJ:) t RECEIVED DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLDTOWNCLERK JAN 28 2003 IN RETURN ENVEWPE Sou/hold Town Clert ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southold town.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 8, 2003 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold adopted resolution number 22 at their regular meeting held on January 7, 2003 setting a public scopine meetine at 7:30 p.m.. Wednesdav. January 29. 2003 at the Southold Town Han. 53095 Main Road. Southold. New York. on the Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strateev. Copies of this resolution classifYing it as a Type I action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, assuming lead agency, declaring it a positive declaration, and initiating a public scoping meeting are attached. Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me in the enclosed self-addressed, stanlped envelope at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Long Island State Park Commission Village of Greenport Town of Shelter Island Town of Riverhead Town of Southampton Southold Town Supervisor's Office Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Board of Appeals Southold Town Building Department Dp1-1T10. ytm/J4, Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Suffolk County Department of Health / Suffolk County Department of Public WorksV Suffolk County Water Authority NYS DEC, Commissioner, Albany NYS DEC, Regional Office, Stony Brook NYS Department of Transportation NYS Department of State US Anny Corps of Engineers Date: RECEIVED DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK IN RETURN ENVEWPE JAN 2 3 2003 Southold Town (Iert ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1I 79 Southold, New York 1I971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 8, 2003 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold adopted resolution number 22 at their regular meeting held on January 7, 2003 setting a public scopine meetine at 7:30 p.m.. Wednesdav. January 29. 2003 at the Southold Town Hall. 53095 Main Road. Southold. New York. on the Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strateev. Copies of this resolution classifying it as a Type I action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, assuming lead agency, declaring it a positive declaration, and initiating a public scoping meeting are attached Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Attaclmrents cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Long Island State Park Commission Village of Greenport Town of Shelter Island Town of River head Town of Southampton Southold Town Supervisor's Office Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Planning Board . S thold Town Board of Appeals , uthold Town Building Department O<r l-iT,f O. r;;.m;;~ Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Suffolk County Department of Health Suffolk County Department ofPub!j.e Works Suffolk County Water AuthorityV NYS DEC, Commissioner, Albany NYS DEC, Regional Office, Stony Brook NYS Department of Transportation NYS Department of State US Army Corps of Engineers RL"y Date: DUPUCATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOumOLD TOWN CLERK IN RETURN ENVEWPE Southold 1u" ~ ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Maln Road P.O. Box 1I79 Southold, New York 1I97I Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTH OLD F,'-) . , .~- .- ~. ~ NY3~cC - ;-CGION I JAN 16 2lIl3 January 8,2003 ":'l~' ,."'.....; .: ............... ; 1 ";,J:n~.,'.'T;-. - -- -~.....".' PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold adopted resolution number 22 at their regular meeting held on January 7, 2003 setting a uublie seouin!! meetin!! at 7:30 u.m.. Wednesday. January 29. 2003 at the Southold Town Hall. 53095 Main Road. Southold. New York. on the Southold Comurehensive Imulementation Stratel!V. Copies of this resolution classifying it as a Type I action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, assuming lead agency, declaring it a positive declaration, and initiating a public scoping meeting are attached. Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me in the enclosed self-addressed, stanrped envelope at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Long Island State Park Commission Village of Green port Town of Shelter Island Town of Riverhead Town of Southampton Southold Town Supervisor's Office Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Board of Appeals Southold Town Building Department ~t.{A.-(' ~./A'./ Signature, Recei~By C'4r~"TI 0 r;fO~~' Elizabeth A Neville Town Clerk Suffolk County Department of Health Suffolk County Department of Public Works Suffolk County Water Authority NYS DEC, Commissioner, Albany / NYS DEC, Regional Office, Stony BrookV NYS Department of Transportation NYS Department of State US Army Corps of Engineers Date: ;/; 7;h ___:? RECEIVED DUPUCATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLDTOWNCLERK JAN 22 2003 IN RETURN ENVELOPE ~oufhold Town CIeri . Thb'2). \ , , ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 sou tholdtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 2: 0 ..:1" VI C'? - C:) ...J~ L-; 0i4;;( ;:c January 8, 2003 ~ ~l c: N o [0 ~PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold adopted ~ol~~on number 22 at their regular meeting held on January 7, 2003 setting a public scoPin!! meet4D!! at 7:30 p.m.. Wednesday. January 29. 2003 at the Southold Town Hall. 53095 Main Road. Southold. New York. on the Southold Comprehensive Implementation StratCl!V. Copies of this resolution classifying it as a Type I action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, assuming lead agency, declaring it a positive declaration, and initiating a public scoping meeting are attached. Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me in the enclosed self-addressed, stanlped envelope at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Suffolk County Department of Planning Long Island State Park Commission Village of Green port Town of Shelter Island Town of River head Town of Southampton Southold Town Supervisor's Office Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Board of Appeals Southold Town Building Department ~ Q~ (?~J~.~ Date: Signature, Received By &' Cct ~I ~ Attachments cc: ~pl'ITIO'V(ui~ Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Suffolk County Department of Health Suffolk County Department of Public Works V Suffolk County Water Authority NYS DEC, Commissioner, Albany NYS DEC, Regional Office, Stony Brook NYS Department of Transportation NYS Department of State US Army Corps of Engineers / /:;<3/~3 . RECEIVED DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK IN RETURN ENVELOPE JAN 2 8 2003 Southald Town Clert '-~-~ ., LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"), a Draft Scope for the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement ("DGEIS") filed with respect to the proposed Town Board action known as "Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy", applicable throughout the entire T<>wn of Soutliold, has been completed and accepted by the lead agency for this action, the Town Board. This proposed action involves the evaluation ~nd where appropriate, Implementation by lfie Southold T'own Board of the recommended planning and program tools and measures as described in the planning studies undertaken WIthin the Town over the past 20 years. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, as determined by COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK ss: Jacqueline M. LaDuca, being duly sworn, says that she is the Legal Advertising Coordinator, of the Traveler Watchman, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Traveler Watchman once each week for.L........week(s) 'to successively, commencinl'\ on the.J...............day of .......-.J.WAAI'1\......., 2003. ....="::JJ~.h~.............. the Town Board, a public Scoping Meeting is to be held to sohcit public input and comment on the content of the DGEIS, at which time interested members of the public may provide verbal and/or written comments. The Scoping Meeting will be held at the Southold Town Hall, at 7:30 PM, Wednesday, January 29, 2003. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that a copy of the Draft Scope is on file at the offices of the Town Clerk, Town of Southold offices, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York and is available for public review during nonnal business hours, Monday through Friday. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will accept written comments on the Draft Scope until the close of business on February 10,2003. Written comments should be submitted to Town Clerk, Elizabeth Neville, Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, PO Box ,1179, Southold, New York 11971. Dated: Southold, New York January 8, 2003 BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Elizabeth Neville Town Clerk 2X-l/16,1/23/03(461) Swol1)- to before me thisM....day of <;~lU~lllU4......., 2003. ~..--' L-;:/ -, ..~...~.L....QI.&#::!/.~ --- Notary Public Emily Hamill NOTARY PlmLlc, State of New York No. 01 HA5059984 Qualified in Suffolk County Commission expires May 06. 2006 NOnCE 01' PUBLIC BEARING PI..EASE TAICl! NOTICIl...... pur- IIlUIl to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA J, a Draft Scope for the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement ("OOElS") flied with respect to the proposed Town, Board action known as "Southold Comprehensive lmplemeo.tation Strategy", applicable throughout the entire Town of Southold, h~"lvoeo coro+.trA M4ar.mp~y 1M... at 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, January 29 2003. ' PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that a copy of the Draft Scope is on file at the offices. of the Town Clerk, Town of Southald offices. 53095 Main Road, SouthoJd.~New York and is available for public review during nor~ mal business hours, Monday through Friday. . PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will accept wriuen comments on the Draft Scope until the close of business on February 10. 2003. Written comments should be Submitted to Town Clerk, Elizabeth Neville, Town Hall. 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179, Southold, New York 11971. Dated: Southold. New York JllIUIary II, 2003 ~ IY 0IlDI!I1. OF 11IIi TOWN BOAJU) OF 11IIi TOWN OF SOUTIIOU> Elizabeth A. Neville. ToWll Clerk 2600-2T J16 23 ,- STATE OF NEW YORK) )SS: ~TV OF ~UFF9LJ<) - V4f"/&~d/~&G'/ of Mattituck, in said county, being duly sworn, says that he/she is Principal clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a weekly newspaper, published at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for Z. weeks succes- sively, commencing on the /? day of ...::::7::P",/ 20as" h~lj~~J/ Sworn to before me this / b day of It::'-'" 20 g..i ~ I ~ ?- '&~~..A cL.J.<... LAURA E. BONDARGHUK Notary Public, State o! New York No 01 B06067958 Qualified in Suffolk COU;lty . or My Commission Expires Dec. 24, 2U_ '. . . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 sou tholdtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: All Southold Town Libraries @ FROM: Elizabeth A. Neville, Southold Town Clerk RE: "Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy" DATE: January 8, 2003 Enclosed please find two (2) copies of the above described plan to make available to the resident and general public in your library. Please make one set available at all times and use the other set to loan out. This Strategy (SCIS) will be the subject of a public scoping meeting to be held at 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, January 29, 2003 at the Southold Town Hall. I will keep you apprised of any further reports that become available in the future. If you have any questions, or wish additional copies, please call me at 765-1800. Thank you for your cooperation. ~L~/'"-kv Received By for 1raJu./w ~j JA-I,,:i Name of Library I/JI/c.-o Dae PLEASE SIGN AND RETURN THIIS RECEIPT IN THE ENCLOSED SELF-ADDRESSED ENVELOPE TO THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK RECEIVED THANK YOU JAN 1 6 2003 Soufhofd Town Cler; . . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 sou tholdtown.northfork. net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTH OLD TO: All Southold Town Libraries c@ FROM: Elizabeth A. Neville, Southold Town Clerk RE: "Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy" DATE: January 8, 2003 Enclosed please find two (2) copies of the above described plan to make available to the resident and general public in your library. Please make one set available at all times and use the other set to loan out. This Strategy (SCIS) will be the subject of a public scoping meeting to be held at 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, January 29, 2003 at the Southold Town Hall. I will keep you apprised of any further reports that become available in the future. If you have any questions, or wish additional copies, please call me at 765-1800. Thank you for your cooperation. 1...-.>)-:51- z ^' (' I LiC/d.10 for Flo//( /JU;JM"fft,(J / ({ ~ Name ofLlbrary ---iafi-: Received By &""" . . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: All Southold Town Libraries RE: "Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy" ~ FROM: Elizabeth A. Neville, Southold Town Clerk DATE: January 8, 2003 Enclosed please find two (2) copies of the above described plan to make available to the resident and general public in your library. Please make one set available at all times and use the other set to loan out. This Strategy (SCIS) will be the subject of a public scoping meeting to be held at 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, January 29, 2003 at the South old Town Hall. I will keep you apprised of any further reports that become available in the future. If you have any questions, or wish additional copies, please call me at 765-1800. Thank you for your cooperation. (jtd/d1 cec#f Received By for ~/d Name of Library ///1/03 Date . . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTH OLD TO: All Southold Town Libraries ~ Elizabeth A. Neville, Southold Town Clerk ~V "Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy" FROM: RE: DATE: January 8, 2003 Enclosed please find two (2) copies of the above described plan to make available to the resident and general public in your library. Please make one set available at all times and use the other set to loan out. This Strategy (SCIS) will be the subject of a public scoping meeting to be held at 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, January 29, 2003 at the Southold Town Hall. I will keep you apprised of any further reports that become available in the future. If you have any questions, or wish additional copies, please call me at 765-1800. Thank you for your cooperation. #h-~~ Recei By I~ for .......>i <-h-<,~ i..w<- Name of Ibrary j-/>-03 Date . . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 sou tholdtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: All Southold Town Libraries @ FROM: Elizabeth A. Neville, Southold Town Clerk RE: "Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy" DATE: January 8, 2003 Enclosed please find two (2) copies of the above described plan to make available to the resident and general public in your library. Please make one set available at all times and use the other set to loan out. This Strategy (SCIS) will be the subject of a public scoping meeting to be held at 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, January 29, 2003 at the Southold Town Hall. I will keep you apprised of any further reports that become available in the future. If you have any questions, or wish additional copies, please call me at 765-1800. Thank you for your cooperation. - u C / IJ et'f/" , Received By for n Iu-l LJuJc . l(4lNJ Name of Library I \7t3 Date .' . . 1/15/03 John: Please deliver one envelope to each library: Mattituck Cutchogue Southold Greenport Please have them sign the sheet on the envelope and print the name of the library, then pull the sheet off the front of the envelope and bring it back to me as a receipt. Thank you. Betty , , . . 1/15/03 John: Please deliver one envelope to each library: Mattituck Cutchogue Southold Greenport Please have them sign the sheet on the envelope and print the name of the library, then pull the sheet off the front of the envelope and bring it back to me as a receipt. Thank you. Betty 13/01 '03 MON 09:28 FAX 516 765 6145 .. ., . TRANSMISSION OK TXlRX NO CONNECT! ON TEL CONNECTION ID ST, TIME USAGE T PGS, SENT RESULT ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER SOUTHOLD CLERK ********************* *** TX REPORT *** ********************* 4103 7651756 Traveler 13/01 09:27 01'08 2 OK OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FAX TRANSMITTAL TO: TRAVELER WATCHMAN ATT: LEGAL NOTICES FROM: LYNDA M. BOHN DATE: 1/13/2003 RE: LEGAL NOTICES FOR PUBLICATION IN 2003 Number of pages bejng faxed 2 including cover page If total transmittal is not received, please call 631 765-1800. ~001 Town Hall, 53090 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown,north fork.not PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF TIDS LEGAL NOTICE WITHIN ONE (I) HOUR BY SIGNING BELOW AND RETURNING BY FAX TO 765-6145, ATTENTION: BETTY NEVILLE. THANK YOU. Received By Date . . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FAX TRANSMITTAL TO: TRAVELER WATCHMAN ATT: LEGAL NOTICES FROM: LYNDA M. BOHN DATE: 1/13/2003 RE: LEGAL NOTICES FOR PUBLICATION IN 2003 Number of pages being faxed 2 including cover page If total transmittal is not received, please call 631 765-1800. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 sou tholdtown.northfork.net PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THIS LEGAL NOTICE WITHIN ONE (1) HOUR BY SIGNING BELOW AND RETURNING BY FAX TO 765-6145. ATTENTION: BETTY NEVILLE. THANK YOU. Received By Date . . LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"), a Draft Scope for the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement ("DGEIS") filed with respect to the proposed Town Board action known as "Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy", applicable throughout the entire Town of Southold, has been completed and accepted by the lead agency for this action, the Town Board. This proposed action involves the evaluation and, where appropriate, implementation by the Southold Town Board of the recommended planning and program tools and measures as described in the planning studies undertaken within the Town over the past 20 years. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, as determined by the Town Board, a public Scoping Meeting is to be held to solicit public input and comment on the content of the DGEIS, at which time interested members of the public may provide verbal and/or written comments. The Scoping Meeting will be held at the Southold Town Hall, at 7:30 PM, Wednesday, January 29, 2003. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that a copy of the Draft Scope is on file at the offices of the Town Clerk, Town of Southold offices, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York and is available for public review during normal business hours, Monday through Friday. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will accept written comments on the Draft Scope until the close of business on February 10, 2003. Written comments should be submitted to Town Clerk, Elizabeth Neville, Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, PO Box 1179, Southold, New York 11971. Dated: Southold, New York January 8, 2003 BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Elizabeth Neville Town Clerk PLEASE PUBLISH ON JANUARY 16 AND 23. 2003, AND FORWARD ONE (I) AFFIDA VIr OF PUBLICATION TO ELIZABETH NEVILLE, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, PO BOX 1179, SOUTHOLD, NY 11971, AND FORWARD TWO (2) AFFIDA VIrS OF PUBLICATION FOR EACH PRINTING. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Town Planner, V. Scopaz Town Attorney Town Clerk's Bulletin Board 13/01 '03 MON 09:26 FAX 516 765 6145 . TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID ST, TIME USAGE T PGS. SENT RESULT ELIZABETH A. NEVlLLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER SOUTHOLD CLERK ********************* ... TX REPORT ... ********************* 4102 2983287 Suffolk Times 13/01 09:25 00'53 2 OK OFTICEOFTHETOWNCLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FAX TRANSMITTAL TO: THE SUFFOLK TIMES ATT: JOAN ANN FROM: LYNDAM. BOHN DATE: 1/13/2003 RE: LEGAL NOTICES FOR PUBLICATION IN 2003 Nwnber of pages being faxed 2 including cover page If total transmittal is not received, please call 631 765-1800. ~001 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P_O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF lEIS LEGAL NOTICE WITHIN ONE (1) HOUR BY SIGNING BELOW AND RETURNING BY fAX TO 765-6145. ATTENTION: BETTY NEVJLLK THANK YOU. Received By Date . . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FAX TRANSMITTAL TO: THE SUFFOLK TIMES ATT: JOAN ANN FROM: LYNDA M. BORN DATE: 1/13/2003 RE: LEGAL NOTICES FOR PUBLICATION IN 2003 Number of pages being faxed 2 including cover page If total transmittal is not received, please call 631 765-1800. PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THIS LEGAL NOTICE WITHIN ONE (l) HOUR BY SIGNING BELOW AND RETURNING BY FAX TO 765-6145. ATTENTION: BETTY NEVILLE. THANK YOU. Received By Date . . LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"), a Draft Scope for the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement ("DGEIS") filed with respect to the proposed Town Board action known as "Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy", applicable throughout the entire Town of Southold, has been completed and accepted by the lead agency for this action, the Town Board. This proposed action involves the evaluation and, where appropriate, implementation by the Southold Town Board of the recommended planning and program tools and measures as described in the planning studies undertaken within the Town over the past 20 years. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, as determined by the Town Board, a public Scoping Meeting is to be held to solicit public input and comment on the content of the DGEIS, at which time interested members of the public may provide verbal and/or written comments. The Scoping Meeting will be held at the Southold Town Hall, at 7:30 PM, Wednesday, January 29, 2003. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that a copy of the Draft Scope is on file at the offices of the Town Clerk, Town of Southold offices, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York and is available for public review during normal business hours, Monday through Friday. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of South old will accept written comments on the Draft Scope until the close of business on February 10, 2003. Written comments should be submitted to Town Clerk, Elizabeth Neville, Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, PO Box 1179, Southold, New York 11971. Dated: Southold, New York January 8, 2003 BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Elizabeth Neville Town Clerk PLEASE PUBLISH ON JANUARY 16 AND 23. 2003, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICA nON TO ELIZABETH NEVILLE, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, PO BOX 1179, SOUTHOLD, NY 11971, AND FORWARD TWO (2) AFFIDAVITS OF PUBLICA nON FOR EACH PRINTING. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Town Planner, V. Scopaz Town Attorney Town Clerk's Bulletin Board TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY . . SEQRA Process and Purpose of Scoping January 10,2003 Overview The Town Board of the Town of Southold is providing a period oftime for the public to provide input to the Scope of a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) that is being completed in connection with the Town's Comprehensive Implementation Strategy. A Scoping Meeting will be held on January 29, 2003 at 7:30 at the offices Town Hall to receive input on the Draft Scope (attached) that will form the outline for preparation of the Draft GElS, and the Board will receive comments until the close of business on February 10,2003. This process is being completed in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and the Environmental Quality Review ordinance of the Town of Southold. GEIS/SEQRA Process The Town Board of the Town of Southold is in the process of considering the implementation of the recommended planning and program tools and measures as described in the planning studies undertaken within the Town over the past 20 years. The Town wishes to ensure that these studies are used effectively toward implementing the goals of the Town that have long established the Town's vision. The studies, plans and recommendations are being reviewed in terms of current needs and Town goals to achieve the Town's vision, and examination of the relevancy of plans in terms of current conditions is being completed. The Town Board will complete a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) process to analyze the existing Town conditions, and explore impacts of implementing the various planning recommendations and various alternative scenarios. This will allow the Town Board to solicit inter-agency and public input and consider potential impacts under a public forum provided through a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) procedure. The proposed action will provide a means to ensure that the above-listed Town goals will be achieved through a comprehensive, well-established and well-considered land use decision- making framework. The first step in the process is the completion of a Draft GElS, which will bc adopted by the Town Board as lead agency, and circulated to the public for comments. A hearing will be held on the Draft GElS, and a period for writtcn comments (at least 10 days) will be provided after the Draft GElS hearing. Once the comment period ends, the Town Board will consider, analyze where necessary, and address all substantive written and oral comments in Final GElS document. This will be subject to a circulation period, and will be followed by the adoption of Findings that will establish the basis for the ultimate decision by the Town Board. ScoDing; Process/Puroose of ScoDing The Draft GElS will be prepared consistent with the Final Scope and the Scoping Process described herein. Scoping is defined as the process by which the lead agency (that is the agency that oversees the environmental review process), identifies the potentially significant environmental impacts related to the proposed action that is addressed and the Draft GElS, including the contents and the level of detail of the analysis, the range of alternatives, the mitigation measures needed and the identification of known relevant Issues. A Draft Scope was accepted by the Town Board on January 7, 2003, and is the subject of the upcoming Public Meeting. The Town Board will factor all relevant comments in preparing a Final Scope which will establish the basis for preparation of the Draft GElS. Comments should be directed toward items which may be omitted from the Draft Scope, level of analysis and alternatives to be considered. Items that already are contained in the scope and opinions on the project need not be addressed. Following the Scoping Meeting, written comments on the Draft Scope will be received until February 10,2003, after which the Town Board will issue the Final Scope. Questions may be addrcssed to the Town's Planning Consultants Patrick Cleary (631-754-3085) or Chic Voorhis (631-427-5665), or the Planning office (765-1938). Thank you for your participation. Jan-13-03 09:20A 1a/01 'oa MON 09;26 FAX 516 7411a14~ SOUTBOLD CLERK .~~... Suffolk TlIIu!l1!I PoOl I() 001 ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTIWt OF VITAL S'fATlS'l'ICS MARRIAGE Oll'FICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER P'IUlEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 63095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fox (631) 765.6145 Telephone (631) 766-1800 l!ooutholdtown.northfotk.l'\.et OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FAX TRANSMITTAl TO: THE SUFFOI"K TIMES ATT: JOAN ANN FROM: _ LYNDA M. BOHN DATE: 1/1312003 RE: LEGAL NOTICES FOR PUBLICATION TN 2003 Number of pages being faxed 2 including cover page Iftolal trlm.millal is not received. please call 631 765-]800. PLEA.SE ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF 'lIDS LEGAL NOTICE WiTHIN ONE (1 J HOUR BY SIGNING BELOW AND RETURNlNG BY FAX TO 765.6145. ATTENTION: BETTY NEVTLLR r YOU. U~.~C~ ~Jd3 Received By Date / ,/ 4 . . LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"), a Draft Scope for the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement ("DGEIS") filed with respect to the proposed Town Board action known as "Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy", applicable throughout the entire Town of Southold, has been completed and accepted by the lead agency for this action, the Town Board. This proposed action involves the evaluation and, where appropriate, implementation by the Southold Town Board of the recommended planning and program tools and measures as described in the planning studies undertaken within the Town over the past 20 years. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, as determined by the Town Board, a public Scoping Meeting is to be held to solicit public input and comment on the content of the DGEIS, at which time interested members of the public may provide verbal and/or written comments. The Scoping Meeting will be held at the Southold Town Hall, at 7:30 PM, Wednesday, January 29, 2003. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that a copy of the Draft Scope is on file at the offices of the Town Clerk, Town of Southold offices, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York and is available for public review during normal business hours, Monday through Friday. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will accept written comments on the Draft Scope until the close of business on February 10, 2003. Written comments should be submitted to Town Clerk, Elizabeth Neville, Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, PO Box 1179, Southold, New York 11971. Dated: Southold, New York January 8, 2003 BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Elizabeth Neville Town Clerk PLEASE PUBLISH ON JANUARY 16 AND 23, 2003, AND FORWARD ONE (I) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO ELIZABETH NEVILLE, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, POBOX 1179, SOUTHOLD, NY 11971, AND FORWARD TWO (2) AFFIDAVITS OF PUBLICATION FOR EACH PRINTING. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times Traveler -Watchman Town Board Members Town Planner, V. Scopaz Town Attorney Town Clerk's Bulletin Board , . . STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE, Town Clerk of duly sworn, says that on the 10 day of e Town of South old, New York being , 200\. she affixed a notice of which the annexed printed notice is a true opy, in a proper and substantial manner, in a most public place in the Town of South old, Suffolk County, New York, to wit: Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD ON: July 30, 2002, 8:00 pm Local Law in relation to a Temporarv Moratorium on the Processine:, Review of, and makine: Decisions on applications for Maior Subdivisions, Minor Subdivisions, and Special Use Permits and Site Plans containine: Dwelline: Unit(s) in the Town of South old n~hO:I() ~n ,/~ lizabetfi A. Nevill Southold Town Cler Sworn before ~iS --1.(Ldayof Idl6d ,20oi. ~ J;o~~puB; ~ LYNDA M. BOHN NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York No. 01 B06020932 QualifiGd In Suffolk County Term expires March 8, 20 ~ . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER . Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southold town.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 8, 2003 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold adopted resolution number 22 at their regular meeting held on January 7, 2003 setting a public scopin!!: meetin!!: at 7:30 p.m.. Wednesdav. January 29. 2003 at the Southold Town Hall. 53095 Main Road. Southold. New York. on the Southold Comprehensive Implementation Stratel!:V. Copies of this resolution classifying it as a Type I action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, assuming lead agency, declaring it a positive declaration, and initiating a public scoping meeting are attached. Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Long Island State Park Commission Village of Greenport Town of Shelter Island Town of River head Town of Southampton Southold Town Supervisor's Office Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Board of Appeals Southold Town Building Department O~:"1-7IQ.~ Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Suffolk County Department of Health Suffolk County Department of Public Works Suffolk County Water Authority NYS DEC, Commissioner, Albany NYS DEC, Regional Office, Stony Brook NYS Department of Transportation NYS Department of State US Army Corps of Engineers . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER . Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 sou tholdtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 8, 2003 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold adopted resolution number 22 at their regular meeting held on January 7, 2003 setting a public scopin!!: meetin!!: at 7:30 p.m.. Wednesdav. January 29. 2003 at the Southold Town Han. 53095 Main Road. Southold. New York. on the Southold Comprehensive Implementation Stratel!:V. Copies of this resolution classifYing it as a Type I action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, assuming lead agency, declaring it a positive declaration, and initiating a public scoping meeting are attached. Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me in the enclosed self-addressed, stan1ped envelope at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Long Island State Park Commission Village of Greenport Town of Shelter Island Town of Riverhead Town of Southampton Southold Town Supervisor's Office Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Board of Appeals Southold Town Building Department ~phT.1 O. r;(ui~ Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Suffolk County Department of Health Suffolk County Department of Public Works Suffolk County Water Authority NYS DEC, Commissioner, Albany NYS DEC, Regional Office, Stony Brook NYS Department of Transportation NYS Department of State US Army Corps of Engineers Date: Signature, Received By DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUmOLD TOWN CLERK IN RETURN ENVELOPE . . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 south old town.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: All Southold Town Libraries FROM: Elizabeth A. Neville, Southold Town Clerk RE: "Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy" DATE: January 8, 2003 Enclosed please find two (2) copies of the above described plan to make available to the resident and general public in your library. Please make one set available at all times and use the other set to loan out. This Strategy (SCIS) will be the subject of a public scoping meeting to be held at 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, January 29, 2003 at the Southold Town Hall. I will keep you apprised of any further reports that become available in the future. If you have any questions, or wish additional copies, please call me at 765-1800. Thank you for your cooperation. Distributed to the following libraries: Fishers Island Greenport Southold Cutchogue Mattituck-Laurel . . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 SouthoId, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 sou tholdtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 22 OF 2003 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON JANUARY 7, 2003: South old Compreheusive Implemeutatiou Strategy ACTION CLASSIFICATION, INTENT TO ASSUME LEAD AGENCY STATUS, INTENT TO REQUIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, AND RECEIPT AND CIRCULATION OF DRAFT SCOPE OF THE DGEIS WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southold (the "Board") is aware of, has participated in the preparation of, or has prepared a number of land use plans, studies, analyses, etc. over the past approximately 20 years, and WHEREAS, the Board intends to implement recommendations of these studies that would advance the goals ofthe Town, and WHEREAS, the Board has articulated the goals of the Town in various documents and reiterates here the intent to achieve the Town's vision as identified in the following goals: . The Town's goal is to preserve land including open space, recreation and working landscapes. . The Town's goal is to preserve rural, cultural, historic character of the hamlets and surrounding countryside. . The Town's goal is to preserve its natural environment; to prevent further deterioration of resources and to restore degraded resources back to pristine or near pristine quality. . The goal of the Town is to preserve and promote a range of housing and business opportunities that would support a socio-economically diverse community. . The Town's goal is to increase transportation efficiency and to create attractive alternatives to automobile travel, while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of the Town, State, County and local roadways. . . WHEREAS, these studies generally included implementation tools and recommendations designed to address the land use and social need aspects addressed in each study, and WHEREAS, since the action is a Town-wide initiative, it is determined to be a Type I action pursuant to SEQRA Part 617.4 (b)(l), and therefore is more likely to require an environmental impact statement, WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southold has exclusive authority to effect zoning changes, create and/or modify legislation, establish land use programs and implement the various measures and tools identified in the past land use and social need studies of the Town, and WHEREAS, since the Board holds this exclusive authority, the Town Board is the appropriate entity to assume lead agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and WHEREAS, the Board does intend to solicit inter-agency and public input, and will consider potential impacts under a public forum provided through the intended Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) procedure, and WHEREAS, implementation of these recommendations may be interrelated and potentially in divergence, to the extent that coordinated consideration of implementation is necessary and appropriate and further that one recommendation on its own may not result in an environmental impact; however, the combined effect of several recommendations may result in environmental impacts, thus indicating the potential for cumulative impacts, and WHEREAS, notwithstanding the far reaching nature of the intended action, the Board finds that by virtue of the fact that the initiative is intended to implement the past planning studies of the Town, it is consistent with the Town Comprehensive Plan which includes the zoning code and building zone map, zoning decisions, goals, legislative actions and the record of decisions that forms the Town's direction in terms of achieving its vision, and WHEREAS, as a result, the action is not expected to cause significant adverse impacts since it advances the goals of the Town; however, the action is of Town-wide significance, and does involve changes to natural and human resources; is a Type I action pursuant to SEQRA Part 617 and therefore is more likely to require an environmental impact statement; and, lastly that the action will affect property, resources and the shaping of the Town's future, and WHEREAS, based on the above facts and the Part I Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) prepared for the Board's consideration in determining significance, the Board finds it prudent to take a "hard look" at the proposed action through the preparation of a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS), and WHEREAS, the Board is familiar with the scoping process as outlined in SEQRA Part 617.8 Scoping, and . . WHEREAS, the Board has established a team of professionals to assist with the comprehensive implementation strategy, consisting of the Town Attorney, the Town Planner and Town supporting staff, two (2) planning consultants and two (2) consulting attorneys, and this team has prepared a draft scoping outline for the purpose of determining the scope and content of the DGEIS, and WHEREAS, the Board received this scope and deliberated upon its content and finds the draft scope to be adequate to commence the scoping process for the DGEIS pursuant to SEQRA Part 617.8 (b), and WHEREAS, the Board intends to provide an opportunity for interested agencies and the public to provide input into the scope of the DGEIS through circulation of the draft scope and solicitation of public comments at a public scoping meeting, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby classifies the Town of Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy as a Type I action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board hereby assumes lead agency status in review of the action and for the purpose of compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Action (SEQRA) Part 617, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board finds that a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) is appropriate and hereby issues the appropriate determination (via a Positive Declaration) to require such document for the proposed action, considering that the recommendations may result in potential impacts which may include cumulative and/or generic impacts, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board hereby receives the draft scope for the purpose of initiating the scoping process pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617.8, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board will hold a public scoping meeting on January 29, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall meeting room, and a period of lO-days will be provided following the public scoping meeting to allow for submission of written comments, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board authorizes the Town Clerk to file notice of the public scoping meeting in two (2) local newspapers on January 16 and January 23,2003 and the draft scope will be made available on the Town web-site, at local libraries and at the Town Clerks office prior to the scoping meeting, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board authorizes the Town Clerk of the Town of Southold to file this Resolution, the Part I Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), the Positive Declaration, and the Draft Scope of the DGEIS with the following parties: . . Town of South old Supervisor's Office Town Clerk of the Town of South old Town of South old Planning Board Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold Town Trustees Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works Suffolk County Water Authority Suffolk County Planning Commission NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Commissioner, Albany NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Regional Office at Stony Brook NYS Dept. of Transportation NYS Dept. of State US Army Corps of Engineers Inc. Village of Greenport Town of Riverhead Town of Southampton Town of Shelter Island Parties of Interest Officially on Record with the Town Clerk (if applicable) ptrhr4Q~-'tk. Elizabeth A. Neville South old Town Clerk 14-16-2 (2/87)-7c . . SEQR 617.21 Appendix A State Environmental QualiUr Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purl!ose: The full EAF is desigrted to help apglicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequently, there are aspects of a project that are suojective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in envIronmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concern affecting the questIOn of SIgnIficance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination l1rocess ,has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of mformallon to lit a project or actIOn. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts. Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place m Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an im]lact is likely to lJe considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentia:lly-large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the Impact IS actually Important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE - TYPE 1 AND UNLISTED ACTIONS Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: ~Part 1 - Part 2 _Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts I and 2 and 3 if approp'riate t and anf: other supporting information, and considering both the magnitude and importance of eac impac, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which - will no have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. B. Although the protect could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a - significant effect or this Unlisted ActIOn because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared. * C. The project may result in one or more large and important imr.acts that may have a significant - impact on the environment, therefore a pOSItive declaration wIll be prepared. * A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Town of Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategv Name of Action Town Board Name of Lead Agency Joshua Horton Suoervisor Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Pre parer If different from responsible officer) Date . . PART 1- PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A thiough E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any adihtional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION Town of Southold Comprehensive Imvlementation Stratef!V LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Municipality and County) Provosed Action would avvlv to the entire Town NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR Town Board, Town of Southold ADDRESS Town Hall 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 CITY/PO STATE Southold NY NAME OF OWNER (If different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE (63]) 765-1938 ZIP CODE 11971 BUSINESS TELEPHONE ADDRESS CITY /PO STATE ZIP CODE DESCRIPTION OF ACTION See Attached A. SITE DESCRIPTION Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: Urban _KJndustrial ~Rural (non-farm) X-Other Marine -L Commercial ---.K.. Forest -LResidential (Suburban) -K..Agriculture 2. Total acreage of project area: * acres * 53.7 square miles or approx, 35,000 acres AFTER COMPLETION acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres APPROXIMATE ACREAGE ** Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) Wetland (Freshwater or Tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of EeL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces Other (Indicate type) ** Beyond scope of EAF at this time; GElS to be prepared PRESENTLY acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? ** a. Soil drainage: ~ Well drained ~% of site; ---.K.. Moderately well drained...!.i..% of site; ~ Poor drained ..!Q... % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? 10,000010 acres. (See I NYCRR 370). 2 . . 4. Are there bedrock outcropping on project site? Yes a. What is depth to bedrock? 1.000"= (in fee~ 5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: X 0-10% 85 %; X 10-15%..!Q. % T 15%orgreater-S % 6. Is project substantially_contiguous tOA or contain a building,site, or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places'! X Yes _-No X No 7. I~jJroject substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? ,KYes _No 8. What is the depth of the water table? ---"- (in feet) *Entire Town; Variable (0-95"= feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? -K.. Yes No IO.Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? X Yes _ No II.Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? X Yes No According to NYS Natural Heritalle Prollram Identify each species l2.Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) L Yes No Describe Beaches. cliffs. dunes,lleolollie formations 13.Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? X Yes No If yes, explain Open space rural Ilualities. historic sellinll. prominent views. recreational facilities 14.Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? X Yes _No I 5. Streams within or contiguous to project area Multiple surface waters within Town a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16.Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: Multivle wetlands within Town a. Name b. Size (In Acres)_ 17.Is the site served by existing public utilities? X Yes _ No Partial water/gas service; However, water supply limitations are present and no sewer districts are present., a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? X Yes _ No See Above b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? ....K... Yes No 18.Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? ....K... Yes _ No Partial 19.1s the site located in or substantially ~ontiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? ....K... Yes _ No Partilll 20.Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? X Yes . No Town landfill aiiifTiicalizeasues B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION* ACTION IS LEGISLATIVE -- No physical changes are proposed; project/site specific impacts may occur. I. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor 35,000"= acres. b. Project acreage to be developed N/A acres initially; N/A acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped N/A acres. d. Length of project, in miles: N/A (if appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed N/A % f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing N/A ; proposed N/A g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour N/A (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially Ultimately 3 . . 1. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure: N/A height; N/A width; N/A length. J. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? N/A ft. 2. How much natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? N/A tons/cubic yards. 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? Yes No ----K.. N/A a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? Yes No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? Yes No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? ~ acres. 5. Will anv mature forest (over lOa years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project'! _ Yes ----K.. No Possible future project physical alteration. 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction N/A months, (including demolition). 7. Ifmulti-phased: N/A However, implementation will be multiple phases. a. Total number of phases anticipated (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase I _ month _ year (including demolition). c. Approximate completion date of final phase _ month _ year. d. Is phase I functionally dependent on subsequent phases? _ Yes No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? Yes ----K.. No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction N/A; after project is complete N/A . 10.Number of jobs eliminated by this project N/A . II. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? ----K.. Yes If yes, explain: Possible transfer of development rif!hts. No 12.Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? _ Yes ----K.. No Project specific; not part of a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount lef!islative chanf!es. b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13.Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? Yes L No Type: Sanitarv wastewater 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? _ Yes X No If yes, explain: 15.Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? X Yes _ No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? L Yes No Project specific; not part of a. If yes, what is the amount per month N/A tons legislative changes. b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? ----K.. Yes No c. If yes, give name Town facilitv location Cutchof!ue d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? X Yes No e. If yes, explain Recvclable portion of waste stream. 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? Yes ...K.- No tons/month. years. Project specific; not part of legislative changes. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? _ Yes ....K No I 9. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? Yes X No 20.Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels?_ Yes ..K.. No 2 1. Will project result in an increase in energy use? _ Yes~ No If yes, indicate type(s) Proiect Specific 4 22. If water supply is from4l!IlS, indicate pumping capacity · N/A gallons/minute. 23.Total anticipated water usage per day N/A gallons/day. (See a/so Narrative Requesi, Section D). 24.Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? ~ Yes No If yes, explain Local lmolementation 25.Approvals Required: The Town Board is the only agency that can implement the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy; However; other related project specific approvals are asfollows: Type Submittal Date Town Board Town Planning Board Town Zoning Board County Health Department Other Local Agencies State Agencies Other Regional Agencies Federal Agencies .K Yes .K Yes .K Yes .K Yes .K Yes .K Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No .KNo XNo Rezoning, Legislation Site Plan, Subdivision Variances Water Supply, Sanitary System Roadwork Roadwork, Wetlands C. ZONING AND PLANNING INFORMATION 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? ..JL Yes No If yes, indicate decision required: X zoning amendment ..JL zoning variance ..JL special use permit .K subdivision X site plan _ new/revision of master plan ..JL resource management plan X other L WRP Consistencv 2. What is the zoning c1assification(s) of the site? Multiole residential. commercial and soecial zoninll dIstrIcts. . 3. What is the maximum potential development ot the site It developed as permitted by the present zonmg'! Build out analvsis will be oerformed as Dart of GElS. 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? Possible chanlles to result from olanninll efforts. 5. What is the maximum potential develop.ment of the site if developed as I!.ermitted by the proposed zoning? Alternative build out analvsis will be oerformed as Dart of GElS 6. Is the_proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? X Yes _No 7. What are the p-redominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a 1/4 mile radius of proposed action? Multiole zoninl!. Town-wide 8. ~/~e proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a 1/4 mile? _Yes _No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision ofland, how many lots are proposed? N/A a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? N/A IO.WiIl proposed action require an,y authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? _ Yes -K..No II.WiIl the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? Yes X No Potential specific needs will be addressed. a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? Yes No 12.WiIl the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? Y es ~ No Planning efforts expected to reduce buildout traffic. a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? _ Yes _ No 5 . . D. INFORMATIONAL DETAILS AND WATER SUPPLY NARRATIVE REQUEST Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your proj ecl. If there are or may be any adverse impacts ~s.sociated wilh your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mItIgate or aVOld them. 1. Provide explanation of existing site use, occupancy, structures, sanitary flow, water use; compare to proposed use, occupancy, structures, sanitary flow, water use. 2. Indicate the source of water supply, nearest public water main, nearest public well field, and adjacent private wells (if known). 3. If public water supply is proposed, indicate the ability of the water utility to provide water supply to the project. Provide letter of water availability or detailed explanation of status of review by water utility. 4. If private water supply is proposed, indicate the well specifications, water quality based on on-site water quality data. Provide Suffolk County Department of Health Services approval or detailed explanation of status of review by agency. E. VERIFICATION I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Date ~/ /1.3/ ..:13 Signature Title Town Supervisor If the ac . n is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. F. PREPARER Name Charles~ Si",.Wre &7./ /' p-f- Ih7~ / ? Title Managing Partner Date 6 . . Town of South old Comprehensive Implementation Strategy EAF Part 1 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION The proposed project involves the evaluation and where appropriate implementation by the Southold Town Board of the recommended planning and program tools and measures as described in the planning studies undertaken within the Town over the past 20 years. The studies, plans and recommendations have been reviewed in terms of current needs and Town goals to achieve the Town's vision as articulated in the following plans. . Parks, Recreation & Open Space Survey (1982) . Town Master Plan Update and Background Studies (1984/85) . US/UK Countryside Stewardship Exchange Team (1991) . Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan (1992) . Town Affordable Housing policies and program (1993) . Fishers Island Growth Plan (1987-1994) . Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Study (1994) . Seaview Trails of the North Fork (1995) . Peconic Estuary Program (1995) . Economic Development Plan, Town of South old (1997) . Community Preservation Project Plan (July, 1998) . Southold Township: 2000 Planning Initiatives . County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study (1999) . Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy (1999) . Town Water Supply Management & Watershed Protection Strategy (2000) . Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (200 I) . Town of South old Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (2001) . North Fork Travel Needs Assessment (2002) . Blue Ribbon Commission for a Rural Southold, Final Report (July 14, 2002) . Southold Town Code, Zoning Code and Zoning Map These recommendations (consolidated and summarized in the attached table) would be considered by the Town Board for implementation in the form of amendments to Town procedures, the Town Code and various Town regulations, in conformance with the Town's Master Plan. As a result, the proposed project involves legislative changes, with no specific physical changes proposed. The Town Board intends to initially consider all prior recommendations with an emphasis on those that protect farmland, and open space, promote affordable housing; maintain and enhance character of hamlet centers and preserve natural resources. The Board may prioritize, narrow down or select implementation tools that best achieve the goals of the Town. The basic goals of the above-referenced plans and studies include: . The Town's goal is to preserve land including open space, recreation and working landscapes. . The Town's goal is to preserve rural, cultural, historic character of the hamlets and surrounding countryside. . The Town's goal is to preserve its natural environment; to prevent further deterioration of resources and to restore degraded resources back to pristine or near pristine quality. . The goal of the Town is to preserve and promote a range of housing and business opportunities that would support a socio-economically diverse community. . The Town's goal is to increase transportation efficiency and to create attractive alternatives to automobile travel, while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of the Town, State, County and local roadways. The Board will solicit inter-agency and public input, and will consider potential impacts under a public forum provided through a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) procedure. The proposed action will provide a means to ensure that the above-listed Town goals will be achieved through a comprehensive, well- established and well-considered land use decision-making framework. . . SEQRA POSITIVE DECLARATION Notice ofIntent to Prepare a Draft Generic EIS Determination of Significance Lead Agency: Town of Southold Town Board Contact: Hon. Joshua Horton, Supervisor Address: Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Date: January 7, 2003 This notice is issued pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act - SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and Chapter 44 ofthe Town Code of the Town of South old. The lead agency has determined that the proposed action described below may have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Generic Environmental hnpact Statement (GElS) will be prepared. Title of Action: Town of South old Comprehensive Implementation Strategy SEQR Status: Type I Action Description of Action: The proposed project involves the evaluation and where appropriate implementation by the Southold Town Board of the recommended planning and program tools and measures as described in the planning studies undertaken within the Town over the past 20 years. The studies, plans and recommendations have been reviewed in terms of current needs and Town goals to achieve the Town's vision as articulated in the following plans. . Parks, Recreation & Open Space Survey (1982) . Town Master Plan Update and Background Studies (1984/85) . US/UK Countryside Stewardship Exchange Team (1991) . Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan . Town Affordable Housing policies and program (1993) . Fishers Island Growth Plan (1987-1994) . Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Study (1994) . Seaview Trails of the North Fork (1995) . Peconic Estuary Program (1995) . Economic Development Plan, Town of South old (1997) . Community Preservation Project Plan (July, 1998) Determination of Significance Town Comprehensive Implementation Strategy . . o Southold Township: 2000 Planning Initiatives o County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study (1999) o Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy (1999) o Town Water Supply Management & Watershed Protection Strategy (20 o Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (200 I) o Town of South old Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (2001) o North Fork Travel Needs Assessment (2002) o Blue Ribbon Commission for a Rural Southold, Final Report (July 14, ; o Southold Town Code, Zoning Code and Zoning Map These recommendations (consolidated and summarized in the attached table) would be considered by the Town Board for implementation in the form of amendments to Town procedures, the Town Code and various Town regulations, in conformance with the Town's Master Plan. As a result, the proposed project involves legislative changes, with no specific physical changes proposed. The Town Board intends to initially consider all prior recommendations with an emphasis on those that protect farmland, and open space, promote affordable housing and preserve natural resources. The Board may prioritize, narrow down or select implementation tools that best achieve the goals of the Town. The basic goals of the above-referenced plans and studies include: o The Town's goal is to preserve land including open space, recreation and working landscapes. o The Town's goal is to preserve rural, cultural, historic character of the hamlets and surrounding countryside. o The Town's goal is to preserve its natural enviromnent; to prevent further deterioration of resources and to restore degraded resources back to pristine or near pristine quality. o The goal of the Town is to preserve and promote a range of housing and business opportunities that would support a socio-economically diverse community. o The Town's goal is to increase transportation efficiency and to create attractive alternatives to automobile travel, while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of the Town, State, County and local roadways. The Board will solicit inter-agency and public input, and will consider potential impacts under a public forum provided through a Generic Enviromnental Impact Statement (GElS) procedure. The proposed action will provide a means to ensure that the above-listed Town goals will be achieved through a comprehensive, well-established and well- considered land use decision-making framework. Location: The proposed action would apply to the entire Town. SCTM No.: All of District 1000 2 Determination of Significance Town Comprehensive Implementation Strategy . . Reasons Supporting This Determination: The proposed project involves the evaluation and where appropriate implementation of 20 years of planning recommendations in a comprehensive manner and consistent with current Town needs. By virtue of the fact that the initiative is intended to implement the past planning studies of the Town, it is consistent with the Town Comprehensive Plan which includes the zoning code and building zone map, zoning decisions, goals, legislative actions and the record of decisions that forms the Town's direction in terms of achieving its vision. The action is not expected to cause significant adverse impacts, since it advances the goals of the Town. However, the action is of Town-wide significance, and does involve changes to natural and human resources. In addition, since the action is a Town- wide initiative, it is determined to be a Type I action pursuant to SEQRA Part 617, and therefore is more likely to require an environmental impact statement. Finally, since the action will affect property, resources and the shaping of the Town's future, it is prudent to perform a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS). As a result, the considerations noted above, and the following potential impacts are identified as the Reasons Supporting This Determination: I. The application has been reviewed pursuant to the Criteria for Determination of Significance contained in Part 617.7. Consideration has been given to information supplied by the applicant including a Part I Environmental Assessment Form. 2. The proposed action may result in impacts to the natural and human resources of the Town, individually, cumulatively or synergistically. Zone changes andlor Town Code revisions may be necessary to implement recommendations. 3. The action may set a precedent with regard to the growth and character of the Town andlor individual communities. For Further Information Contact: Greg Yakaboski, Esq., Town Attorney Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Telephone: (631) 765-1889 Copies ofthis Notice Sent to: Town of South old Supervisor's Office Town Clerk of the Town of Southold Town of Southold Planning Board Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold Town Trustees Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works Suffolk County Water Authority Suffolk County Planning Commission NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Commissioner, Albany NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Regional Office at Stony Brook NYS Dept. of Transportation NYS Dept. of State US Army Corps of Engineers Inc. Village of Greenport Towns of Riverhead, Southampton and Shelter Island Parties of Interest Officially on Record with the Town Clerk (if applicable) 3 I1VlPLEMENTATION TOOLS/MECHANISMS AND KEY GOALS MATRIX This tAble represems a consolidation of the recommendallons of planning reporlS and swdies over llle pasl 20 years (,0 specific recornmendlln"mi', ,orne measures nmy apply to more than one sub-calegoIY, the mosl appli,;uble subcale~ory waS cl1o.ell as lOol:>/mechunisIrul me lisled only Ollce; if each ofthc,e mechnnlSnls/tools were implemenL.cl, the Town l1()vernmentalicdll~alional/aocial framework would be con~islCl1t wilh lhe cOmprellensive plan Il.S dermed by pasl initialives 8.lld recommendaliolls, thus implem.nlll\~ the planning rep,"" ami ,wdies "rthe pll.:ll 20 yeaf~; the CUrren! n""d ror cenain rnell.S\lre. "nd. their urgency based. on current C()ndltions must ;lill b. delennilled, ~nd policy decisions conceming implemCl1tation ml.lsl slill be n-.acte Note: Status C.olumn intended 10 indi<:ate pro~rom:; ...,ist IE) and willlle levieweu and improved/enhanced; "f, il.re propo"ed to be created (P) i ... ..'....< ..<,e!E../.". . '~::?":,:::>,~eyG<::l1d.:,-_ ,:-',: , ,. Stilhlll L:md Rural! Nalural $oi:\D~ Tr~pDr. . liri lem;futaciolJ ToolsIMei:hQnl~lI1& ' " ' PruervaU"u Cultural Environnu:nt E~."iIlnll'~ tllUOn. Phmnin' ProCeIS, Zuni and Zoninl! Cocle .i fii!f::prJ i;).~'/r"' 2;J;W,';:;i0Q:<i 5-AcreUzonin (A..c Districttown-w--ide ors cidc::u'ea) p , I X X X Rural Inceniive Disl.l--icURID (based "n incentive zonin ; exchan~e ofheuelits, i,e, maintain 0 eu.aCllifunnusefor eriodoftinleinexchan of PDRala m rialevielJideWlit ) p X X X X A culturalOverla DistrictlA-CZonin Review ( 0 hicdetinitionand oals} p X X A-C District Use;DimeIlSion.a1 Parameters (mechanics ofwne; now essentiall SIlIT.l:a.'lotherresidentialzones E X , X ReviewS cialP'llTnitProvisions(Win.r -Vinevard;ade uateflll1llSt!\IId .... , E , X Review Zoning Code (mandlltOrycluste:illg, recreational requin:menls, revise Sign CIrdirumce~ re\1eW R-O, ill Jistrict~ waler dependent uses; accessory apartments, AHD standllrds (expirations), E X X X X 8&8's, home occ~;'~tiorul, discouralle strin shoDoina centers &. fa~t rood in HE, flaa lots, encoura~e comm"ll d,.'iv~ways; chane~ o[use r~;,uir~ments) R~viewZonin M, Mllttiruck Creek, industrial on Roul~ 25 "",5t ofOre~, HD.in Green ort;waterde endent U5e~, AHD - re ~al or eX ~d) E X X RC\lew Subdivision Re latious roadr uiremeuts;drain.a .;Ii tin ~ infrastructure E X Review Hi w, S ecifiCll.lions (road re uirements;dra' ;li tin ; infrastructure) E X Conservaliou Subdivision Pro m define and im lemenl 75--80% land reservationthrou land use tools and density reduction) p X X Plannin Process & Encourage COrmrUnceJ cnc 'Partiei atioll(foITOlilize~bmissiollconfe!1lnce,revieWde a,rtmmlalor anizalion;reviewcomrnittees;emerrenc service roviderin ill) E X TransferofDevelo mentRi ts!Non-Conti uousClusterin Develo 'Ri tsBank moohanismlbra roprimedensit relocation/mana ement) p X X X X lnccll1iveZonm lannedOevei ment District Ordinance ( ovidelOrllexibl.edevel =,' eldin exchan oCs cia! ublicbellefits,i.e_llffordablehousin ,infraslfUCrure,Jedication,etc.l p X X Tree Preservation Ordinance (limit removal of trees unlessthrou subdivilSion/sit;nian review; definc tree size and a licableacrea ,) p X X X Critical Environmental Lauds Ordinance steepslo sandes menls,shallow Wldwater,wetlands,watefwa s~define lor ,ld "' oscs) , p X SE RA Ordinance Review/Revision T I List; ossibl addScllnic-B , ; Critical EDvironmental Areas) E X 'Scenic Bv~Wavs OvertaVDevelo ma"lt conn-ols (Route 48125: define corridor 1000'1500", reconcile farm structures; selbacl<.a, ma.ss, architecture; Committee review, SEQRA desi lalion) , P X Edllca'ti.~ll!Eil'roreeinetit :,:? " i@ A cultural District Review/Education A culture lIlld Markets Law; encolll'a artlcl ation;rnaintainexistin iei anm) E X I X Create General Guidance Documents esignManual,tran rtatiool1\a!k1. ement/trafficClllmin ,develo i11umination standards; B.\1Ps; cross access a ecmenls; side road access} p X X X X Natural Envir=nt Education (ensure 00" ualitYb"UI't'acei uud Sllrtbce waters; BMPs; !PM; coaslal ero$ion control~ beach width monilonn ,) E T X X Watershed Protection Zor.e/SGPA's (si "' e,educatiOllal distributioll illaterials, link with lanct use controls E , X X X Encol.Ira euseof' ublictrnu onation (relate to Trails rtationMana emelltPlan;cr"atehubs~ferrylinka'es;winerysb.uttles) E X Transportatiou ManageITlllnt Pla1l (f"msportalion Commission; encourage InU\sporlationipede~trian irnprovemems; encolll'age public tmuspoJtalioll; create hamlet hubs; leny linkages, winl'l-y shuttles, p i X si~nll;'e"bestrouteto": work with LIRR) i -I Economic Development Plan (manage tOuriSlll~ c;olnmercial ft.3hing; recreational boating; uniqu.:: of agricultural opporttmiti<:$; maricullUre; capital improvement program: B&8'$, network of visitor : p X X cenlC)'lli Euforcement ill, III conversion ofa iculturalbuildin s;useex ansiollconlrols;chan ofusel~ Ulremeuts E ..;&J;r':N;g:;;?~d~~'IiITm"'~" Cri.'itiiJIDi :\1emebWE uditures 0 ~:",,'" "0:/'3:-:"'-0 -", ", W' ,-C' '~r/i/"""''''' ."," ;~{ " -/f/"> 'v:",,,,," ...:,""'...0',-" _'"'ii.,',,, , ~ " rove Waterfronl Access (a uisitions; obtaWmllintain; wveutorv Town land and . w) E X I AdministerFarks of Town-wide Si ificance(inveutOI Tol'.'I1 land, confonnto ~k Ian; ublicbeach ualilvim rovemenU) E X I X I PrioritizeandSu lernlntCPPF(additionala uisitiona;scenicbv-wavsac:auisitlons; sensitive land; rioritize} E X I Create a CentraliZlld Year-Round Recreational Co lex delermine need, , leme:liifnecClj' p X Dlf.id.'fowu'Ma'n in.ent ?AH~;;;, , AffordsbleHouain Polic 0 hie! diversit,tar etsandnewdevelo nt,l'evieweVll ,2-5 arB, vide inceutives, aCCllSSO " ts"limwcialassistance;Housin Authorit P X COllcentrlitllDevelo ment inHamlelS {define hamlets; llnsure atewfrl\~tructure,affordablehO\l'lll ,linkwtthlandusemechanismslools,;;;;tllll roVllment w am; lnlfficcalrnin E X X X X Park District/School District Boundaries Contbnnit - (determine need and fllconcile districts E X Update Park Inventorv and Management Plan ( 'or 1980 study needs uDdatlllg;input into GIS; mana e recreational resources) E X Create a Parks and Recreation De rtment (mana , ks,recreational reso=s,non-chun:h cemeteries) p X ScenicB .w. Mana ement Pro on onte4aIRoute 25 current! desi ated~ si . ,linkwithOverla foratandardsl idelinesilandusecontrols p X X X Trail Inventorvrrl1lil CommitteeIBikewa ~, ortatiOl,l CornnlisaionexiElts, detennine atecomrnitlee;inventor,in lintoGIS,mana e, trailhead directional infonnation in kiosks P X X Inventor and Mana eCullurn.lReoources(archaeolo call sensitive area8~ Historic District desi alion; I, ues; landmark desi alion;in ut wto GIS, manage) E X Architectuml Review Board and Dest PllTameters (determine need; establish bod ~ enerate idance;intll 'llteiI1l01anduserevillw roeess E X Scenic Advi~od---;(determine need for new Committee; mana esceniecotTidors,town-wiciescenicrellOUICes) p X lnfilk~"o' "y"Ji~'W' . "ibftiilti.."s 4'F ,%i ~;%H;J#"h.i' <f:; i/"~ ;~,:;Oki'liN;: WiiV;1;/'; j-&;@'&,.;. Housin FmancialAsslstancePro orth Fork Housin... Alliance; rev111w other 0 rtunities blllloo on 1993 re ~dU ed Afftrrdable Housin Polic E X ])owl WaterS I Master Plan (Town involvement, SCW A re on, ~~infrastrUCturijwithotheraencies p X Emer "' p,.. ." undwatercontaminatiOll,drou t_ ement;eusureade uateemer encyservlces lice,fire,amI>ulanC5);noodhazardrniti~tionpl!lll; erasion) E X SooiaIServiccsPro~eniorcitizencare,ade uate communitv facilities, dav Cere, meals 011 wheels, chW'ches, librarill8) E X . . Pq<ll . . Draft Scope for the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY Southold Town Board Action January 7, 2003 This document provides an outline for use by the Town of Southold Town Board (as Lead Agency) in determining the content and format of the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (Draft GElS), for the proposed action known as the Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy (SCIS). DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The proposed action involves the evaluation and where appropriate implementation by the Southold Town Board of the recommended planning and program tools and measures as described in the planning studies undertaken within the Town over the past 20 years. The studies, plans and recommendations have been reviewed in terms of current needs and Town goals to achieve the Town's vision as articulated in the following plans. . Parks, Recreation & Open Space Survey (1982) . Town Master Plan Update (1985) . Fishers Island Growth Plan (1987-1994) . US/UK Countryside Stewardship Exchange Team (1991) . Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan (1992) . Town Affordable Housing policies and program (1993) . Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Study (1994) . Seaview Trails of the North Fork (1995) . Peconic Estuary Program (1995) . Economic Development Plan, Town of Southold (1997) . Community Preservation Project Plan (July, 1998) . Southold Township: 2000 Planning Initiatives . County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study (1999) . Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy (1999) . Town Water Supply Management & Watershed Protection Strategy (2000) . Town of South old Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (2001) . Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (200 I) . North Fork Travel Needs Assessment (2002) . Blue Ribbon Commission for a Rural Southold, Final Report (July 14,2002) These recommendations (consolidated and summarized in the attached table at the end of this document) would be considered by the Town Board for implementation in the form of amendments to Town procedures, the Town Code and various Town regulations, in conformance with the Town's Master Plan. As a result, the proposed project involves legislative changes, with no specific physical changes proposed. The Town Board intends to initially consider all prior recommendations with an emphasis on . Draft Scope Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS . those that protect farmland, and open space, promote affordable housing and preserve natural resources. The Board may prioritize, narrow down or select implementation tools that best achieve the goals of the Town. The basic goals of the above-referenced plans and studies include: o The Town's goal is to preserve land including open space, recreation and working landscapes. o The Town's goal is to preserve rural, cultural, historic character of the hamlets and surrounding countryside. o The Town's goal is to preserve its natural environment; to prevent further deterioration of resources and to restore degraded resources back to pristine or near pristine quality. o The goal of the Town is to preserve and promote a range of housing and business opportunities that would support a socio-economically diverse community. o The Town's goal is to increase transportation efficiency and to create attractive alternatives to automobile travel, while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of the Town, State, County and local roadways. The Board will solicit inter-agency and public input, and will consider potential impacts under a public forum provided through a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) procedure. The proposed action will provide a means to ensure that the above-listed Town goals will be achieved through a comprehensive, well-established and well-considered land use decision- making framework. FORMAT AND CONTENT OF DEIS COVER SHEET (Indicate that the document is a "Draft" GElS; name of project, location of action, name and address of Lead Agency, as well as name, title and telephone number of contact person at the Lead Agency; names, addresses and contact information of all persons or organizations contributing to the document; date of acceptance of the document by the Lead Agency; and date by which written comments on the document are to be received by the Lead Agency) SUMMARY (Provide brief summary of the proposed action, to include: location of the Town of South old, the need for and benefits of the action, a description of the action, the anticipated significant adverse impacts of the action, corresponding mitigation measures of those impacts, alternatives considered, and the permits and approvals required to implement the action.) 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 1.1 Project Purpose, Need and Benefits 1.1.1 Background and History (Provide brief description of the existing pattern of land use within the Town. Describe the various Town, county, NYS and private planning efforts in regard to land use decision-making, and the interrelationships between these plans and the agencies proposing or implementing each. Discuss the forces and/or conditions which have caused this effort to be proposed at the present time. Describe GElS process as it pertains to this action) 1.1.2 Public Need and Municipality Objectives (JustifY proposed action in terms of Town goals. Discuss the need for this action and fulfillment of public desires.) Page 2 . Draft Scope Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS . 1.1.3 Benefits of the Project (Provide brief listing/discussion of the benefits to accrue from the proposed action. Discuss the logic and rationale for the choices being addressed) 1.2 Location (Indicate that proposed action is applicable within all of Town. Describe locations of individual types of land uses as distributed within Town, in terms of roadway access, the various zones, districts, utility services, etc.) 1.3 Description of the Proposed Action 1.4 Additional Action Thresholds (Provide thresholds and conditions that would trigger the need for supplemental determinations of significance or site specific EIS's. 1.5 Permits and Approvals Required (Provide brief discussion of the remaining SEQRA processes and review stages required for the proposed action; list all required permits, reviews and approvals.) 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2.1 Geological Resources (Provide information on the existing soil, subsurface and topographic conditions of the Town, particularly in regard to those characteristics pertinent to suitability of the soils to support the uses resulting from the proposed action.) 2.2 Water Resources (Describe current status of groundwater quality, quantity, elevation and flow direction in the Town. Provide information on Town surface water bodies.) 2.3 Ecological Resources (Describe/discuss the existing vegetation resources of the Town, including habitats found, acreages of each habitat type, significant species and/or habitats found, etc. Describe/discuss wildlife species found or anticipated, based on habitats found, significance of wildlife species found, etc. Identify wetlands and unique habitat linkages. Document contact with NY Natural Heritage Program and findings regarding unique habitats, species, or information recorded in their files). 2.4 Transportation (Describe the existing roadway characteristics and levels of congestion at pertinent intersections and roadway segments in the Town. Present information on current types, levels of usage and routes of public transit resources serving the Town, and document road improvement plans) 2.5 Air Resources (Describe/discuss existing meteorological and climate characteristics of the Town, air quality in the Town, and briefly describe the applicable air quality standards and regulations.) 2.6 Land Use, Zoning and Plans (Describe current land use and zoning patterns in the Town. Describe/discuss the various land use plans, studies, etc., on which the proposed action is based, along with the recommendations of each.) 2.7 Demography (Provide description/discussion of the existing and anticipated demographic characteristics of the Town, including population size, households, income and other relevant data. Perform build-out analysis of the Town based on current zoning, to predict population and describe future conditions) 2.8 Community Services (Provide information on the current status of the following public/community services which serve the Town): . public schools Page 3 . Draft Scope Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS . . police protection . fire protection . recreation . local government 2.9 Infrastructure (Provide information on the current status of the following infrastructural elements): . solid waste removal and handling, including recycling . water supply . sewage & wastewater treatment . electricity . natural gas, ( if available) . Telephone/Cable TV 2.10 Community Character (Describe the existing and emerging character of the community. Describe the visual character of the Town, for observers along bordering roadways and from other public vantage points, for: hamlets, rural areas, and the transition areas between hamlets and rural areas.) 2.11 Cnltural Resources (Describe/discuss the history of the Town and the established and potential for the presence of significant pre-historic or historic and/or archaeological resources.) 2.12 Economic/Fiscal Conditions (Provide information on the current tax generation and economic characteristics of the Town and the allocation of taxes to the various taxing jurisdictions. IdentifY and evaluate various economic sectors within the community, major employers and sources of jobs.) 3.0 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (A build-out analysis of the Town will be performed, based on recommended changes in the land use decision-making framework. Where appropriate, specific reference to resource areas will be discussed as provided below.) 3.1 RESOURCE IMPACTS 3.1.1 Geological Resources (The potential for erosion during construction, the ability of the soils to accommodate development, and potential changes in the topographic contours should be addressed) 3.1.2 Water Resources (The anticipated impacts on the volume and quality of recharge generated, and its impact on existing groundwater quality, quantity, groundwater flow direction and water table contours will be addressed. In addition, the potential for groundwater or surface water impact to the existing surface waters will be discussed.) 3.1.3 Ecological Resources (The amount, extent and character of natural vegetation to be affected, and its habitat value, will be discussed and analyzed. The impact on existing species, as well as the potential for rare or endangered species and potential impacts to these species will be discussed.) 3.1.4 Transportation (The impact of the anticipated changes in traffic patterns will be addressed. The document will also address the need for and impacts of the roadway improvements made necessary by the proposed action, and any changes in transportation methods, including public transit) Page 4 . Draft Scope Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS . 3.1.5 Air Resources (The potential for impact to air quality from changes in development patterns and densities, as well as from the traffic changes, will be addressed. ) 3.1.6 Land Use, Zoning and Plans (Discuss the impacts of implementing the various recommendations on the land use and zoning patterns in the Town.) 3.1.7 Demography (Provide description/discussion of the changes in Townwide demographic characteristics due to implementation of the proposed action.) 3.1.8 Community Services (Discuss the increased need for public services and the impact on these services due to the proposed action. Comments provided by each community service provider, if any, will be included and addressed in the preparation of this section.) 3.1.9 Infrastructure (address the changed demand on infrastructure resources resultingfrom implementing the proposed action) 3.1.10 Community Character (Address the changes in the visual character of the Town due to the proposed action. Discussion of impacts to the various hamlets and downtown or local commercial centers will be provided.) 3.1.11 Cultural Resources (Discuss the potential impact on cultural resources due to the proposed action.) 3.1.12 Economic/Fiscal Conditions (Provide discussion of the anticipated impacts of the proposed action on the economic pattern and level of economic activity in the various geographic and economic sectors of the Town.) 3.1.13 Use and Conservation of Energy (Discuss how the proposed action will impact the use and conservation of energy resources within the Town.) 3.2Cumulative Impacts (Indicate other pending development applications in the Town, and analyze their cumulative impacts in conjunction with those of the proposed action). 3.3 Secondary Impacts (Describe secondary or indirect impacts that will result from the proposed action). 3.4 Long Term Impacts (Address impacts that might be expected to occur over a long period of time, resulting from the incremental execution of various elements of the proposed action). 4.0 MITIGATION MEASURES 4.1 Geological Resources 4.2 Water Resources 4.3 Ecological Resources 4.4 Transportation 4.5 Air Resources 4.6 Land Use, Zoning and Plans 4.7 Demography 4.8 Community Services 4.9 Community Character/ 4.10 Cultural Resources 4.11 Economic/Fiscal Conditions Page 5 . Draft Scope Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS . 5.0 ADVERSE IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED (Provide listing of those adverse environmental impacts described/discussed previously which are anticipated to occur, which cannot be completely mitigated.) 6.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES (Provide listing of the various environmental and human resources which will be permanently committed to the proposed action.) 7.0 GROWTH-INDUCING ASPECTS (Describe and discuss those aspects of the proposed action which may result in additional growth and/or development in the Town, due directly to the proposed action, or indirectly as a result of changes in the community which are caused by the proposed action. The document will consider growth that is related to the proposed action such as infrastructure improvements, utilities, job creation, etc. to the extent that the project will be linked with such growth in the area. The potential for additional development in downtowns, local commercial centers and communities outside the project vicinity will be included. Identify "triggers" that will cause growth) 8.0 IMPACTS ON THE USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY RESOURCES 9.0 ALTERNATIVES 9.1 No Action (The current land use decision-making framework of the Town remains in its current condition, based on build-out analysis prepared in Section 3.0) 9.2 Mitigative Strategies 9.2.1 Provide for Land Preservation including Open Space & Farmland 9.2.2 Maintain & Enhance Rural & Cultural Character 9.2.3 Preserve the Town's Natural Environment 9.2.4 Provide a Sound Socio-Economic Environment for Residents & Businesses 9.2.5 Ensure Adequate Transportation Infrastructure EXTENT AND OUALITY OF INFORMATION NEEDED The SEQRA process and the Draft GElS prepared in conformance with this scope are intended to provide comprehensive and important information in the decision-making process for use by involved agencies in preparing their own supplemental findings and issuing decisions on their respective permits. The document will be concise but thorough, well documented, accurate, and consistent. Studies for traffic, cultural resources (if any), and other aspects of the project, prepared by qualified specialists, will be appended and referenced. Technical information may be summarized in the body of the document and attached in a separate appendix. All pertinent correspondence utilized in the document will be contained in appendices, as well as excerpts of pertinent publicly available materials. Page 6 . Draft Scope Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS . INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN APPENDICES All pertinent information and correspondence included, presented or discussed in the document, shall be included in appendices subdivided for ease of reference. Such appendices may include, but not be limited to: economic impact analysis, groundwater and air quality data and modeling results, and engineering studies, maps, plans, regulations, etc. ISSUES DEEMED NOT RELEVANT. NOT ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT OR ADEOUATEL Y ADDRESSED IN A PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This section is required for a complete scoping document under SEQRA. In regard to the appropriateness of economic analysis on business operations, SEQRA is quite clear. As stated in The SEQR Handbook (NYSDEC, November 1992, pg. 60), such an analysis is not appropriate for analysis in an environmental impact statement: Are there economic or social factors that are inappropriate for inclusion in an EIS? The potential effects that a proposed project may have in drawing customers and profits away from established enterprises or in reducing property values in a community may not be considered under SEQR. Potential economic disadvantage caused by competition or speculative economic losses are not environmental factors. In sununary, it is not intended nor required that a DEIS address the potential impact of the proposed project on the business operations of any similar retail businesses in the vicinity those, of a similar size or type or otherwise, or what would be considered competition between businesses. No other issues have been identified to date. This applicant's intent is to thoroughly disclose and analyze potential impacts associated with the proposed project. This draft scope will be subject to the scoping process in conformance with SEQRA Part 617.8, followed by the issuance of a final scope by the lead agency. Page 7 IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS/MECHANISMS AND KEY GoALS MATRIX This table reprellents a oonsolidu;on of the recommendations of ?lanning ropom ami studi"" over the ]:lOSt 20 years (43 spe<:ific recommendations); some meallUl'CS may apply to more, thall one sLlb-ea.!egory, the mo.t appliCllble .ubca!egwy IVlI.S chosen a' tooWmcdUlllisms fll"e listed only once; if each of these 1lleehartlsms/tools Were Implemented. the Town govemmentalleducatlonallsoctlll fmmework would be C01l8sent with Ihe comprehensl"e plalllllS defmed by pasl mlllatives and recommends.tlons, thus lrrrplemen!lllg the planning report> "nd sllw,es of rhe p"'! 20 year", the current need for certain measun:s and lheir urgency based on CU!Tent conditions must still be determined, ~nd policy deci.ion, concemini implemenllltion must still be n.we ~,." Nole: Starns Column intended to indicare programs exist (E) and will be ,eviewed and improvedlenhane<:d; or, are propo"ed to be created If') RllrllV CullUrGI N,liturul Envjronnunt ~i ..... 'S"""~ P , P X P , E X E _coo, 5-Acre '(A-CDistricttoW1l-wid..or~ cilicarea) RlInllIncentiveDistJ.ictIRID donincentive:ronin ;exchan eofbenefits,i,e.rnaintaino n ace/fimnusefor odoftimeinexchan of PDRat A "culturalOverla DiBtrictlA-CZonin Review 0 'cdetinitianand a1s) A-C DI5lrict Use!DitmlIlllional PlU1lIll!lters mechanics of zone; now e~~entiall aame as other t'esidenlial zam~s) ReviewS ci!l.lPermitProvisions Winar -Vine ;ade uatefannstandnarlcin--;'- Review Zoning Code (mandatory clustering, recreational requirements, revise Sign Ordinance~ review R-o, l.B district; water dependent uses; accessory apsrtInents,."Jill stsudards (expirations), B&B's, home occnnatlOns, Wscoura"e stri;'shonnin" ,enters & fast food UI HE fla!! lots, eru:oural!:c common drivewa~s; chanae of use rt'<'Twrements) ReyiewZonin M attitu.ckCreek, industrial on Route 25 westofOree r1,HD.inGreen t1;waterde cientu.sea,AHV-re eal or ex lUId ReviewSubdivisiOllRo lations roadre uir<lJ11llnts;ciraina o;li tin ;inftastruclllre Reviow Hi wa S cifications road re uirements; dmina ; li ~ infraatrucrore CODll0Tvation Subdivision Pro m(define lind' lement 75-800A, land rvation thrau land use tools anddensit reduction Plannin Process&Ellcoura Committeel nc Partici ation fonnalize -Sllbmissionconferenoo,roviewde artrrK:Iltalar tion; review conunittetl,'l,el1llll' enc service roviderin ut) Trans.{erofDevelo mentRi WNon-Conii ousClustei:;n;lI)eyelo tRi tsBank mechanism fox ro ritrtedensit relocation! ement Incentive Zoninl<lPlannoo DeVl'llo t Dislrict Ordinance vide fur flexible devel 'eld in exchanl(e of cia! blic benefits, i,e. atfordabl<l housm infrastructure, dedication, etc.) TnoePrell6rvationOrdinance imitmnovaloftreesunlessthroll subdivisioni~illl Ian review; define tree size and licableacrea e) Critical Environmental Lends Ordinance stee &0 es and es nts, mal10w undwater, wetlllIlds, W3lerWll.V~~ define for Yield oses) SE RAOrdinance~viewiRevision(T lList; ossibl addScenic-~CriticalEnv~ntalArus) - Scenic B -We Overla Develo nent Controls (Route 4Sf25; define corrielor 1000'/500'; reconcile fium structures; setbacks, rTlIIlls, architectUTt:; Commi~ review, SE RA desi etioo) 'Edue:ilttoiiiEi1r~'ment ..-: A cu1turalDiatrictReviewlEduoation A 'cullUre IUld Markets Law; encoura e 'ci ation;roaintainexistin 'ci ts) Crellle Geueral Guidance DOCUITl$nts esi Manual, t rtatiOll mana mentltraffic calmin ,develo illumination standards; BMPs; cross access II etllllDts; side road acalSS) Natural Envirorumol Education (en= ood ulllity surtkcei d surface waters; BMPs;!PM; coastal erosion control; bcllch wilithmonilono ) Watershed Protection ZoneJSGPA's (si e, educational distribution materials link with land use Cllntrols Encollrll 0 use of blic ortation (relate to Trans lion MIlI\Il amenl Plan; create hubs; ferry linka s; Wllier shuttles) Transportation ManagerIll;1nt Plan (Transportation Commission; encourage transportation/pedestrian imprnvements; encourage public transportation; create hamlet hubs; felry linkages, winery shuttles, sillnll;e "best route to"; work with LIRR) Economic Development Plan (manage tourism; commercial fiming, recreatiollal boating; unique of agricultural opportunities; maricultlIre; capital improvement program; B&B's, network of visitor center. - '. ,,'. - riatevieldldenslt Euforoemcmt illo conYerliionoflllrriculturnlbuildin ofusere rove Waterfront AccelIs ( uiJritions; obtainima.inlaln~ inventorv Town land and im 'Ill) AdministerParks of Town-wide Si 'ficance inventor Tolt'JI land, conform to ark lan~ ublic beach ilV Prioritize and Su lement CPPP additionol a uisitions; scenic b -we. a lIisitians; sensitive land; o1'itize Crealea Centralized Year-Roun.dROCl'eationalCo lex lementifneCllll3lll' OVOmenIs) AffordahleHou.sin Polic 0 hic/ ediversit ,tar etstmdnewdevel lit review eve ,2-5 l\flI' 'deincentives,acce990 a s"liIwncialastlistance;Houain Authorit Concentrate Devel ot in HllmMs definllham1ets;ensure . to. infre.strtlctw:e;affordable hou::rin ,link with land use mechanisms/tools~ caoital i Yement '0 . traffic CIlh:nin Park DiatrictlSchool District Boundaries Conformi determine need lllldreconcile districlll) U date Park Inventor anrlMa.na otP1an(oriorI980stud needsll tin in tintoGJS;mana recreationalresonrces) Crcnde a PlIrks and R<<:reation ot mana ks, recreaticnal re~s, wm--<>hurch cemeteries Scenic B .Wi M Pro cute 48/Route 25 current! deai ted: si a ,link with Owrla for standardsl idelinn/land use controls TraillnVllIltor rrrail Committee;Bikewa. rllD !ltian CommiasionllxiBts, determine 'ale cormnittce; invent t into GIS, mana , trailheed directional information in kiosks Inventor andMena eCulturalR&IlOurces(archaeolo 'call sensitivcareas;HistoricDistrictdesi tion~ ues;hmdmarkdesi tion;in utintnGlS,rrtaIlB.2e) Arclritectural Review B08I'd and Oeai PlIralIlllters (determine need; establish bod~enerate lIJ,lidancc; intejUale into land u.se review rocess Scenic Advisory Body detennine need. for new Committee; mana e scenic corridors, )Il1{er.{li~iti"...~. "i1sr~";'i..- ".IlHtl~i:i~~i:,;" HOllsm Finencial Assistance Pro orth Fork Houain Alliance; review other 0 rtuniti~s based on 1993 rep011 and U d Affordable Housin Polic Develop Water S J Master Plan Town involvement, SCW A arin ~ mana e infrastrneture with othar a encies) Emer enc Pre duess und.water collt&minatiOIl, dro~t mana---;-ement~eu.sure ade unte effit)r C servietts olice, fire, ambulance); tloodhllzardmiti~on;;Jan~ erosion) Social Services ProIl;t'aID (senior citizen =, acle uate communit fucilities, day care, maills 011 wMels, churches, libraries E E E E p E P p p P E p WJ E p E E E P x X x X x x X x X X I X I X X X X X X X X X :w: 1't%!~*, %" .~:A~ X X X X X X X X X P E X % '.W""% .:,.;3(;{ w:,': ;~,i'..,..;...,,',. W4;;sm,=o;;9.j;" "', ~,/@" M;VA ,~. ,W3." >',_ .< E E E p x X X X ~ .'" *WfJi' .~ . ";t'Ai ":@L" Xf, x ~J""w x X X X X X X X X X P E E E P P P E X E X p X ;X. W,;#.!>i7it .7f~j/'HhJ:i ;4j};:~w;8'iI;!:&&ij9'@, :\tt'"~$r;;, E p X E E X X X X X X X X J . X X X X x I I I x X x X i I :e , I I X I x X X X Pag~ 1