HomeMy WebLinkAboutTDR-DGEIS- April 2008DR_AFT GENERIC
TOWN OF
As A
DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TRANSFER OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM
as a
SUPPLEMENT
to the
GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
for the
SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
Town of Southold
Suffolk County, New York
Town Board of the Town of Southold (SEQRA Lead Agency)
Supervisor, Hon. Scott A. Russell
Justice Louisa P. Evans
Councilman William P. Ruland Councilman Thomas H.Wickham
Councilman Vincent M. Orlando Councilman Albert J. IG-upski, Jr.
Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC
572 Walt Whitman Road
Melville, New York 11747
Contact: Charles J. Voorhis, CEP, AICP
(631) 427-5665
Prepared by:
Town TDR Program Team
Patricia A. Finnegan, Esq., Town Attorney
John Sepenoski, Deputy Supervisor
Mark Terry, Town Principal Planner
Melissa Spiro, Town Land Preservation
Coordinator
Leslie Weisman, Member, Town ZBA & Chair,
Town Hamlet Stakeholder Committee
April 2008
Page i
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COVERSHEET
Page
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii
SUMMARY
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
1.1 Purpose, Need and Benefits of thc Proposed Action
1.1.1 Background and History
1.1.2 Public Need and Municipality Objectives
1.1.3 Benefits of the Proposed Action
1.2 Location of thc Proposed Action
1.3 Description of thc Proposed Action
1.3.1 Overview
1.3.2 Program Implementation
1.3.2.1 Sending Areas
1.3.2.2 Receiving Areas
1.3.3 Program Mechanics
1.4 Permits & Approvals Required
1-1
1-2
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5
1-5
1-5
1-9
1-9
1-12
1-16
1-17
2.0
EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
2.1 Geological Resources
2.1.1 Surface Soils
2.1.2 Topography
2.2 Water Resources
2.2.1 Groundwater
2.2.2 Surface Water and Drainage
2.3 Ecological Resources
2.4 Transportation Resources
2.5 Land Use, Zoning and Plans
2.5.1 LandUse
2.5.2 Zoning
2.5.3 Land Use Plans
2.6 Community Services
2.7 Community Character
2.7.1 Visual Resources
2.7.2 Cultural Resources
2.8 Socio-Economic Conditions
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-2
2-2
2-2
2-2
2-4
2-4
2-5
2-5
2-5
2-6
2-6
2-7
2-7
2-8
2-8
3.0
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
3.1 Geological Resources
3.2 Water Resources
3-1
3-3
3-3
Page ii
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
TABLES
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
Ecological Resources
Transportation Resources
Land Use, Zoning and Plans
Community Services
Community Character
Socio-Economic Conditions
Cumulative Development
MITIGATION MEASURES
3-9
3-10
3-12
3-13
3-14
3-15
3-16
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
Geological Resources
Water Resources
Ecological Resources
Transportation Resources
Land Use, Zoning and Plans
Community Services
Community Character
Socio-Economic Conditions
Cumulative Development
ADVERSE IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED
4-1
4-2
4-2
4-2
4-4
4-4
4-5
4-5
4-6
4-6
GROWTH-INDUCING ASPECTS
5-1
ALTERNATIVES
7.1 No Action
7.1.1 Description of Alternative
7.1.2 Assessment of Compliance with Town Goals & Impacts
7.2 Density Transfer Incentive
7.2.1 Description of Alternative
7.2.2 Assessment of Compliance with Town Goals & Impacts
7.3 Usc of Open Space as Sending Areas
7.3.1 Description of Alternative
7.3.2 Assessment of Compliance with Town Goals & Impacts
7.4 Non-Residential Credit Redemption
7.4.1 Description of Alternative
7.4.2 Assessment of Compliance with Town Goals & Impacts
7.5 TDR Bank
7.5.1 Description of Alternative
7.5.2 Assessment of Compliance with Town Goals & Impacts
6-1
7-1
7-1
7-1
7-1
7-3
7-3
7-3
7-6
7-6
7-6
7-8
7-8
7-8
7-11
7-11
7-11
1-1 Sending Area Credits by School District
3-1 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
4-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures
7-1 Commercial Credit Equivalency Schedule
1-12
3-4
4-3
7-9
Page iii
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
APPENDICES
A
B
C
Findings Statement, CIS, Town Board, September 23, 2003
Planning Report to the Town Board, TDR Program, t~pduted 3-26-08fi)r DSGEIS
Positive Declaration and EAF Part 1, Town Board, December 4, 2007
Page iv
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
TDR PROGRAM PLANNING REPORT AND
SGEIS SUMMARY
Summary of Proposed Action
The proposed project is the creation of a Transfer of Development Rights ("TDR") Program for
the Town of Southold. A Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement
("DSGEIS") has been prepared for the Southold Town Board as lead agency, to analyze the
potential impacts of an amendment to the Southold Town Code to implement a voluntary TDR
program (the "proposed action") to permit and facilitate private transactions that would shift
development from agricultural lands in the Town ("sending areas") to locate new residential
units in defined hamlet areas (hamlet locus, or "HALO" zones referred to as "receiving areas").
The program would not increase net density, as 1 transferred credit is proposed to equal 1
receiving credit. Once transferred, the development potential of a sending parcel would be
completely extinguished. A variety of unit types would be considered in hamlet areas; this
would be change the resulting demographics depending upon unit type since fewer large homes
would be built in rural areas and logically, any unit types received in the hamlets would include
smaller and/or multiple-family units. In addition, the proposed action would include a "cap" on
the number of units that can be received in the HALO zones to maintain a careful balance of
existing community character and ensure compliance with density limitations of the Suffolk
County Department of Health Services ("SCDHS"). The proposed action considers
implementation of an important planning and program tool described and recommended in the
numerous planning studies undertaken within the Town over the past 20 years.
Objectives of the Project
The Town's "objectives" in this case, are the previously stated Town goals:
· To preserve land including farmland, open space and recreational landscapes
· To preserve the rural, cultural smd historic character of the hamlets and surrounding countryside.
· To preserve the Town's remaining natural environment; to prevent further deterioration of the
Town's natural resources smd to restore the Town's degraded natural resources back to their
previous quality.
· To preserve smd promote a range of housing and business opportunities that supports a socio-
economically diverse community.
· To increase transportation efficiency smd to create attractive alternatives to automobile travel,
while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of roadways in the Town.
How the TDR Program Works
The program involves designation of sending zones which primarily include larger farm parcels
in the rural areas of the Town where there is a goal of preservation. Parcels would be eligible for
recognition of a number of credits related to their size and potential development yield based on
their zoning. Applicants would file for recognition of credits associated with their parcel, and
the assigned credits would be a salable commodity.
Areas associated with the HALO of each of Southold's hamlets would be designated as overall
receiving zones. The zoning districts within the HALO boundaries would be modified through a
TDR program local law that would identify the means by which credits could be redeemed in
Page 1
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
exchange for increased utilization of parcels in accordance with guidelines established for
individual zoning districts within the HALO's.
TDR credits would be exchanged privately and exchanges between buyer and seller could be
facilitated by the real estate market, as well as by the Town through a listing of TDR credits
issued, which would be researched by landowners, developers and investors seeking to pursue
development in the HALO's in conformance with the credit redemption options.
The cost of TDR credits will be market based. It is expected that the Town's continuing PDR
program will provide a benchmark for TDR credit value, but the ultimate cost will be determined
between buyer and seller based on supply and demand. The value of TDR's is established by
creating potential for redemption of TDR credits in connection with land use and development
that brings a return on investment to a landowner, developer or investor.
To participate, a sending area landowner would contact the Town, make application on forms to
be provided, obtain a TDR credit certificate, and seek a private purchaser for the credits. A
receiving area landowner would contact the Town, make application for a land use development
in conformance with one or more of the options available to achieve density increase using
TDR's and process the application with the applicable Board.
TDR's can be used on receiving area properties for the purpose of increasing density of Single
Family Homes, Two-Family Homes, Multiple Family Dwellings, Detached Accessory Dwelling
Units, and potentially for Planned Development District projects at such time in the future when
the Town Board enacts a PDD local law.
Potential Adverse and Beneficial Impacts
There are six (6) key factors which are expected to significantly limit the potential for impacts
with respect to new development in hamlet areas, noted as follows:
1. The proposed action is voluntary on the pact of both landowners that choose to sell development
rights from sending parcels amd those that wish to advance a land use project involving purchase
and redemption of development credits in a receiving area.
2. The proposed action is to create legislation that would establish a TDR pro,am in the Town of
Southold; the action does not authorize actual land use, as any development which would use
transferred credits would be subject to individual site plan and/or subdivision review for the
specific land use application that would involve the redemption of transferred credits. As a result,
further review would occur on a site-specific, project-specific basis. This document is a
Supplement to a Generic EIS that identified this prograna as potentially beneficial, and as is
required under SEQRA, analyzes the potential impacts associated with the creation of this
legislation. The analysis is by necessity generic and can not anticipate all site-specific or project-
specific impacts. Each future action which proposes to redeem transferred credits must be
evaluated in temas of confomaance to the Statement of Findings that will be generated on the
Supplemental GEIS record, and a decision made if the project is consistent with the Findings
and/or if there are potential impacts which have not been adequately addressed.
3. There is a linfit on the amount of new residential development which would be received in the
hamlets, primarily as a function of the need to comply with Article 6 of the Suffolk County
Sanitaxy Code.
Page 2
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
4. Han-det ~owth will be monitored through pro,am implementation to ensure that open space
remains in hamlet areas, and development occurs in a mariner that is consistent with desitin goals
of the Town.
5. Development will taJ~e the form of small incremental increases as a result of the various options
for redemption of credits in receiving zones, specifically, options include:
· Single Family Homes through lin-dted density increases of new subdivisions;
· Two-Fan-ally Homes through creation of such homes where appropriate;
· Multiple Family Dwellings where appropriate and subject to Town Board change of zone.
· Detached Accessory Dwelling Units associated with existing homes, and
· Mixed use or flexible zoning developments under potential future Plmmed Development
District
6. Purchase of development rights and outright land purchase pro,ams will continue, thus
continuing to reduce density amd potential impacts of la<d development primarily outside of
han-det areas.
A summary of potential adverse and beneficial impacts is included in Table 1 at the end of this
summary. It should be noted that this proposed action does not propose any development,
construction or growth; it has been formulated specifically to control the amount and pattern of
future growth expected in the Town. In this sense, the prospect that the Town will experience
growth is inevitable it is the control of this growth and how it is accomplished that is the thrust
of the TDR program. The proposed action is simply intended to channel expected growth into
appropriate areas while reducing the amount of this growth in areas which the Town Board,
based upon numerous prior plans and studies, proposes to preserve and protect, and to minimize
the potential impacts of this growth on the environment.
Obviously, relocation of growth to hamlets and commercial centers will increase the amount of
and need for infrastructure improvements in these areas, if such are not already present or prove
inadequate. These improvements include sanitary, water supply and drainage systems, roadway
improvements, increased community services capacities (solid waste handling, energy supply,
public transportation, parking, etc.). In addition, increased populations may increase the
potential for changes in need for and types of commercial businesses, particularly if these
population changes include shifts in age and/or income distribution.
The proposed Town Board action would provide an increased level of protection for agricultural
land and open space and the rural qualities of the Town associated with these uses, while
maintaining the capability of these privately-held properties to provide a reasonable economic
return. Residential units would be available for development as transferred development rights
or credits, to be used in designated receiving areas.
In consideration of the foregoing, it may be concluded that the proposed action is not expected to
result in a significant adverse change in the growth potential in the Town and that changes would
be beneficial as a result of better conformance to land use plans and location of growth in more
appropriate locations.
Summary of Mitigation
The summary of impacts includes the identification of six (6) factors that present a potential for
adverse impacts. These are a form of mitigation that are inherent in the TDR program. A brief
~ Summar~
Page 3
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
table of additional mitigation measures is included in Table 2 at the end of this summary
document.
Page 4
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
Alternatives Considered
The following alternatives are considered in detail in the DSGEIS:
1. No Action - assumes that the proposed action is not implemented.
2. Density Transfer Incentive - assumes that development credits axe increased when transferred to a
receiving area.
3. Use of Open Space as Sending Areas assumes that farmlmad combined with open space (non-
agricultural and/or wooded lands) or open space alone are established as sending areas.
4. Non-Residential Credit Redemption - assumes that development credits can be redeemed for non-
residential use.
5. TDRBank assumes the Town establishes a method for purchase and re-sale of transfer credits.
Next Steps and Approval Process
The Town Board has received and approved the TDR Program Planning Report for the purpose
of commencing review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA'). This
DSGEIS for the TDR program provides an opportunity for further review by the Town Board,
the public and involved agencies. The DSGEIS will be the subject of a public hearing and
comment period, and all substantive comments on the DSGEIS will be addressed in a Final
SGEIS. After completion of a FSGEIS, a 10-day public consideration period must pass, after
which the Town may issue a Statement of Findings which would form the basis for a decision on
the TDR program. In addition to compliance with SEQRA, completion of this process ensures
that involved agencies, parties of interest and the public have an opportunity to comment on and
provide input into the TDR program, and further ensures that the Town Board has the benefit of
this input in the decision-malting process.
The Town Board will consider the SGEIS record and Statement of Findings on the TDR program
prior to any decisions on legislative changes, policy or Town management/implementation
associated with the proposed action. The Town Board is the primary and, in effect, the only
board that has approval authority to implement the program. As necessary, the Board will direct
preparation of legislation by the Town Attorney and follow proper hearing, notice and filing
requirements prior to enacting legislation. This document is intended to comply with the
SEQRA requirements as administered by the Town Board of the Town of Southold.
In conclusion, Southold Town has been progressive and successful in planning efforts to
preserve farmland and maintain the character and quality of the Town. The Town has considered
TDR as a useful tool to help achieve planning goals. The TDR program differs from other
preservation programs in that it would not eliminate development potential, but would shift the
location of development to appropriate locations in the Town which have been identified through
previous studies. The program also differs in that expenditure of public funds is not necessary.
The use of TDR credits would therefore preserve farmland and locate an equivalent density to
the yield of a parcel in a hamlet area where infrastructure exists. This allows public funds to go
farther in achieving total preservation goals through continued use of PDR. This form of
development would also achieve a greater level of sustainability since it would promote various
forms of residential development (not only single family homes) in areas where residents may
live, work or seek recreation using multiple forms of transportation (walking, bildng, car
pooling, public transportation).
~ Summar~
Page 5
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
Table 1
SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
· Would preserve existing farmland on Sending sites, and eliminate development · Would result in clearing and grading in
~0!~gi~a! Re~0urce~ potential frown these properties. HALO areas for develop~nent resulting frown
· Would retain agricultural soils on existing farmland parcels, density shift.
· Would use public water supply in HALO
· Would eliminate increase in groundwater withdrawals in rural areas, areas and not in sending area locations.
· Would eliminate discharge of sanitary effluent in sending areas. · Would locally increase nitrogen load in
HALO areas through transfer conforming to
Article 6, with reduced load in sending areas.
· Would eliminate clearing of natural vegetation and habitat loss in rural areas. · Would decrease natural vegetation and habitat
· Would enable preservation of existing agricultural land in large contiguous blocks, acreages in HALO areas for those parcels
with less fragcnentation of farmland open space, which currently possess such characteristics.
· Would minimize potential increase in traffic and congestion in rural areas. · Would generate traffic in HALO areas with
T~anSp~atiOn · Would place additional density in areas where road systems and infrastructure reduced tramc generation in sending areas;
exists. HALOs are more walkable and promote use
· Would encourage pedestrian activity and use of alternative forms of transportation, of alternative transportation.
· Would maintain rural land use patterns.
· Would provide for diversity of housing types in HALO areas, which would
Land U~e Z~ning & otherwise not be possible.
: Would establish conditions to address affordable housing needs. · No adverse impacts expected.
Would minimize potential for "sprawl" pattern of growth.
· Would conform with land use plans.
· Would eliminate potential increase in rural development, with associated reduction · Would result in need for co~mnunity services
in impactstoruralservices, and infrastructure in HALO areas, with
~°~mnm~i~ se~i~ · Would eliminate need to expand or increase infrastructure services in rural areas, reduced demand in sending areas; HALOs can
· Would protect watersheds and wellfields (existing and proposed), more readily provide infrastructure.
· Would maintain the existing high aesthetic quality ofthehmnlet areas. · Would result in more development in HALO
C0mmun!~Charaete~ · Would strengthen consmner base for business interests in hmnlets, adding to areas, with resultant reduction of develop~nent
character and vitality ofhtunlets, in sending areas; HALO development would
· Would stimulate increase in social interaction, adding to fabric of co~mnunity, be varied and potentially smaller in unit size.
· Would increase taxes generated in the Town. · Would necessitate costs to provide services to
· Would stimulate establishment of new business in HALO areas, the HALO development.
Page 6
Table 2
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
G~i~gi~i Res~f~e~ · Would result in clearing and grading in HALO * No significant unique features exist; clearing and grading will be localized to specific
areas for development resulting from density shift, project sites; site plan and subdivision review will minimize potential impacts.
· Would use public water supply in HALO areas · Public water will be supplied by the Suffolk County Water Authority in conformance with
and not in sending area locations, the approved water map; hamlet locations are identified as appropriate water supply areas.
· Would locally increase nitrogen load in HALO · A model was used to ensure that the average density of new development will not exceed
areas through transfer conforming to Article 6,
with reduced load in sending areas. Article 6 limitations based on 20,000 SF lots.
· HALO areas generally are suitable for development due to the current land use pattern;
· Would decrease natural vegetation and habitat
acreages in HALO areas for those parcels which current activity levels preclude the presence of unique or sensitive wildlife species; impacts
would be localized to specific project.s sites and site plan and subdivision review would be
currently possess such characteristics, used to ensure that significant adverse impact will not occur.
· Though traffic would increase in some areas, it is noted that density is transferred from
· Would generate traffic in HALO areas with other locations within the hamlet and many of these trips would exist on area roads;
~ranSp0~0~ reduced traffic generation in sending areas; development in hamlets is encouraged for walkability shared parking and trips and use of
HALOs are more walkable and promote use of public transportation where available; individual land use proposals will be subject to site
alternative transportation, plan and subdivision review for site access geometry, sight distance and traffic impacts
which can be mitigated once a problem is identified.
Land USe; z~n~g & · The proposal would implement the Towns intended land use pattern through zoning law
Plan~ · No adverse impacts expected, measures in conformance with past land use plans and studies; land use can be monitored
and adjustments made if found to be necessary.
· Service providers would experience small incremental increases in demand over a long
· Would result in need for community services and period of time and as a result, providers would have time to anticipate and serve
infrastructure in HALO areas, with reduced community needs; it is noted that the TDR program anticipates equal density between
Community se?¢iees demand in sending areas; HALOs can more transfer and receiving areas and would not increase density.
readily provide infrastructure. · Existing infrastructure is more prevalent in the hamlet areas and therefore better able to
accommodate localized land use projects which redeem development credits.
· Communities participated in planning during the hamlet study and in the Pall of 2006 when
· Would result in more development in HALO the Hamlet Density Model was discussed; a limit on development that will be monitored
areas, with resultant reduction of development in
will be used to control density and assist in addressing community character; community
C0~UnJ~y ~arac~e~ sending areas; HALO development would be use will be subject to small incremental changes over time and as a result can accommodate
varied and potentially smaller in unit size. reasonable use through equal der~sity transfer.
· The program anticipates equal density with no increase in what is permitted under full build
· Would necessitate costs to provide services to the out Townwide; the TDR program is voluntary which is a mitigation in itself; the program
S~i6 E~O~om~s HALO development, provides options to landowners wishing to preserve agricultural use, and will be used to
supplement the PDR program; increased service demand will be addressed by utility
providers in accordance with their charters, these providers will regain costs through rates.
Page 7
Page 8
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
This document is a Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement ("DSGEIS")
prepared for the Southold Town Board as lead agency, to analyze the potential impacts of an
amendment to the Southold Town Code to implement a voluntary Transfer of Development
Rights ("TDR") program (the "proposed action") to permit and facilitate private transactions that
would shift development from agricultural lands in the Town to locate new residential units in
defined hamlet areas (hamlet locus, or "HALO" zones). The program would not increase net
density, as 1 transferred credit is proposed to equal 1 receiving credit. A variety of unit types
would be considered in hamlet areas, which would actually be expected to decrease density,
since fewer large homes would be built in rural areas and logically, any unit types received in the
hamlets would include smaller and/or multiple-family units. In addition, the proposed action
would include a "cap" on the number of units that can be received in the HALO zones to
maintain a careful balance of existing community character and ensure compliance with density
limitations of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services ("SCDHS"). The proposed
action considers implementation of an important planning and program tool described and
recommended in the numerous planning studies undertaken within the Town over the past 20
years. These studies, plans and recommendations were recently (2002-03) reviewed in terms of
current needs and Town goals, in order to achieve the Town's vision as articulated in those plans.
That review, known as the Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy ("CIS"), found
that many of the newer planning documents reiterated recommendations of prior Town plans and
studies, resulting in much consistency between studies and the goals of the Town over the years.
It should be emphasized that the proposed action involves primarily legislative changes, with no
specific physical changes proposed. This DSGEIS describes and discusses the concepts behind
the proposed Town Code amendments and the potential impacts of its implementation (including
the impacts of development conducted in conformance with them). IA m'efid summa~T of
anticipated impactx ix provided in Section 3.0, Table 3.1.] This document also discusses the
features of the amendment that would tend to mitigate those impacts and includes other pertinent
sections required in an EIS.
As required by the NYS Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"), the potential
environmental impacts associated with the CIS were determined, described and analyzed in a
GEIS, and a Findings Statement was prepared (see Appendix A). As noted above, this
document is a supplement to that prior GEIS.
The planning tool that is the subject of this document is known as Transfer of Development
Rights, or TDR Program. The Town seeks to make use of a land use tool whereby sites in
established rural areas of the Town ("Sending Areas"), would shift density to target hamlet
parcels within the respective hamlet zones where appropriate infrastructure, infill potential, reuse
potential, public services and/or lack of enviroamental constraints are present ("Receiving
Areas"). TDR is an appropriate tool for preservation of farmland and envisions shifting density
to appropriate areas, thereby providing a means for land protection without the resulting public
cost of purchasing the development rights. Receiving areas can include limited density increases
Page 1-1
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
in subdivisions, multiple-family housing, detached accessory residences and potentially through
Planned Development District ("PDD") in areas referred to as HALO zones. In addition, the
Town's TDR program will be consistent with the Suffolk County TDR policy, which recognizes
that groundwater protection needs are served when land is protected in a sending area, and
controlled increase in density is permitted at a receiving site. The County policy has been
reviewed and is incorporated into this Strategy. A PDD local law is recognized as a way to
promote compatible land use projects through zoning and land use flexibility for well-designed
projects that provide special public benefits such as affordable housing, community investment,
redemption of transferred development rights and other creative land use benefits.
This DSGEIS will be subject to the full procedures of Title 6 of the New York Code of Rules
and Regulations (6 NYCRR) Part 617, providing a proper and complete forum for interagency
review and public comment on the proposed action.
1.1 Purpose, Need and Benefits of the Proposed Action
1.1.1 Background and History
The proposed action considers implementing one of the planning and program tools and
measures recommended in the CIS. The CIS included a review of 19 plans and studies and
found much consistency in their recommendations.
The CIS contains a detailed listing of the recommendations of each of the 19 studies, then
indicated the conflicts, definitions, implementation tools and needs associated with the
recommendations for each of the goals, then collated and summarized the 19 sets of conflicts,
tools, etc. Finally, the CIS combined and collated the recommendations; ultimately, there were a
total of 43 different recommendations. The use of TDR was recommendation #12 as contained
in the CIS. Recommendations of the CIS are considered by the Town Board for implementation;
these changes would be provided to better implement the Town's Comprehensive Plan. As noted
previously, the proposed action involves legislative changes, with no specific physical changes
within the Town proposed.
The Town's objectives in focusing on these goals are two-fold: 1) to maintain the unique cultural
and historic sense of place found within Southold's communities, and 2) to maintain the high
quality of the Town's environmental resources. The proposed action will provide a means to
ensure that these Town goals will be achieved through a comprehensive, well-established and
well-considered land use decision-making framework.
The TDR mechanism was also recommended in the Town Hamlet Study (which was prepared in
2005 as a result of Recommendation #31), and was implemented in early 2005. However, that
ordinance was enacted primarily to provide for affordable housing. In order to provide the
ability to use the TDR concept to implement non-affordable housing as well, the Town Board
determined to design and enact a program that would make use of the TDR Program attractive to
landowners and developers, while continuing to maintain equity and adhere to the goals of the
CIS.
Page 1-2
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
The Town Board is pro-actively involved in advancing this proposed action. As a means of
defining this program, the Town Board retained an environmental planning consulting firm to
coordinate planning efforts with a team of Town representatives (that was formed to oversee the
design of the proposed action). The program as recommended by the team is outlined in Section
1.3.1 of this document, and the full content of the "TDR Planning Report to the Town Board" is
contained in Appendix B, and is intended to provide a base framework for environmental impact
evaluation and to facilitate drafting of a proposed Local Law to implement the program. Team
members include:
· Mark Terry (Town Principal Pla<her and Project Ma<ager)
· John Sepenoski (Town Data Processing)
· Patricia Firmegan, Esq. (Town Attorney)
· Melissa Spiro (Town La<d Preservation Coordinator)
· Leslie Weisman (Member, Southold Town ZBA & Chair of Southold Hamlet Stakeholder
Conmfittee)
· Chaxles Voorhis, CEP, AICP (Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC; Consultant)
The team met on a regular basis between January and May of 2007; periodic involvement of
Town Board members provided direction and policy guidance. Other Town staff and resources
of Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC (NP&V) were used.
The proposed action provides recommendations only, based on the judgment of the team
members. The team was designed to include Town representatives who recognize and appreciate
the inter-relationships among land preservation programs, data management, smart growth
planning principles, and the planning and legal process, and would be expected to continue in a
capacity that will assist in implementing the program once some form of legislation is adopted.
The rationale associated with various recommendations is discussed relative to various program
elements, in order to identify various complexities and the logic used to resolve issues. Those
issues that remain are identified and studied as alternatives in this document. While
recommendations and guidance are provided herein, final decisions are to be made by the Town
Board, and flexibility exists in outlining and implementing program elements as directed by the
Board.
The proposed action was considered in a Part I EAF and the Town Board adopted a Resolution
to assume lead agency status and require this Supplemental GEIS (see Appendices C and D).
1.1.2 Public Need and Municipality Objectives
As discussed above, the Town of Southold, through the action of its Town Board, is seeking to
provide for the preservation of its significant environmental and agricultural resources, so that
those characteristics of the Town that give it its rural aesthetics and economy are protected. The
proposed action would utilize an existing land preservation tool of the Town Code in
combination with the hamlet receiving areas outlined in the Hamlet Study, to enhance the
Board's ability to preserve land while promoting sustainable hamlet development without
Page 1-3
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
significant impact to those qualities which have made the hamlets so attractive and beneficial to
the Town.
Through the proposed TDR Program, the Town seeks to provide an additional mechanism for the
preservation of farmland without expenditure of public funds. At present, the Town has
successful farmland and open space preservation programs underway through the Purchase of
Development Rights (PDR) program and fee title acquisition of land. In addition, the
Conservation Subdivision program provides a means to reduce density and maximize open space
preservation. The Town seeks to continue these programs, but seeks to provide a means to
expand programs that provide for land preservation in those areas of the Town which warrant
such preservation, and to leverage funds through alternative preservation tools that do not require
public expenditures. The proposed TDR program is viewed as a means of accomplishing this
goal.
Existing preservation programs primarily involve purchase of fee title land or purchase of
development rights which result in the permanent extinguishment of development rights of a
given parcel or part of a parcel of land. The TDR Program is recognized as a program that shifts
development (hereafter, referred to as a more general term of "density") from the rural areas of
the Town, where density is not desired, to the hamlets where an increase in density is viewed as
appropriate. The balance between preservation, density shift and ability of the hamlet areas to
absorb density, while maintaining the character and qualities valuable to the residents of
Southold, are key elements of the overall program.
1.1.3 Benefits of the Proposed Action
The proposed TDR program is expected to provide the following public benefits:
· Protect critical resources such as rural character, lama and agricultural land use associated with
sending parcels, to proruote land preservation and environruental protection.
· Provide am increase in the aruount of diverse housing stuck for a variety of incorue levels.
· Reduce suburban sprawl amd proruote "sruart ~owth" developruent principals including
strengthening of hamlets amd businesses, walkable conmaunities, sustainable ~owth, mixed-use
developruent, iruproveruents to and use of existing infrastructure, controlled in-fill developruent,
reduction in vehicle trip ends, amd increase in inter-ruodal tramsportation opportunities.
· Reduce infrastructure needs as a result of encouraging controlled developruent in appropriate use
areas.
· Proruote beneficial design guidelines amd stamdards within the hamlets including neo-traditional
developruent in appropriate areas, ruaintenamce of natural vegetation, minimization of fertilizer
application, buffers and setbacks.
· Proruote the long-term plarming goals of the Town by utilizing TDR to protect critical and
valuable resources while helping to address the housing and social needs of the Town.
· Facilitate lamd preservation without the expenditure of public funds.
In summary, the proposed TDR program is a furtherance of the Town's comprehensive planning
efforts to achieve its goals of protecting valuable environmental and cultural resources, providing
Page 1-4
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
diversified housing to meet Town needs, managing limited resources, facilitating appropriate
infrastructure in hamlet areas and promoting appropriate development consistent with good
design and planning principles.
1.2. Location of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would potentially affect lands designated by this action either as Sending
Areas or Receiving Areas. Figures contained in Appendix B depict these areas. Appendix B
also includes a list of the tax lot numbers for the Sending Areas.
1.3 Description of the Proposed Action
1.3.1 Overview
Use of the TDR concept as a way to better control the rate and pattern of growth in the Town (as
well as to minimize potential adverse land use impacts) was recommended in the CIS. The
Town CIS provided additional guidance regarding TDR as related to SCDHS regulations and
sound planning. The basic elements of the program were defined for the purpose of analyzing a
variety of land use, appropriate development and land preservation tools. The program was
recognized as beneficial in achieving Town goals, and laid the groundwork for recognition of
HALO areas, strengthening of hamlet centers and preservation of rural areas of the Town. The
Town CIS TDR component recognized a need to comply with SCDHS sanitary density
restrictions and ensure that the infrastructure of hamlet centers and HALO areas were not over
burdened. Sending areas were discussed broadly as involving lands worthy ofprotection, subject
to further review. The following quote from the Town CIS provides a general sense of the
program concept.
Because pr' Southold's unique environmental constraints, a TDR program u'ould have to
discourage/eliminate inappropriate development on sensitive and important lands and promote
appropriate development on parcels where such development can be sustained.
The Generic EIS for the Town CIS included an assessment of potential impacts related to TDR,
which is valuable to consider in the context of updating and refining this program. Both
beneficial and potential adverse impacts were considered. The Town CIS recognized the need to
balance preservation with land values and to ensure that affordable housing needs are also
addressed. The 2003 report was a broad-based planning study and implementation of many of
the tools identified in that report have been accomplished, including a number of provisions to
expand affordable housing programs in the Town of Southold.
The Town CIS also identified Planned Development Districts (PDDs) as a means of promoting
flexible zoning that would result in public benefits. The basis for a PDD local law was outlined
in the Town CIS, was studied in the Generic EIS, and is under ongoing consideration by the
Town Board. This TDR Program Report recognizes PDD legislation as a tool that can assist in
the use of TDR credits, as did the CIS.
Page 1-5
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
Subsequent to the Town CIS, Southold placed an initial TDR local law on the books. Chapter
117 of the Southold Town Code was enacted in March 2005, to strictly regulate the use of TDR
in shifting development from areas where it is not desirable ("sending areas") to areas where the
Town considers growth to be appropriate and desirable ("receiving areas"). The Purpose and
Intent section of that ordinance states:
,,ts set fi)rth in numerous comprehensive planning documents, the T(m,n's goals include the
preservation q[' open space, agricultural lands and recreational landscapes; preservation q[' the
rural, cultural and historic character qf'the hamlets and surrounding countryside; prese~wation pr'
the natural environment and prevention qf',fiwther deterioration qf' resources; preservation and
promotion qf'a broad range qf' housing and business opportunities to support a socioeconomically
diverse community; and increased transportation ~[j:iciencT. To achieve these goals, it is the intent
and pu~ose qf'this chapter to provide fi)r the tran.¥fkr qf'sanita~T fl(m' credits, and thereby tran.¥fkr
development potential fiwm areas designated fi)r preservation to areas designated as more
appropriate fl)r higher-density residential development. Unless expressly permitted herein, the
tran.¥fkr qf'development potential may not occur in the Tou'n ¢'Southold.
The basic purpose of Chapter 117 is to preserve land through Town purchase of open space,
capture the sanitary development credits for preserved land and use those credits to provide
affordable housing. The Town seeks to expand this program to enable private investment to
obtain TDR credits, and to use those credits for development and re-development in hamlet
areas.
For background, Chapter 117 defines a "sanitary flow credit" as the equivalent to a right to
develop a single-family residential parcel with an individual on-site sewerage system, or its
nonresidential wastewater flow equivalent. The ordinance created a Town TDR Bank, through
which sanitary flow credits are to be received, retained and sold by the Town Board for the
purpose of providing affordable housing. Revenues generated by the sale of development rights
are deposited into the Town Community Preservation Fund, for the purchase of additional lands
or development rights, in accordance with the Town land preservation goals noted above. It is
important to note that, as part of this legislation, the Town Board designated all lands in the
Town not defined as a Receiving District, as a Sending District, to maximize the potential for
transfer of development into those Receiving Districts. Receiving Districts are defined as all
lands zoned Business (B), Hamlet Business (HB), Residential Office (RO) or Affordable
Housing (AHD).
The Town Board and planning staff recoguized that the TDR ordinance contained in Chapter 117
had limited application only for the purpose of promoting affordable housing. The TDR
Program is intended to provide for private exchange of development rights (facilitated by the
Town) for the purpose of preserving rural lands in the Town with a concomitant shift in density
to appropriate areas designated as receiving areas (HALO's).
The program must be consistent with SCDHS TDR provisions and must provide an overall
community benefit to preserve open space, improve groundwater recharge in sending areas, and
promote "smart growth" and other community benefit in receiving areas. Sending areas should
be those areas the Town wants to protect such as environmentally sensitive parcels, critical
Page 1-6
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
woodlands, and groundwater recharge areas. Receiving areas must be identified in zoning
districts where a small incremental increase in density may be permitted without serious
environmental or other detrimental impacts; these areas might include the Hamlet Locus zones.
Other receiving opportunities could involve special land use projects that provide mixed-uses or
that otherwise advance planning goals of the Town. A TDR program can be designed to work
with incentive zoning provisions through a PDD and can be used to promote affordable housing.
In any case, a receiving area must have one or more of the following characteristics:
· Proximity to harulet centers;
· Lack of envirormaental sensitivity;
· Suitable road access;
· Available public water; and
· Ability to handle sewage or access to a sewage treatment plant (STP).
In Southold, a TDR program will have to assume a number of basic parameters to guide the
program and provide consistency with the SCDHS TDR policy, specifically as follows:
· Transfers should be generally within the sanae school district,
· Transfers ruust occur within the sarue Groundwater Manageruent Zone as de£med by the SCDHS,
· Density ruust be deterruined based on underlying single family residential zoning (by accepted
yield factors), with the intent that a fomaula for providing additional density for less-intensive
units (ruultiple faruily amd senior citizen units) will be established as an incentive to shifting and
creating appropriate developruent in receiving locations,
· Sending parcels ruust be appropriately encurubered through dedication to a public or recogmized
non-profit entity or covenants restricting future developruent, amd should be registered by an
appropriate tracking ruethod through the Town,
· Receiving paxcels should be within areas serviced by public water,
· Receiving parcels should not exceed twice the density allowed under the Suffolk County Sanitary
Code (SCSC) unless am appropriate form of sewage treatruent is available,
· Receiving parcels should be subject to fertilized area restrictions, clearing restrictions amd site
plan or subdivision review,
· Receiving parcels should be subject to further desigm standards and/or special exception criteria
as ruay be detemained through further review amd analysis; such standards may include desigm
pararueters, developruent guidelines, buffering, clearing restrictions, fertilized area restrictions,
setbacks, infrastructure installation amd rueasures to inaprove conmaunity corupatibility.
Because of Southold's unique environmental constraints, a TDR program would have to
discourage/eliminate inappropriate development on sensitive and important lands and promote
appropriate development on parcels where such development can be sustained.
The Town would benefit from a sound TDR program in a number of ways, noted as follows:
· Preservation of open space amd watershed rechaxge areas associated with sending sites.
· Ability to redirect ~owth to areas suitable froru such ~owth considering envirorm~ental resources
and infrastructure.
· Ability to transfer density credits froru outside to inside hamlet centers in a ruauner that proruotes
creation of affordable housing.
Page 1-7
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
· Ability to promote nfixed use, multifamily residential use and diverse housing opportunities
including affordable housing through density incentives amd transfer.
· Reduction in the nunaber of development rights amd/or fee title purchases that would need to be
made to achieve the Towns open space preservation goals.
The program would not be expected to result in groundwater impacts, provided it is consistent
with the SCDHS TDR Standards, issued September 30, 1995. These standards recognize that
groundwater protection needs are served when open space is protected in a sending area, and
controlled increase in density is permitted at a receiving site and are therefore incorporated into
the Town of Southold TDR program.
Very minor density increases may be permitted in areas that are currently experiencing growth in
accordance with zoning. Under this portion of the program, receiving areas would be provided
in zoning districts where a small incremental increase in density may be permitted without
serious environmental or other detrimental impacts; these areas might include the Hamlet Locus
(HALO) zones.
An additional potentially beneficial aspect of the TDR program is the ability of the Town to use
acquired parcels for redirection of growth to appropriate locations or for appropriate programs
that would specifically include providing diverse and affordable housing. NYS Town Law 261-
(a) requires that "the town shall evaluate the impact of tran.sfer of development rights upon the
potential development of low or moderate income housing lost in the sending districts and
gained in receiving districts and shall find either there is approximate equivalence between low
and moderate housing units lost in the sending district and gained in the receiving district or that
the town has or will take reasonable action to compensate for aKv negative impact upon the
availabiliO; or potential development ()flow or moderate income housing caused by the tran.sfer
of development rights." The proposed TDR program has given strong consideration to ensuring
that the program will not negatively affect the availability of affordable housing, and in fact
provides significant benefit in terms of providing diverse housing opportunities including
affordable housing.
The 2000 Census data provides relevant information with regard to TDR and affordable housing,
including: demographics, income levels, housing characteristics and values. The data clearly
indicates a distinct lack of affordable housing throughout the hamlets of Southold Town. Based
on the cost of homes as noted in the Census and Home Sales data, there are few if any housing
affordable housing opportunities, particularly in the environmentally sensitive (as well as scenic
and desirable areas of the Town) coinciding with R-80 and some A-C lands that would become
the sending areas under this TDR program. In addition, there are virtually no new multifamily
unit opportunities in the Town and there is a greater demand for housing than supply.
The designation of sending parcels, and identification of receiving site opportunities which
include multifamily housing, mixed housing, and smaller unit development, as well as a density
incentive for the creation of new housing opportunities at receiving sites, significantly increases
the potential for affordable housing in the Town of Southold. Therefore, a Town TDR program
would conform to NYS Town Law 261-(a), as it would provide opportunities for affordable
housing that currently do not exist, and no affordable housing would be removed by the program.
Page 1-8
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
Further, there is little likelihood of developing new affordable units in the sending sites, as the
necessary infrastructure is not present or sufficient to service such development, and the
locations of sending sites is such that natural resources would have made such development
unlikely.
With regard to TDR, it is noted that wastewater impacts are not expected to be significant, as the
Regional Impact Assessment Model predicted the full Build-Out concentration of nitrogen in
recharge for each zoning district, and found that the highest potential concentration was 6.09
mg/l in the R-40 zoning district. Only very limited increases would be permitted in the R-40
district, and only in conformance with SCDHS TDR standards. Other hamlet zoning districts
(HD, HB, AHD and others) all were 5 mg/l or less, unless full density is achieved at the
maximum allowed by the zoning district (if public water is available). This comes with the
added benefit that natural recharge areas would be preserved in sending areas and the overall
density would be reduced as the Town achieves success in meeting density reduction goals
through voluntary PDR, upzoning or both. As this tool will comply with SCDHS and Town
planning initiatives, and site-specific review of any proposal would occur, no significant adverse
impacts are expected.
1.3.2 Program Implementation
Upon completion of the SEQRA process, and in conformance with requirements of the New
York State Town Law, the Southold Town Board will implement the proposed action by first
enacting a TDR local law. This ordinance would legally establish the regulations and procedures
that will implement the proposed action, and formally empower the Town Board to conduct and
oversee its use.
It is expected that the Town would then issue credit certificates to sending area landowners, and
would facilitate the redemption of TDR credits through its land use review process for projects
within the receiving areas. The Town Board will record redeemed credits in a manner that
ensures that parcels from which credits are transferred are recognized as having no residual
development rights. The Town Board may, in the future, pursue a credit registry or credit bank
to more actively encourage and participate in the TDR process; however, this is not essential to
the initial program.
1.3.2.1 Sending Areas
The following description and discussion of the rationale behind the Sending Areas has been
taken from the Planning Report.
Sending zones must be selected to identify the parcels from which development will be transferred.
It is necessary to identify sending sites in order to quantify the number of development rights which
will be generated, and to target the prograna to address preservation of parcels in conformance with
Town Comprehensive Plan goals, with a resultant density shift to receiving sites that are also
consistent with comprehensive planning goals.
Page 1-9
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
The general concept is to specify areas where new residential development is to be discouraged. For
Southold Town, areas outside of the hamlets are being targeted for preservation through PDR. The
Town has an ag~essive and successful program and is working in concert with Suffolk County
goverrmaent to actively purchase development rights of farm parcels. The pro.am is voluntary amd
has been used by many farm families to receive value for their land, which allows them to continue
farm businesses and retain ownership of the underlying land. This involves expenditure of public
funds, and thus fax Southold has been successful in using land transfer tax monies amd bonds for this
purpose. Additional preservation tools axe needed to leverage public funds with private investment,
which would increase land preservation in the sending areas, with managed density increases in the
receiving areas. The Town amd County also use outright purchase of fee title lands, amd have found
this to be most successful for open space non-farmed land that does not have underlying crop or
agricultural value. It is expected that the Town will continue to pursue PDR from farm parcels amd
fee title acquisition of woodland open space amd other envirormaentally sensitive lands. This
understanding helps to target the application of a TDR pro.am amd identification of sending areas.
De£mition of Sending Areas
Sending areas are typically identified by a mapped geographic area and/or by desi~mation of
individual parcels of land in one or more zoning districts. The Town GIS database was used to
initiate the identification of sending areas. The vast majority of land outside of the hamlets is zoned
Agriculture-Conservation (A-C) and is in farm use or has been farmed in the past amd contains
suitable prime farm soils. Given the allowable density of 1 dwelling unit (du) per 80,000 SF in the
A-C zone, once parcels are identified, the nunaber of potential development rights in a given area cam
be computed.
Discussions conducted by the team centered on ensuring that the pro.am targets prime areas of
concern for preservation, while balancing the need to establish a sufficient nunaber of credits for a
TDR pro.am, but not am excessive number so that the combination of TDR, PDR and fee title
acquisition would ensure that Town goals axe met. An additional consideration was the need to
ensure that transferred credits could be utilized on a receiving parcel, in consideration of the SCDHS
TDR policy which does not allow sanitaxy flow credit to be transferred from parcels which will
continue to be fertilized through farnfing or golf course use. In order to ensure compliance, the
density linfit established by SCDHS for ~oundwater protection in areas with public water (minimum
20,000 SF lots unless sewage treatment is provided) must be observed.
The sending area identification process began by eliminating the following:
· Land in hamlet amd HALO areas
· Business zoned land not subdividable (single and separate lots of less than the minimuna zoning
acreage) and non-subdividable residential zoned land of twice the minimuna zoning lot size
requirement
· Unbuildable land (wetlands, dune, beach, surface water)
· Existing conmaunity facilities (lands in public ownership, used for public purpose amd certain
non-public lands (churches, utilities, etc.)
· Land currently protected through prior PDR, acquisition or conservation subdivision
The remaining land area included all buildable, subdividable, unprotected, non-conmaunity facility
land outside of the HALO's. Further consideration was given to the size of parcels to target, which
zoning districts were appropriate amd whether both farmland and non-farmland should be designated
Page 1-10
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
as sending areas. It was believed that larger parcels were more appropriate so that preservation
efforts were directed toward larger tracts of contiguous open space. As a result, parcels of ~eater
than 7 acres in size were targeted for the TDR pro,am.
Consideration of TDR off Farmland and/or Open Space
Several discussions about including farmland, non-farmland, or both as sending zones took place.
Given the targeting of non-farmland for fee title preservation, amd the lack of residual income
potential from non-farmland, it was felt that fee title acquisition would be most appropriate for
continued acquisition of non-farmland. As a result, agricultural land was felt to be appropriate for
designation as sending areas under the TDR pro,am, provided SCDHS density criteria would be met
in the receiving zones.
An additional discussion centered around how to desi~mate farmland for the purpose of sending areas.
The Town has various farmland strategies through which a listing of parcels amd GIS inventory
observed to be actively farmed has been created. This however does not constitute an official map
and involves subjective determination of land use status. The team felt it was necessary to seek a
more objective inventory and as a result considered the Town database which records existing
Agricultural District parcels and parcels with individual conmfitment status. This inventory was
found to already have controls in place to objectively determine whether a parcel is actively farmed.
The inventory is in GIS and is maintained in an up-to-date fashion to ensure that parcels in this
district axe reco~mized. As a result, the Town A[,riculmral District parcel inventory amd lands that axe
the subject of am individual conmfitment were believed to be the most appropriate method of
designating farm status for sending parcels. It should be noted that parcels can apply for Agricultural
District amd individual conmfitment status, as long as they meet the parameters for such designation.
As a result, the sending area will be updated periodically as parcels are accepted or removed to or
from the Agricultural District or individual conmfitment status. The Town may wish to consider
adopting a revised sending area map every three (3) years based on the updated inventory.
Consideration of TDR off All and/or Part of a Parcel
Extensive discussion was held regarding whether transfer of only part of the development rights from
a given parcel was appropriate. A major concern was that sale of part of the development rights
would provide revenue that could stimulate subdivision of the balance of the land, contrary to
preservation goals. In addition, the logistics of identifying what part of a parcel the rights were
transferred from and the record keeping of these transactions were believed to be onerous. As a
result, it was concluded that for the initial pro,am partial transfer would not be reconmaended except
to allow an owner to maintain any existing use plus one additional credit to be subtracted from the
parcel yield to be used in the future subject to subdivision filing. During the preparation of this
DSGEIS, the Town adopted an Agricultural PDD (AgPDD). With the adoption of the AgPDD, it
may be possible to amend this legislation to allow TDR as a means of selling all or part of the credits
of a parcel emolled in the AgPDD since full protection is guaranteed unless the Town is unable to
purchase the development rights over time.
Reconmaended Criteria for Sending Areas
As a result, the following definition of sending areas is reconmaended as part of this TDR Pro,am
Plarming Report. Sending areas are proposed to include parcels considered to be buildable and would
exclude lands that exhibit the following criteria:
· Land in a designated HALO or hamlet;
Page 1-11
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
· Lamd recorded in Town GIS as being less than 7 acres in size;
· Lamd in Town GIS database as conmaunity facility lands;
· Lamd in Town GIS database as including wetlands, dune, beach and/or surface water;
· Lamd in Town GIS database as having a protected status through prior PDR, acquisition or
conservation easement; amd
· Lamd in the Town GIS database that does no~t have an Agricultural District or Individual
Conmfitment status.
It should be noted that these criteria result in all sending area lands being zoned either A-C or R-80
(both 80,000 SF minimuna lot size for yield), except Oysterponds, which includes 41 acres of R-200
(200,000 SF nfinimum lot size for yield). These criteria provide a logical, identifiable and mappable
land area to be considered for sending zones. Using the Town GIS database, a list of parcels, zoning
and size can be used to deternfine the sending areas, and to determine the potential nunaber of sending
area credits for the purpose of amalysis. A tabulation of the nunaber of credits is provided on the basis
of individual school districts in Table 1-1:
TABLE 1-1
SENDING AREA CREDITS BY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Mattituck Union Free School District 1,907 1,030
New Suffolk Conmaon School District (CSD) 0 0
Southold Union Free School District (UFSD) 825 439
Greenport Union Free School District 8 4
Oysterponds Union Free School District 235 110
Notes: Mattituck UFSD includes Mattituck and Cutchogue HALO's.
Southold UFSD includes Peconic and Southold HALe's.
eysterponds UFSD includes East Marion and Orient HALe's.
Credits derived based on acreage times a yield factor of 1.84 for A-C and R-80: and 4.60 for R-200. This
yield factor is consistent with the formula used by the Town for yield of conservation subdivisions.
Sending zone parcels are mapped in and a list of parcels designating the proposed sending areas
are included in Appendix B.
1.3.2.2 Receiving Areas
The following description and discussion of the rationale behind the Receiving Areas has been
taken from the Planning Report.
Receiving Zone Desi~mation
The Town Board has taken the initiative to desi~mate HALO areas for Mattituck, Cutchogue, New
Suffolk, Peconic, Southold, Greenport, East Marion amd Orient. The unique configuration and
historical origin of Orient is such that a hamlet is recognized in the area of a small retail/service
nucleus which is part ora small historical area of Orient. The Stakeholders determined that increased
density associated with the HALO desi~mation could be sustained, but not in this historical hamlet
area. As a result, am area east of the hamlet was designated as the HALO zone in Orient.
Page 1-12
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
The desi~mation of HALO's fully anticipated that increased density with concomitamt density
reduction in rural areas outside of the HALO's would occur. The HALO Study and subsequent
stakeholder meetings with each hamlet all contemplated this density relationship between HALO's
and areas outside of HALO's. As a result, it is reconmaended that the HALO's be desi~mated as the
broad receiving areas for the purpose of this study.
It is recognized that each HALO has a different composition of existing non-buildable land in the
form of conmaunity facility uses, existing protected land amd envirormaentally sensitive areas. It is on
the lamds not beating one of these designations, that it is expected density will be increased. As a
result, a broad receiving zone boundary cam be established coincident with the HALO boundaxies, but
actual redemption of credits cam only occur on lamds which meet the criteria noted above.
Receiving Zone Mechamics
The form that development takes within the HALO areas is a critical aspect of desi~ming the TDR
pro,am. Currently, there are a variety of zoning districts in the hamlets that could potentially
receive credits. These include:
· B-business
· HB-hamlet business
· LB-linfited business
· RO-residence office
· AHD-affordable housing district
· HD-hamlet density
· R-40 residential
· R-80 residential
· A-C agriculture-conservation
For the purpose of this pro,am, it was determined that a simple and easy way to implement the
initial program would involve only redemption of credits for the purpose of creating residential
dwelling units, not for increase in conmaercial density. As a result, use of credits in the LI district
(which exists in some hamlets) would not be possible. Increased conmaercial density through TDR
could be considered in the future, amd will be explored as an alternative in the SGEIS.
Each of the other districts including B, HB, LB, RO, AHD, HD, R-40, R-80 and A-C, all allow forms
of residential development. With respect to AHD, it was deternfined that affordable housing was a
benefit in itself, and should not be burdened with purchase of credits that could potentially increase
building costs amd cost of units and thereby defeat the purpose of the affordable housing designation
in the first place. As a result, the AHD zone was not considered appropriate for redemption of
credits, amd it is reconmaended that the Town Board continues to consider chamges of zone to AHD
where appropriate based on sound plauning principles amd conm~unity needs amd the merits of
placing this zoning on a given parcel of lam& This leaves lands within the HALO zoned B, LB, RO,
HD, R-40, R-80 amd A-C as potential receiving zones, plus potential furore use of a PDD local law.
Incentives for TDR Purchase and Redemption
Proper incentives must be established to facilitate use of TDR credits, and proper zoning must be
established to ensure that if credits are redeemed in the HALO areas, that development will achieve
desired goals in design and density. A nunaber of options are available to achieve the function of
Page 1-13
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
incentivizing the redemption of credits in a form that will result in compatible land use desitin.
Consideration was given to use of several options; it was determined that retaining the underlying
zoning, but providing criteria under which increased density could be achieved through TDR in a
separate TDR local law based on each individual zoning district, was the most appropriate option.
This option would involve creating a TDR section of the Town Zoning Law that would reco~mize the
specific zoning district eligible to receive TDR credits. The code section would specify the density
that could be achieved through the use of credit redemption for each zone. This was supported by the
following considerations:
· Since the program is voluntary, development could occur without redemption of TDR's amd a
means of allowing such development to occur must be provided.
· This is the simplest option to ensure am understandable amd effective pro[vam.
· This option could be adopted as a separate TDR local law that would complement existing code
provisions.
Reconmaended Receiving Zones that are coincident with the HALO boundaxies are mapped in fi[,mres
included in Appendix B.
Receiving Zone Options
Through discussions and research, it was determined that there were a linfited nun~ber of ways that
credits could be redeemed amd density could be realized within the HALe's. The form that increased
density could take included the following:
· Single Fanfily Homes
· Two-Fanfily Homes
· Multiple Fanfily Dwellings
· Detached Accessory Dwelling Units, and
· Mixed use or flexible zoning developments under potential future Plm~ned Development District
The following provisions are reconm~ended to facilitate the redemption of TDR's:
Single Family Homes The intent is to pernfit transfer of credits to develop single-fanfily homes in
areas where additional density cam be acconm~odated. The mechanics of how this cam occur are
described below:
· Existing zones that are reconm~ended for or permit single-family residential uses include the B,
HB, Re, R-40, R-80, A-C, R-200 zones.
· Additional single-fanfily residential homes would be allowed in the zoning district through further
subdivision under guidelines noted herein.
· The TDR code would be used to permit such development by subdivision application to the
Playming Board.
· The reconm~ended nfinimum permitted lot size would be 20,000 SF to ensure consistency with
SCDHS Article 6, and not over-intensify development.
· The Town may wish to consider creation of am R-20 zone to establish dimensional requirements
for 20,000 SF lot size, which does not currently exist.
Tu,o-Family Homes The intent is to pernfit transfer of credits to develop two-fanfily homes in
appropriate areas, by the methods noted below:
Page 1-14
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
· Existing zones that are reconmaended for or permit two-family homes include the R-40, R-80, A-
C zones.
· Two-family homes would be pernfitted in these zoning districts by allowing one, two-family
structure per lot.
· The establishment of a two-fanfily dwelling would be allowed in the zoning district through
further subdivision under the guidelines noted herein.
· The TDR code would be used to pernfit such development by site plato/subdivision application to
the Plmming Board.
· The reconmaended minimum permitted lot size would be 20,000 SF in the R-40 and 40,000 SF in
the R-80 and A-C zones to ensure consistency with SCDHS Article 6, and not over-intensify
development.
· Consideration could be given to requiting dimensional requirements pursuant to 1.25 times the
underlying zone to provide a larger lot to acconmaodate the two-family dwelling.
Multiple Family Dwellings Multiple family dwellings could be constructed in appropriate areas
using trm~sfer of credit through the measures noted below:
· New multiple fanfily dwellings would be allowed on appropriate parcels through application for a
chamge of zone to HD or HB for qualifying lots based on sound plmming principles amd merits of
proposal.
· The Town Board would deternfine the appropriateness and location of such uses based on change
of zone review which would require use of TDR's.
· The reconmaended dimensional requirements would be the same as for the existing HD/HB zones.
Detached Accessory Dwelling Units A new provision is reconm~ended which would allow am
existing residence or principal use to add an additional residence to am existing lot. This is not
currently provided for in Town Code. Reconm~endations are included below:
· This new form of dwelling unit is reconm~ended for consideration in the R-40, R-80 and A-C
zones, through a Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) special pernfit.
· The reconm~ended minimun~ permitted lot size would be 40,000 SF.
Planned Development District PDD is an important tool that was reco~mized in the Town of
Southold CIS. PDD's are provided for under NYS Town Law dealing with incentive zoning. A
PDD is a change of zone, typically to a more intense use than pernfitted by the underlying zoning;
however, any increase in density must be offset by public benefits that would be provided to the
conm~unity. Projects may include nfixed uses, amd project sites typically require larger size for
appropriate setbacks, land use compatibility and potential location of sewage treatment facilities.
Redemption of TDR credits would be an appropriate public benefit, or other benefits that enhance
land use in the HALe's could also be considered. Reconm~endations are provided below:
· This TDR Plarming Study encourages the adoption of a PDD local law.
· The PDD would apply to HALe's through change of zone review at the discretion of the Town
Board.
· Larger lots are typically more appropriate, therefore identification of lots of 5 acres amd ~eater
should be performed to identify potential PDD candidate sites. The Town should seek mixed-use
development with public benefits.
Page 1-15
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
A major public benefit would be redemption of TDRs amd potentially providing sewage treatment
facilities that could acconmaodate additional flow from off-site parcels, provided this conforms
with hamlet character amd Town goals.
These forms of TDR credit redemption would be provided for through the TDR local law that would
specify the parameters for development as noted above. The identification of forms of credit
redemption provides a means to visualize and understand that type of development that would result
in the HALO's as a result of the TDR program.
1.3.3 Program Summary
The following represents the consultant and Town representative team's interpretation of the
TDR program for Southold Town and is subject to review of the Town Board for the purpose of
commencing the SEQRA evaluation process. The final program will result from further
evaluation of potential environmental impacts, public and agency input, refinement of the
program to address comments received, and further deliberation by the Town Board. Work
program tasks are stated below and are followed by an examination of program mechanics in a
summary form.
1. Hou' u'ill the TDR Program work?
The program involves designation of sending zones that primarily include larger farm parcels in the
rural areas of the Town where there is a goal of preservation. Parcels would be eligible for
recogmition of a number of credits related to their size and potential development yield based on their
zoning. Applicants would file for recogmition of credits associated with their parcel, and the assigmed
credits would be a salable conmaodity.
Receiving zones associated with the HALO of each of Southold's hamlets would be desigmated as
overall receiving zones. The zoning districts within the HALO boundaxies would be modified
through a TDR program local law that would identify the means by which credits could be redeemed
in exchange for increased utilization of parcels in accordance with guidelines established for
individual zoning districts within the HALO's.
TDR credits would be exchanged privately amd exchmages between buyer and seller could be
facilitated by the real estate market, as well as by the Town through a listing of TDR credits issued,
which would be researched by lmadowners, developers amd investors seeking to pursue development
in the HALO's in conformmace with the credit redemption options.
2. Who ben¢/its,/i~om &is program?
The residents and visitors of the Town of Southold benefit from continuing land preservation of rural
areas amd retention of the bucolic character associated with the Town. Sending area landowners
benefit from an additional option to ga'm monetary value for their lmad, and their continued ability to
utilize the underlying value of the land absent the development rights. Landowners, developers amd
investors benefit from am additional mechanism to facilitate compatible and plmaned development
projects that provide return on investment. HALO conmaunities benefit from investment in their
hamlet areas resulting in redevelopment amd compatible land use that strengthens the hamlets amd
achieves other lmad preservation goals. Local businesses benefit from an increased local
consumer/customer base.
Page 1-16
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
3. How much do TDR's cost?
The cost of TDR credits will be market based. It is expected that the Town's continuing PDR
pro.am will provide a benchmark for TDR credit value, but the ultimate cost will be deternfined
between buyer amd seller based on supply and demand.
4. How is the value Of'the TDR's established
The value of TDR's is established by creating potential for redemption of TDR credits in cormection
with land use and development that brings a return on investment to a landowner, developer or
investor.
5. Ls' the program voluntary or mandatory?
The pro.am as envisioned in this TDR Program Planning Report is voluntaxy, amd not mandatory.
6. What will be the Town's role in implementing and monitoring the program?
It is expected that the Town will implement the program by complying with SEQRA amd creating
legislation in the form of a TDR local law which would be adopted by the Town Board in
conformance with the requirements established under New York State Town Law. Once enacted, it is
expected that the Town will implement the pro.am through issuance of credit certificates to sending
area landowners, amd will facilitate the redemption of TDR credits through the land use review
process for landowners and developers of projects within the receiving areas. The Town will record
redeemed TDR's in a manner that ensures that parcels from which credits are transferred axe
recogmized as having no residual development rights. The Town will monitor the progran~ amd make
adjustments as necessary to facilitate its success in conformance with applicable laws. The Town
Plarming Board, Town Board, potentially the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Town Clerk would all
be involved in various aspects of pro.am implementation. The Town may in the furore pursue a
credit registry or credit bank; however, this is not essential to the initial pro.am.
How do I parficipate ~f7 own land within a Sending Area?
sending area landowner would contact the Town, make application on forms to be provided, obtain
TDR credit certificate, amd seek a private purchaser for the credits.
8. How do I participate ~f7 own land in a Receiving Area?
A receiving area landowner would contact the Town, make application for a land use development in
conformance with one or more of the options available to achieve density increase using TDR's and
process the application with the applicable Board.
9. How can the TDR's be used on &e Receiving Area Properties?
TDR's can be used on receiving area properties for the purpose of increasing density of Single Fanfily
Homes, Two-Fanfily Homes, Multiple Fanfily Dwellings, Detached Accessory Dwelling Units, and
potentially for Plarmed Development District projects at such time in the future when the Town Board
enacts a PDD local law.
1.4 Permits and Approvals Required
This document is intended to comply with the SEQRA requirements as administered by the
Town Board of the Town of Southold. This DSGEIS is intended to provide the Southold Town
Board with information that will assist it in rendering its decision on the proposed action.
Page 1-17
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
The Town Board must accept this document as complete for the purpose of commencing a
period of public and agency review. At the Town Board's discretion, the DSGEIS may be the
subject of a public hearing during this period; regardless of whether a public hearing is held, all
substantive comments on the DSGEIS will be addressed in a Final SGEIS ("FSGEIS'). After
completion of a FSGEIS, a 10-day public consideration period must pass, after which the Town
may issue a Statement of Findings that would form the basis for its decision on the proposed
action. In addition to compliance with SEQRA, completion of this process ensures that
interested agencies, parties of interest and the public have an opportunity to comment on and
provide input into the TDR program, and further ensures that the Town Board has the benefit of
this input in the decision-making process.
The Town Board will consider the GEIS record and Statement of Findings on the CIS prior to
any decisions on legislative changes, policy or Town management/implementation associated
with the proposed action. The Town Board is the primary and, in effect, the only board that has
approval authority to implement key elements of the CIS. As necessary, the Board will direct
preparation of legislation by the Town Attorney and follow proper hearing, notice and filing
requirements prior to enacting legislation.
Page 1-18
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
2.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Section 2.0 of the GEIS prepared for the CIS (May 2003) contained a thorough and complete
description and discussion of the existing enviroamental resources of the Town. As this
document is a supplement to that prior document, those previous analyses that are valid need not
be repeated here. Appropriate reference is made to prior analyses contained in the CIS in
conjunction with the proposed TDR program. Where necessary, supplemental information is
included to update the understanding of existing environmental conditions, or to provide more
specific information as related to the TDR program.
This section provides brief descriptions and discussions of the limitations that these resources
may present to the proposed action. The Environmental Setting for each resources is divided
into Sending and Receiving areas to assist in the understanding of resources as related to the
TDR program. The potential impacts to these resources from the proposed action are assessed
and discussed in the following Section 3.0.
2.1 Geological Resources
2.1.1 Surface Soils
Refer to Section 2.1.2 of the prior GEIS for a discussion of the existing soil resources of the
Town of Southold.
The Soil Survey of Suffolk County, on which the above-referenced discussion was based,
identified the following soils pertinent to the proposed action:
Carver-Plymouth-Riverhead Association soils are characterized as deep, rolling, excessively drained
and well-drained, coarse to moderately textured soils on moraines. In the Town of Southold these
soils are found predominamtly along the north shore along Long Island Sound. Carver-Plymouth-
Riverhead soils are also found on the south shore along Peconic Bay in the areas of Great Hog Neck
and Little Hog Neck and within an area that extends through the hamlet of Mattituck along Mattituck
Creek from the north shore to the south shore of the North Fork. The rolling lamdscapes, wooded
areas and proxinfity to the water make soils in this association desirable as prinae homesites. The
samd texture and steep slopes make the soils in much of this association poorly suited for farming and
the slopes are the dominant linfitation to use of these soils for building sites.
Haven-Riverhead Association soils are characterized by deep, nearly level to gently sloping, well-
drained, mediuna-texmred and moderately coarse textured soils on outwash plains. These soils axe the
predominant soil type found within the North Fork area of Southold. Due to the gently sloping to
nearly level topography amd good drainage, these soils are utilized primarily for farming purposes but
are also suited for the development of residential housing. This soil is used extensively for crops, and
is well suited to all crops grown on the North Fork. Identification of these soils may be helpful to
identify areas to target as open space or agricultural lam& Other areas not desi~mated as prinae lama
soils may contain soils suitable for agriculture.
Page 2-1
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
Sending Areas
The Sending Areas are characterized by farmlands, which are mantled by prime agricultural soils
of the Haven-Riverhead Association, and are in active cultivation and therefore, appropriate for
protection. For this reason, it is this type of soil that is considered so valuable to the Town that
the proposed action has been designed
Receiving Areas
The designated Receiving Areas are located in the hamlet areas, where developed lands on
Carver-Plymouth-Riverhead Association soils are already present and/or in the immediate
vicinity, and necessary infrastructure and services are available. Thus, these areas are less
constrained as to potential development than lands in the Sending Areas, and are considered
more appropriate for development. It should be noted, however, that adherence to the applicable
restrictions and requirements of the Town's site plan, subdivision and/or special permit review
processes, as well as SCDHS requirements for water use and wastewater disposal, would further
protect natural resources in these areas.
2.1.2 Topography
Section 2.1.1 of the GEIS contains a generalized description of the existing topographic
character of the Town.
The land surface across the Town consists generally of a varied topography characterized by
rolling hills, kettle holes, drainage swales, beaches and glacial end moraines. The topography of
the Town generally slopes downward from the north to the south, and is characterized by two
predominant features: the Harbor Hill end moraine and a glacial outwash plain. The Harbor Hill
moraine consists of a prominent ridge that extends towards the northeast along the shore of Long
Island Sound and exhibits a maximum elevation of approximately 150 feet above mean sea level
(asl). The glacial outwash plain, on which farmland and hamlets have been developed, extends
from the ridge to the south at a slope of approximately 20 to 30 feet per mile and consists of
gently rolling topography with numerous shallow depressions throughout. The outwash plain
was formed as erosional processes resulting from glacial meltwater carried sediments away from
the moraine and distributed them throughout the region.
Sending Areas
The farmlands, on which the Sending Areas are located, are of necessity relatively flat and
therefore would present few constraints on development.
Receiving Areas
The Receiving Areas are located in the Town's hamlets and are therefore relatively flat. Some
topographic relief may be present on the outskirts of the hamlets; however, slopes are generally
not excessive. It is expected that any natural or artificial slopes would not be of such steepness
that they would present any significant impediment to additional controlled grading and
development subject to site plan and/or subdivision review.
Page 2-2
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
2.2 Water Resources
2.2.1 Groundwater
Refer to Section 2.2.1 of the GElS for a discussion of the groundwater resources of the Town.
Sending Areas
As these areas are presently active farmlands, they are an efficient route for groundwater
recharge, but are also subject to applications of various agricultural chemicals that constitute a
significant potential for adverse impact to groundwater quality. This, in addition to the relative
absence of supply infrastructure in these areas, would tend to minimize the attractiveness of
these areas as a source of public water supply. The system of Groundwater Management Areas
established by the SCDHS under Article 6 with respect to wastewater treahnent means that
development densities in these areas would be limited to 300 gpd/acre, or I dwelling unit/acre, if
on-site septic systems are proposed and no public water is provided.
Receiving Areas
The Receiving Areas designated in the proposed action are located within and/or in close
proximity to the various hamlets of the Town. In consideration of this, it is expected that these
areas would be provided with or close to the infrastructure necessary to serve these sites. As
such, these areas would have fewer constraints on development than would be the case for
development in the Sending Areas. In addition, the SCDHS Groundwater Management Areas
noted above stipulate that for these areas, development densities yielding 600 gpd/acre of
wastewater (corresponding to 2 units/acre) are permissible for on-site sanitary discharge,
provided public water is available. This provides the versatility which enables the TDR program
to be viable while conforming to Article 6 of the SCSC.
Since the hamlets are currently developed, the depth to groundwater, while variable from hamlet
to hamlet is generally adequate to permit installation of on-site septic systems. The siting of
such systems is reviewed by SCDHS through test hole review at the time of subdivision, and
through review of individual permits to construct at the time of site plan or building permit plan
review.
2.2.2 Surface Water and Drainage
Section 2.2.2 of the GElS contains a thorough description off the surface water and drainage
characteristics of the Town.
Sending Areas
These areas are characterized by farmlands, which are less likely to contain surface water bodies
than would be expected for natural, undisturbed lands. However, farm ponds may be present,
though such bodies would tend to be small and their close proximity to active farmlands, with
Page 2-3
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
their associated potential for agricultural chemicals, would tend to minimize or preclude their
potential for true wetland formation and value though such designations may exist.
Receiving Areas
As the Receiving Areas are located in or near the hamlet areas, where there is less likelihood that
surface water bodies would be found, it is anticipated that there would be less potential for
constraints on development here due to the presence of such features.
2.3 Ecological Resources
The GEIS prepared for the prior CIS, Section 2.3, should be reviewed for Town-wide
information with respect to ecological resources.
Sending Areas
Because the Sending Areas are characterized by agricultural use, there would be little or no
natural vegetation present on these properties (beyond possibly fringing windbreaks, a woodlot
or the like), and therefore, little or no natural habitat would be expected. This would minimize
their value for wildlife usage; only limited areas of trees and smaller farm ponds (see above) may
be present to provide some minimal amounts of habitat. The lack of natural vegetation would
also tend to minimize the potential for rare or otherwise protected natural vegetation species.
Receiving Areas
The proximity of the Receiving Areas to the hamlets also places these areas in proximity to
development, which means minimal natural vegetation (and both habitats and rare or protected
vegetation) and proximity to human activity (with associated impacts such as traffic, odors,
noise, etc.). This would which tend to minimize the potential presence of wildlife.
However, for those sites where such resources exist, judicious design and conformance to the
applicable Town site plan, subdivision and special permit (where applicable) regulations would
allow for a reasonable balance between landowners' rights and natural resource preservation.
2.4 Transportation Resources
Refer to Section 2.4 of the CIS GEIS for a description of the Town's transportation resources
and characteristics.
Sending Areas
The Sending Areas are located on farm sites served primarily by local rural roadways, which
have less capacity to accommodate an increased level of traffic that would result from
development, and less ability to be improved and expanded in capacity. In compensation, these
local roadways presently serve a relatively lower level of traffic than the more heavily-used
network of roadways that serve the hamlets.
Page 2-4
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
Receiving Areas
Because the Receiving Areas are located in the hamlets, they are served by existing roadways
that have signalization at critical intersections and a network of roads for maximum circulation.
Should road improvements be necessary, it is more appropriate to provide such improvements in
hamlet areas, subject to Town, County and State review as part of site plan, subdivision and, if
necessary, special permit reviews.
In addition, development in the Receiving Areas would occur in closer proximity to the hamlets,
so that there would be a greater ability for residents to walk to these centers and use public
transit, which are options not available to the Sending Areas.
2.5 Land Use, Zoning and Plans
2.5.1 LandUse
Section 2.6.1 of the GEIS prepared for the CIS contains a thorough discussion of the Town's
land use characteristics.
Sending Areas
The Sending Areas are located on existing farmlands; as a result, the character of these sites is
generally of open, flat and farm use properties adjacent to other sites of a similar use, nature and
appearance. The general intensity of land use in these areas is significantly lower than that of the
hamlet areas, and the patterns of land use are more consistently agricultural and/or rural in
nature, or complementary to these uses. Thus, development of these sites could potentially be
out-of-character or at a minimum would have to be similar to or complementary to vacant and/or
agricultural land.
Receiving Areas
The Receiving Areas are undeveloped or partially developed sites found in proximity to hamlet
areas, so that the pattern of land uses adjacent to these properties will be characterized by a wider
mix of uses, including various residential types and densities, vacant land, commercial/retail and
possibly industrial uses. There would therefore be an ability to provide compatible land use
through zoning provisions and site plan/subdivision review. In general, a variety of incremental
increases in land use density would be expected to be able to be better accommodated in the
hamlet Receiving Areas, in comparison to the Sending Areas.
2.5.2 Zoning
Consult Section 2.6.2 of the GEIS for the CIS for a description of the Town's zoning pattern and
characteristics.
Page 2-5
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
Sending Areas
The vast majority of land in the Town that is outside of the hamlets is zoned Agriculture-
Conservation (A-C), and is in farm use or has been farmed in the past and contains suitable
prime farm soils. It is on these lands that the Sending Areas were designated, in order to protect
the business of agriculture in the Town.
Receiving Areas
As discussed in Section 1.3.2.2, lands within the HALO areas are zoned B, LB, RO, HD, R-40,
R-80 and A-C, and also have the potential for future development under a Town PDD local law.
Any development of these sites would be conducted by the Town and County under their
appropriate site plan, sub&vision and, if necessary, special permit reviews, and would thereby
protect the environmental resources in these areas.
2.5.3 Land Use Plans
Consult Section 2.6.3 of the GEIS for the CIS for a description of the land use plans and
recommendations pertinent to the proposed action.
Sending Areas
As discussed in Section 1.0, the proposed project has been designed to implement one of the
recommendations common to the 19 plans analyzed in the CIS. The locations of the proposed
Sending Areas reflect the intent of these plans, in that these valuable farmlands will be preserved
while their yields will be redistributed to areas in the Town where such growth would be
appropriate and can be accommodated.
Receiving Areas
As noted above, the proposed action represents conformance with a recommendation of the
numerous land use plans analyzed in the CIS, and will provide for the same amount of
development as would occur absent this action, but located in areas of the Town where
appropriate infrastructure and aesthetics are already present to accommodate this growth.
Simultaneously, the valuable farmlands of the Town will be preserved permanently, and at no
cost to the Town or its residents. The proposed action will accomplish this while retaining
landowners' ability to realize a return on their land investment, and the Town will benefit from
well-regulated, high-quality and appropriate growth with the least impact on the Town's
aesthetics.
2.6 Community Services
The GEIS for the CIS (2003), Sections 2.8 and 2.9 present information on the Town's
community services and infrastructure, respectively.
Page 2-6
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
Sending Areas
As the Sending Areas include lands presently in agricultural use, these sites are located in areas
relatively distant from the more developed portions of the Town. While community services
(e.g., schools, police and fire protection, recreational facilities, etc.) and infrastructure (such as
energy supply, water supply, wastewater treatment facilities solid waste removal and disposal,
etc.) are available throughout the Town, it is expected that the distance between the Sending
Areas and the hamlets (where services and infrastructure are expected to be, overall, more
extensive) would tend to reduce the availability and potentially raise the cost of these facilities
and services.
Receiving Areas
In contrast to the Sending Areas, the Receiving Areas are deliberately located in and in proximity
to the hamlet areas, where development has occurred and the above-noted community services
and infrastructure are already present.
One of the goals of the proposed action is to limit the potential for growth in the Sending Areas
(to enable their preservation), by making it possible to relocate this growth to areas of the Town
in proximity to the hamlets, where the necessary community services and infrastructure are
already available.
2.7 Community Character
Sections 2.10 and 2.11 of the GEIS for the CIS contain detailed descriptions and discussions of
the Town's visual and cultural resources, respectively.
2.7.1 Visual Resources
Sending Areas
The Sending Areas are characterized by large, open, relatively flat farmlands, some of which
may be bordered by vegetated windbreaks or woodlots. As such, these fields contribute to the
scenic beauty and aesthetics that have provided these portions of the Town and region with its
valuable rural character.
Receiving Areas
The Receiving Areas are located in or in proximity to the hamlet areas which were historically
settled and possess the character and visual attributes of an established community center. The
hamlet centers are characterized by multi-story buildings accommodating a mix of retail and
office often with residential uses above, and in proximity to one another. A higher intensity of
land use is present, and the road network and utility system is evident. With distance from the
hamlet centers, some hamlets exhibit more office and residence-office uses, with some
intermixed highway business and/or light industrial use. Also fringing the hamlet centers, and
more typically oriented north or south of the road corridor, are more frequent residential
subdivision, with remaining open space, parks and environmental resources. Uses in the hamlets
Page 2-7
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
are generally characterized by smaller properties; substantial and proximate views of adjacent
developed properties having a variety of uses, shorter, narrower viewsheds; and associated
activity.
2.7.2 Cultural Resources
Sending Areas
The Town as a whole is sensitive with respect to archaeological resources as aboriginal
inhabitants used the abundant resources available throughout the north fork. As a result, Sending
Areas potentially have pre-historic resources.
Receiving Areas
The Receiving Areas are located in proximity to or within the hamlets, where development
occurred based on historic settlement patterns. The resources associated with historic settlement
are extant throughout the hamlets. Pre-historic resource potential is also present in the hamlets
as a result of contact period and pre-contact activity. Development of these areas would
therefore carry a greater potential to recover any such resources that may be present, and thereby
incrementally increase the amount of lcuowledge of these eras. Hamlet areas while important
due to historic settlement, and for the presence of historic resources are not pristine. It is because
these areas are attractive and maintain infrastructure that development has occurred since the
historic period. As a result, further land use intensity must carefully consider specific resources
and sensitivities through design review which would occur as a result of site plan and/or
subdivision processing.
2.8 Socio-Economic Conditions
Section 2.12 of the CIS GEIS should be consulted for a description and discussion of the Town's
socio-economic conditions.
Sending Areas
These areas are presently in active farming use and so they provide a level of direct economic
activity for their owners from their agricultural use. Southold is attractive to visitors based on
agrarian activity, and as a result abundant farm and agricultural areas of the Town contribute to
the regional economy by maintaining a land use that supports tourism.
Receiving Areas
These areas are located on undeveloped or partly utilized sites in proximity to or within the
hamlet areas of the Town. As a result, the Receiving Areas do not generate the full economic
return to their owners that could be achieved, and likewise do not provide their full potential in
terms of tax revenue or business activity to the local economy. As a result, such locations
remain available for potential future land use based on carefully considered legislation to enable
their use in keeping with socio-economic goals of the Town.
Page 2-8
3.0
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This section analyzes potential impacts of the proposed TDR program with a focus on receiving
sites. Overall, the project would provide a significant benefit to the Town in terms of protecting
valuable agricultural land, and by providing opportunities for housing other than typical single
family homes. The use of TDRs would limit development in environmentally sensitive areas,
while redirecting and encouraging growth in HALO areas. This is consistent with the Town's
planning initiatives as documented in the record of decisions and planning studies and reports
referenced in Section 2.5.3 and included in the Town Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
and subsequent reports including the 2005 Town Hamlet Study. Potential adverse impacts are
analyzed in more detail in this section.
The impact analyses in this section assumes that development of only the properties designated
as receiving sites in the HALO areas occurs. The reason these sites were so designated was to
enable growth to occur in the Town in a manner that is limited and directed to areas appropriate
for such growth; these sites were chosen because they are located where development is
appropriate due to existing infrastructure and lack of sensitive environmental resources. The
overall impact would result in a shift of development patterns. New development would be
located in areas where appropriate infrastructure exists to support development, thereby reducing
density in the areas intended for preservation. In addition, impacts are reduced by relocating
larger single family homes from sending areas where new development is inappropriate to
hamlet areas where smaller homes and residential units would be expected and encouraged. The
type of residential units (i.e. smaller homes) as compared with conventional single family homes,
would be expected to reduce density derived impacts such as population and number of school-
aged children, thereby generating more taxes with less demand for services. This results in a
significant beneficial impact to the school districts. In addition, as the TDR program would
supplement an on-going Town land acquisition program, increases in housing units resulting
from TDRs would be offset by land purchases, thereby further reducing development densities
and potential impacts.
There are six (6) key factors which are expected to significantly limit the potential for impacts
with respect to new development in hamlet areas, noted as follows:
The proposed action is voluntary on the pact of both landowners that choose to sell development
tights from sending parcels amd those that wish to advance a land use project involving purchase
and redemption of development credits in a receiving area.
The proposed action is to create legislation that would establish a TDR pro,am in the Town of
Southold; the action does not authorize actual land use, as any development which would use
transferred credits would be subject to individual site plan and/or subdivision review for the
specific land use application that would involve the redemption of transferred credits. As a result,
further review would occur on a site-specific, project-specific basis. This document is a
Supplement to a Genetic EIS that identified this prograna as potentially beneficial, and as is
required under SEQRA, analyzes the potential impacts associated with the creation of this
legislation. The analysis is by necessity genetic and can not anticipate all site-specific or project-
specific impacts. Each future action which proposes to redeem transferred credits must be
Page 3-1
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
evaluated in terms of conformance to the Statement of Findings that will be generated on the
Supplemental GEIS record, and a decision made if the project is consistent with the Findings
and/or if there are potential impacts which have not been adequately addressed.
3. There is a limit on the amount of new residential development which would be received in the
hamlets, primarily as a function of the need to comply with Article 6 of the Suffolk County
Sanitaxy Code.
4. Hamlet ~owth will be monitored through pro,am implementation to ensure that open space
remains in hamlet areas, and development occurs in a mariner that is consistent with desitin goals
of the Town.
5. Development will taJce the form of small incremental increases as a result of the various options
for redemption of credits in receiving zones, specifically, options include:
· Single Family Homes through linfited density increases of new subdivisions;
· Two-Fanfily Homes through creation of such homes where appropriate;
· Multiple Family Dwellings where appropriate and subject to Town Board change of zone.
· Detached Accessory Dwelling Units associated with existing homes, and
· Mixed use or flexible zoning developments under potential future Plmmed Development
District
6. Purchase of development rights and outright land purchase pro,ams will continue, thus
continuing to reduce density amd potential impacts of la<d development primarily outside of
hamlet areas.
Section 4.4 of the TDR Program Planning Report contained in Appendix B, outlines in detail
the provisions for Density Limitations in the Receiving Zones. The report and specifically
Section 4.4 outlines the basis for conformance with Article 6 of the SCSC, the application of a
Hamlet Development Model to determine the potential number of receiving credits in hamlets
and on a school district basis, and the considerations which tend to reduce impacts to hamlets.
As noted in the report:
"The Hamlet Development Model provides residents u'ith the assurance that reasonable density
limits ~'ill be established in their communities. From a land use perspective, the overriding
benefit Of' TDR is the preservation Of' land u,here development is inappropriate (such as
agricultural areas in the Tou'n o['Southold), u'ith a resultant increase in density in the hamlets.
Hamlets, and their surrounding HALO areas, have been identified and mapped by the Tou,n in
recognition Of' the ,[bct that these areas are appropriate ,[br additional development given the
,[blloMng land use considerations:
· I~[i'astructure such as roads, utilities and u,ater supply currently exist.
· Residential densityproximate to the hamlets strengthens the business environment.
· Residential density in the HALO's provides opportunityfi)r alternative transportation such as
u,alking and bicycle travel.
· Use q/'TDR's in the HALO's may promote beneficial investment and redevelopment.
· Use pi' TDR's in the HALO's ~4'ill provide alternative fi)rms pi' housing to single ,/bmily
detached development, thus providing opportunities fi)r housing stock pi'various types.
As a result, the author's' pr' this report believe that tran.¥fbr pr' density to the HALO's in
accordance u'ith the Hamlet Development Model and the considerations noted above, is a
responsible fi)tm q[' development u,hich allou,s the Tou,n to achieve both significant land
Page 3-2
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
preservation goals while also preserving the scale and uniqueness qf each qf the hamlets,
provided that appropriate design standards and guidelines are established, as per the
recommendation in the Hamlet Development Model."
Table 3-1 summarizes the overall beneficial and potential adverse impacts of implementing the
proposed TDR program.
The table provides an abbreviated assessment of beneficial and potential adverse impacts.
Comparison of beneficial to adverse impacts finds that there are substantial benefits expected as
a result of the TDR program. A more detailed assessment of potential adverse impacts is
provided below.
3.1 Geological Resources
The proposed action would be expected to reduce impacts with regard to geology, by maintaining
prime farm soils and directing development to appropriate areas where geologic resources are
less sensitive. Development in the hamlet areas will necessitate grading and excavations for
utilities, foundations, roadways, etc.; however, this development would occur in areas considered
appropriate for development and therefore lacking in significant geological features (such as
steep slopes, glacial features, etc.) and on soils having less value relative to farming potential, no
significant impacts would result from these grading activities. Site specific land use would be
subject to subdivision and/or site plan review which would ensure that grading, proper drainage
installations and proper erosion control practices are implemented at the time of development.
3.2 Water Resources
The proposed action would result in a pattern of development that would take place primarily as
in-fill and in the hamlets, where the necessary infrastructure is already located, reducing costs of
development services for utilities and public agencies. Hamlet areas have infrastructure in terms
of public water, and it is expected that most development would occur using on-site sanitary
systems. These systems are simple, effective systems in use throughout Suffolk County, that
provide an adequate method of wastewater handling when appropriate densities are maintained.
Sewage treatment facilities may be explored in connection with some development, depending
upon density proposed, parcel size and available space for plant siting as well as economic
factors. A key factor is that each hamlet would be subject to a limit on the amount of
development that could be sustained in conformance with Article 6 of the SCSC. A second key
factor is that the program is based on an equal density approach, where each sending credit
equals a single development unit of the types specified for receiving parcels. It is likely that
many of the units will be smaller with a concomitant reduction in sanitary flow. Finally,
continued purchase of development rights would further reduce nitrogen input and maintain
natural recharge areas.
Page 3-3
Table 3-1
SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
· Would preserve existing farmland on Sending sites, and eli~ninate develop~nent · Would result in clearing and grading in
Ge~!~gi~! R~0~ potential from fl~ese properties. HALO areas for development resulting from
· Would retain agricultural soils on existing farmland parcels, density shift.
· Would use public water supply in HALO
Would eliminate increase in groundwater wifl~drawals in rural areas, areas and not in sending area locations.
Would eliminate discharge of sanitary effluent in sending areas. · Would locally increase nitrogen load in
HALO areas fl~rough transfer conforming to
Article 6, with reduced load in sending areas.
· Would eliminate clearing of natural vegetation and habitat loss in rural areas. · Would decrease natural vegetation and habitat
E~1~gi~! ~<~gu~<e~ · Would enable preservation of existing agricultural land in large contiguous blocks, acreages in HALO areas for flmse parcels
wifl~ less fragcnentation of farmland open space, which currently possess such characteristics.
· Would minimize potential increase in traffic and congestion in rural areas. · Would generate traffic in HALO areas wifl~
T~angp6ah~i6n · Would place additional density in areas where road systems and infrastructure reduced traffic generation in sending areas;
exists. HALOs are more walkable and promote use
· Would encourage pedestrian activity and use of alternative forms of transportation, of alternative transportation.
· Would maintain rural land use patterns.
· Would provide for diversity of housing types in HALO areas, which would
otherwise not be possible.
· Would establish conditions to address affordable housing needs. · No adverse impacts expected.
· Would minimize potential for sprawl pattern ofgrowfl~.
· Would conform wifl~ land use plans.
· Would eliminate potential increase in rural development, with associated reduction · Would result in need for co~mnunity services
in impactstoruralservices, and infrastructure in HALO areas, wifl~
Would eliminate need to expand or increase infrastructure services in rural areas, reduced demand in sending areas; HALOs can
Would protect watersheds and wellfields (existing and proposed), more readily provide infrastructure.
· Would maintain fl~e existing high aesfl~etic quality office hamlet areas. · Would result in more development in HALO
~mn~ni~ Char~i~ · Would strengfl~en consumer base for business interests in hamlets, adding to areas, wifl~ resultant reduction of development
character and vitality of hamlets, in sending areas; HALO development would
· Would stimulate increase in social interaction, adding to fabric of community, be varied and potentially smaller in unit size.
· Would increase taxes generated in the Town. · Would necessitate costs to provide services to
· Would stimulate establishment of new business in HALO areas, the HALO development.
Page 3-4
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
With respect to Article 6, transfer off of agricultural lands is not viewed as a shift in sanitary
flow since farmed parcels are considered to cause nitrogen loading similar to residential
development. As a result, receiving parcels must conform to Article 6 of the SCSC by providing
development densities on lots greater than 20,000 SF in size, unless double density is permitted
through Board of Review decisions consistent with SCDHS General Guidance Memo #17. The
Town has endeavored to create a program that ultimately will not increase density over what
would be allowed under Article 6 and General Guidance Memo #17.
Given the variety of receiving area options for redemption of credits, it is difficult if not
impossible to determine the actual number of credits that will be used and by what means they
will become established in a receiving area. In addition, the Town recognizes the need to
comply with SCDHS requirements as contained in the Suffolk County Sanitary Code (SCSC)
Article 6 in order to create a feasible TDR program. As a result, Article 6 density limitations
were considered in developing the program, and were used in part to establish a basis for density
limits within the HALe's. This serves the purpose of providing compliance with Article 6, but
also provides assurance to hamlet stakeholders that reasonable density limitations and resultant
development in the HALe's will occur.
Article 6 establishes density limitations in order to achieve best groundwater management
practices relative to nitrogen load in sanitary effluent. The requirements stem from the Long
Island Waste Treatment Management program published in 1978 under funds provided by
Section 208 of the Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. The 208 Study identified hydrogeologic
zones based on groundwater recharge and flow characteristics, water quality, long-term water
supply goals and potential impacts to water bodies receiving groundwater outflow. Article 6 of
the SCSC codified the findings of the 208 study in the form of minimum lot size equivalents for
residential development.
The majority of Southold Town and all of the HALO areas are identified in Article 6 as lying in
Groundwater Management Zone IV. Zone IV allows a 20,000 SF minimum lot size where
public water is available, and requires a 40,000 SF lot size in areas without public water.
Densities in excess of yields based on these lot sizes require wastewater treatment. Article 6
became effective in 1981; any lawfully existing use or legally subdivided tax parcels which
existed prior to 1981 are grandfathered. As a result, any buildable lot, even ones smaller than
40,000 SF, would have an allowable flow equal to that of a single family dwelling of 300 gallons
per day (gpd) assigned to that lot. Lots that are already built upon that exceed the allowable flow
would not be eligible for additional density unless permitted under the Town Code Accessory
apartment provisions and in conformance with the Article 6 exemption which involves no new
sanitary facilities. For parcels which are built upon and are less than the allowable flow, density
transfer and resulting new construction could occur. Any new subdivision or site plan
development occurring after 1981 must conform to the density provisions of Article 6, provide
wastewater treatment, or obtain a waiver from the Suffolk County Board of Review. Article 6 is
implemented through SCDHS review of realty subdivisions and site plans.
There are several additional aspects of SCDHS implementation of this program which are
important to understand. Suffolk County recognizes that consideration can be given to regional
Page 3-5
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
compliance within a Groundwater Management Zone, provided excessive nitrogen loads are not
created in a given area. As Towns establish land use programs to preserve open space and direct
development toward appropriate location through TDR programs, SCDHS provided guidance on
how this could be accomplished and still conform to the goals of Article 6. This is contained in a
General Guidance Memorandum #17 which pertains to agricultural and golf course density (see
Attachment E of TDR Planning Report contained in Appendix B).
In essence, if open space is to be retained and density transferred, the open space must not
continue to cause nitrogen load in addition to the transferred residential density, or the intent of
Article 6 is violated. As a result, lands established in agricultural or golf course use which
requires fertilization are not eligible for transfer to increase sanitary flow above Article 6 limits.
Further, the guidance document establishes a limit for parcels receiving transferred density of
twice the density allowed under Article 6. Consequently, the HALO areas cannot exceed an
equivalent of 20,000 SF density since the minimum lot size required in these areas under Article
6 is 20,000 SF and the program as envisioned would transfer density from agricultural land. If
land from which density was transferred did not involve continued nitrogen application, the
minimum density would be 10,000 SF as SCDHS permits doubling of density on a receiving
parcel if flow is received from a non-contiguous parcel in the same watershed. Applications
which involve density transfer that are less than the Article 6 minimum lot size of 20,000 SF are
typically determined by the Board of Review.
Consistent with the Suffolk County TDR policy, the County also recognizes regional watershed
management plans and/or planning studies that include provisions for TDR in consideration of
watershed management. SCDHS has indicated that County-recognized watershed management
plans may exempt use of transfer credits from having to undergo review by the Suffolk County
Board of Review for approval. This would save time and expense on the part of applicants, and
would be a beneficial aspect of this program.
Compliance with Article 6 and the Guidance Memo #17 is achieved through use of a
development model (described in the next subsection) that determines the vacant buildable land
remaining in a hamlet and the potential yield which could be achieved on that land based on
20,000 SF lots.
The Hamlet Development Model was run to determine the potential TDR credits that could be
placed in the HALO's based on a 20,000 square foot (SF) lot size. The concept and
methodology of the Hamlet Development Model is recommended as a basis for establishing
limitations on the amount of development which can occur within each hamlet. The total
acreage of each HALO was determined, then reduced by removing unbuildable lands (wetlands
and community facilities/infrastructure), existing protected lands and lots less than 20,000 SF,
and density was then calculated based on the resultant total buildable acreage in the HALO. A
total number of potential TDR units was computed for each HALO area. Each hamlet was
conceptualized as including both development and open space at a ratio of 70 percent developed
area to 30 percent open space. A cap of 30 percent of the total was applied as a value that would
be monitored and potentially revised over time as HALO development is realized.
Page 3-6
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
As a result, the Hamlet Development Model was used to create a maximum number of units that
a HALO can receive, and not exceed SCDHS allowed density due to the average lot size. In
addition, there is a maximum number of receiving credits that can be placed in the HALO's,
which is less than the theoretical additional density (see next section). It must be recognized that
TDR to receiving areas is part of an overall watershed management program that includes
density reduction through purchase of development rights and fee simple acquisition of land
which in many cases involves sterilization of land from further development, and that much of
the remaining land does not cause nitrogen load (i.e. vacant land, woodland, parcels subject to
modified farm practice and parcels not fully used for agriculture). It is noted that density could
be increased to the equivalent of 10,000 SF density if the parcels from which density is
transferred are not used for agriculture.
As a result, density reduction and nitrogen load reduction are occurring through the Towns
planning initiatives and the receiving areas would be limited to an average density based on a
20,000 SF lot size and resulting yield. Transfer of density to hamlets based on an average 20,000
SF yield in the hamlet areas provides flexibility for the Town to promote compatible land use
and density shift, which will achieve land use goals by leveraging funds to be used for PDR and
fee simple acquisition. Measures have been taken to ensure that nitrogen load in the receiving
areas, does not exceed guidance provided by SCDHS.
The TDR program does require SCDHS to allow double density of receiving parcels with respect
to specific projects that contemplate placement of residential units, recognizing that the overall
increase in density will remain less than would be required under Article 6 (i.e. less than 20,000
SF average density).
This TDR Program Planning Report will be subject to review under SEQRA, and the SCDHS
will be an involved agency that will have opportunity to comment on the program. The intent of
preservation of sending area parcels and increase of density for receiving area parcels is
consistent with regional watershed management strategies, provided there is compliance with
Article 6 and double use of density does not occur. In addition, this TDR document addresses
the interrelationship of TDR with other municipal land management programs that include
density reduction through PDR and Conservation subdivision.
The Town PDR program, coupled with Chapter 117 (which permits transfer of Town preserved
transfer credits for the purpose of affordable housing) ensures protection of watershed recharge
areas and provides a means to increase affordable housing opportunities. For those credits that
are not utilized, or density that is reduced through Conservation Subdivision there is a watershed
benefit as a result of reduced density through extinguished credits. This consideration is
important in continuing compliance with Article 6 and to address the legal mandate that
incentive zoning and TDR programs consider how such programs may impact affordable
housing.
Page 3-7
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
SCDHS also establishes design flow for various uses which is important to understand as related
to sending and receiving of density. A single family residence of 1,200 SF or more in size has an
assigned flow of 300 gpd. Residences of between 600 and 1,200 SF have a flow of 225 gpd and
for dwellings less than 600 SF and senior-citizen residences, the assigned flow is 150 gpd.
Commercial flow is based on wet and dry uses, and there is recognition that food service uses
have a higher flow of gray water (non-nitrogen bearing waste) and therefore density limitations
are based on the nitrogen-bearing component of the flow. Use of TDR for increase in
commercial density is not considered as a receiving zone option under this TDR Program
Planning Report, but is considered as an alternative in Section 7.0.
Increase in water usage to serve this growth is not anticipated to significantly impact the
groundwater supply or the ability of water suppliers to serve the area. Although the volume of
available water supply is limited, Suffolk County Water Authority has continued to seek
appropriate well sites and increase the distribution system in order to provide service to existing
residents and businesses, and in areas where current water supply infrastructure is present. As a
result, it is expected that the volume of this resource is adequate, and the infrastructure is in
place, or can be economically extended. SCWA will continue to coordinate with the Town of
Southold with respect to the water map which recognizes where water main extensions are
appropriate and able to be sustained. Individual projects will require letters of water availability
and commitment from SCWA to provide water supply. Private wells are not an option if land
use occurs on lots of less than 20,000 SF as required under Article 6. As a result, use of water
resources can be controlled through the purveyor, in concert with the Town, in a manner that
allows continued water supply for the Town's residents.
As a consequence of the overall relocation of development, the potential for adverse impact to
groundwater supplies and quality would be significantly reduced, as growth would be directed
towards areas already served by public water suppliers, where adequate water supply and
infrastructure already exist. As development would occur in areas distant from agricultural use,
the potential for impact to irrigation water would be reduced. Additionally, there will be a
reduced potential for impact to groundwater quality, as the volume of sanitary sewage will be
reduced, and the reduced acreage of lawns will reduce the potential for impacts from lawn
chemicals, particularly due to nitrogen loading.
The hamlet areas where development is proposed are already developed and suitable for
development. The depth to groundwater will be determined on a site-by-site basis to ensure that
there is adequate vertical leaching depth to allow installation of on-site systems.
In summary, conformance with Article 6, use of water supply from SCWA, a one-to-one,
sending-to-receiving unit ratio, continued purchase of development rights and land acquisition,
and location of development in areas that are less environmentally sensitive with more
appropriate infrastructure, are all considerations which ensure that no significant adverse water
resource impacts will occur as a result of the proposed action.
Page 3-8
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
3.3 Ecological Resources
Clearing for new development would take place primarily in and near the hamlets in accordance
with the prescribed development pattern that allows for preservation of larger contiguous open
space areas and natural recharge lands. As receiving areas would be less likely to have
significant areas of natural vegetation present, or in the event, natural vegetation of sufficient
quality and/or quantity to provide habitat areas, it would not be expected that ecological
functions of such areas would be significantly impacted.
Impacts to ecological resources are typically a direct result of clearing of natural vegetation, the
resulting loss and fragmentation of ecosystems and hence of wildlife habitat, and the increase in
human activity. Additionally, it is noted that secondary or indirect impacts can also be
significant, as well as cumulative impacts depending on site and area conditions. The following
list provides broad examples of ecological impacts including direct impacts, indirect impacts and
cumulative impacts:
Direct
Impacts:
· Habitat loss or destruction
· Altered abiotic/site factors
· Mortality of individuals
· Loss of individuals through eruigration
· Habitat fragm~entafion
· Disturbamce (i.e., construction, traffic, people)
Indirect
Impacts:
· Reduced carrying capacity
· Reduced population viability due to reductions in habitat area or quality
· Altered abiotic/site factors
· Mortality of individuals
· Loss of individuals through eruigration
· Habitat Fragruentation
· Disturbamce (i.e., construction, traffic, people)
· Habitat isolation caused by a variety of developruent types, resulting in increased edge
effects and soruetinaes loss of diversity
· Reduced breeding success possibly resulting in reduced population viability
· Delayed effects (i.e., altered predator-prey relationships)
Cumulative
Impacts:
· Progressive loss and fragm~entation throughout an area
· Reduced habitat diversity
· Ongoing habitat loss or fragm~entation over tirue, resulting in pro~essive isolation and
reduced gene flow (reduced genetic diversity can result in loss of resilience to
environmental chamge and increased risk of extinction
· Irreversible loss of biological diversity
· Exceedence of viability thresholds
Page 3-9
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
The negative effects of clearing and development have been well documented on ecological
resources. The effects of clearing are cumulative and need to be taken into regional planning
consideration. Developments typically result in habitat reduction, habitat fragmentation,
degradation of existing habitats, loss of corridors, increase in edge effects, and likely changes in
species composition among other impacts. Development projects typically favor those species
that are tolerant of human activity, with more sensitive species typically abandoning areas
altogether.
Habitat fragmentation may result in a decline in species numbers as habitat patches are reduced,
loss of characteristic species and concomitant invasion by edge species, changes in community
composition and altered parasitic, symbiotic and predator-prey relationships, altered
relationships, and altered population dynamics. In addition to habitat fragmentation,
development may create additional barriers to the area reducing and impacting wildlife
movement. It is noted that several barriers to wildlife exist currently, causing localized stresses
to wildlife populations. The effects of disturbance tend to trigger displacement may also vary
depending on life-cycle stage or season resulting in higher densities within receptor sites, more
individuals forced to use suboptimal feeding or breeding habitat, and direct mortality of no
alternative habitat can be found. Additionally, species composition is often altered as a result of
direct changes in habitat following post development conditions.
The proposed action would result in an increase in the amount of developed areas within the
Town, but these increases would occur on lands not optimal for habitat use; conversely, the
action will permanently preserve open spaces in the Town that would be much more likely to
provide habitat value, resulting in a significant net positive impact on ecological resources.
Additionally, few impacts to the Town's wetland resources are expected, as all future
development will continue to be required to obtain both Town and State wetland permits,
requiring conformance with current regulations.
3.4 Transportation Resources
With respect to transportation, there are a number of factors which would tend to reduce
potential adverse impacts related to traffic, noted as follows:
· Density transfer may involve reduction of unit sizes and bedroom counts, thus reducing trip
generation as large single fanfily home units are transferred to in part become smaller units in the
hamlets.
· The proposed density transfer is proposed such that one sending credit equals one receiving
credit.
· Transfer of density to the hamlets will encourage alternative fom~s of transportation including
pedestrian and other transit options.
Page 3-10
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
· Site and use specific projects will still need to conduct traffic studies which will allow
agencies which issue road cut and land use permits to monitor intersection volumes and
seek mitigation in connection with larger developments.
· Small incremental increases in density due to infill and minor projects would not be
expected to cause significant impacts.
· Trips generated outside of the hamlets are likely to £md their way to the hamlets amyway, given
the demo~aphics amd geo~aphy of the Town, as a result, an equal density shift would not
increase vehicle trips in all cases.
· PDR and lamd acquisition programs will continue, and these pro,ams ultimately reduce density
and vehicle trips.
Hamlets are generally situated along NYS Route 25; Southold is fortunate to have alternative
east-west arterial roads (NYS Route 25 and CR 48), and many north-south local roads to inter-
connect the road system. As a result, access to hamlets is generally good, but congestion in
hamlets and at destination locations does tax transportation resources, particularly during
seasonal periods. In addition, Southold is unique in that there is a ferry service that connects the
east end to New England, thus causing trips through the Town with no destination within the
Town. Ferry service is a source of traffic; however, internal trip generation, seasonal uses that
increase traffic volumes, and destination locations within the Town for agri-tourism, visitation to
quaint hamlets, dining experiences and general tourism are all traffic generation factors that
affect transportation patterns in Southold. In many cases, it is the attraction of hamlets for
shopping, dining and a destination experience that creates this congestion. This is an existing
condition, which may experience small incremental increases as a result of TDR; these increases
are not expected to be significant given the seven (7) factors noted in the bullet list above.
The Town will need to pursue traffic calming measures in coordination with State and County
agencies. In addition, a transportation management plan and outgrowth of efforts identified in
the SEEDS project will assist in public education and promoting alternative forms of
transportation. Management and redirection of growth, reduction in ultimate density,
coordination with State and County transportation agencies, promotion of intermodal
transportation, and continuing monitoring efforts with further transportation management are
intended to control transportation resources.
In summary, existing roads presently experience varied levels of congestion during seasons when
visitors come to Town. As development occurs in the HALO zones, roadway conditions are
generally sufficient to accommodate this increased volume given existing infrastructure,
signalization and the Towns roadway systems which allow alternative east-west routes and a
variety of circulation options. In addition, as this growth would be in proximity to the hamlets,
vehicle dependency could be reduced due to enhanced public transportation opportunities,
providing an additional potential means to reduce vehicular impacts. Equal density transfer and
density reduction through other preservation programs will assist in reducing vehicle trips. Site
and use specific projects will still need to conduct traffic studies which will allow agencies
which issue road cut and land use permits to monitor intersection volumes and seek mitigation in
connection with larger developments. Small incremental increases in density due to infill and
minor projects would not be expected to cause significant impacts. Cooperative efforts between
Page 3-11
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
transportation agencies will assist in addressing east end regional traffic issues. As a result,
significant adverse impacts are not expected to be significant.
3.5 Land Use, Zoning and Plans
The proposed action would tend to reinforce the land use pattern of the rural areas, as vacant
and/or agricultural land would not be changed in land use. Development in conformance to this
proposed action would result in an increase in development in the Town's hamlet areas rather
than be distributed throughout the Town. The hamlets have infrastructure in place that is better
able to accommodate this development.
The Town met with hamlet stakeholders in order to gain input for consideration in development
of the TDR and other land use programs. Each hamlet has been evaluated through the Hamlet
Development Model and hamlet specific receiving credits have been determined in a manner that
ensures an average overall density that is reasonable. The density limitations are based on land
that is already available for development, and provides a maximum number of units to ensure
that some remaining undeveloped land remains as open space in the hamlets. The proposed TDR
program recommends an equal ratio of sending credits to receiving credits, which helps to
mitigate potential impacts.
In terms of zoning, changes will be made to Town Zoning Law to permit the various options for
receiving area development. Options include:
· Single Family Homes
· Two-Family Homes
· Multiple Family Dwellings
· Detached Accessory Dwelling Units, and
· Mixed use or flexible zoning developments under potential future Plm~ned Development District
These uses will be facilitated primarily by small incremental uses in the number of these types of
units, to be allowed in connection with development that is consistent with the zoning districts
which permit these types of development. As a result, the integrity of the existing general zoning
pattern will remain and HALO areas where development is appropriate will be strengthened with
a resulting decrease in density in rural areas.
The project would advance numerous goals of the Town. The Town CIS recommended the use
of TDR for land preservation and to achieve other goals of redirecting growth to appropriate
areas. As this proposed action is intended to implement the recommendations of the numerous
Town plans and studies of the CIS, and the zoning of these sites would be changed where
appropriate to reflect these recommendations, it may be assumed that this growth would not
impact these plans. Furthermore, implementation of the recommendations of relevant studies
will allow the Town to more closely conform with goals such as protecting open space,
agricultural, rural character and resources, as well as providing housing diversity and a
Page 3-12
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
reasonable pattern of growth and development consistent with the comprehensive plan. As a
result, significant adverse impacts to land use, zoning and land use plans are not expected.
3.6 Community Services
As a result of the growth in the hamlets resulting from this proposed action, demand for
emergency services such as police and fire protection would be increased in these areas.
However, this redirected growth would occur where these services are already present; thus,
while there would be an increased need for and usage of these services as controlled and limited
development occurs, these impacts would be minimized because the proposed action locates
potential impacts in these areas, thereby reducing the extent of further necessary infrastructure.
Tax revenue would be provided to taxing jurisdictions, and overall there is a significant benefit
in terms of taxes and school district revenue.
The increased amount of development would also result in increased needs for and demands
upon the various infrastructure services, as follows:
Solid Waste Handling and Recycling - The amount of development represents an increased amount of
residential solid waste generated than that associated with existing conditions. While there would be
a shift in the geo~aphical distribution of solid waste generation toward the han-det areas, this would
not be si~mificant as all wastes would be handled in the same facility regardless of where they
originate.
Water Supply - The amount of residential development would not increase the number of residential
units in the Town above current density allowed by zoning and may in fact reduce density through
development of some smaller units. Growth resulting from TDR would be distributed preferentially
to the hamlets amd toward areas already served by adequate supplies of groundwater.
Drainage - The new development associated with this scenaxio would have to provide on-site
stom~water retention facilities, in confom~amce with Town and/or County regulations.
Wastewater Treatment - The volun~e of sanitary wastewater generated will increase, amd the pattern
of this generation will likewise change, to be directed toward the han-dets. This may have the result
of increasing the number of on-site septic systems or, if econon-dc amd density factors prove
sufficient, the establishment or extension of existing conm~unity sewer systems. Section 3.2
addresses water resource impacts.
Electricity and Natural Gas - The locally increased amount of residential development would
increase the demand for expamded electrical services in han-det areas. LIPA amd Keyspan are utilities
chaxtered to provide these services for a fee charged to ratepayers. Services would have to be
provided in axeas where development occurs regardless of whether it is spread throughout the Town
or located in the hamlets. The small incremental increases in density, and existing infrastructure in
the han-dets would tend to mininfize impacts to these service providers.
Page 3-13
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
As mentioned above, the comparative increase in development and associated populations on a
Town-wide scale (with locations of these impacts directed toward the hamlet areas) would
represent an increase in the impacts on community services. Additionally, as the geographic
distribution of these impacts will be limited primarily to hamlet areas, the needs for and costs of
expansions and improvements will also be limited to these areas and associated services
providers.
3.7 Community Character
Implementation of the proposed action would direct growth toward the hamlets, thereby
enhancing existing community character and vitality by use of well-regulated building and site
design, layout and architecture. In addition, the increased local population, some of which would
be in close proximity to the hamlet centers (enabling pedestrian visits in lieu of auto trips and
associated congestion, to the detriment of character) will add to the fabric and economies of
these communities, by increasing the customer bases of existing and potential new local
businesses. In addition, the "small town" character of the individual hamlets would be protected,
by locating appropriate residential uses in proximity to these areas.
Shifting the geographic distribution of new residential development would have the effect of
reducing the potential for adverse impacts to the rural quality and character of the entire Town
(by maintaining and preserving the breadth and depth of viewsheds and the character of the land
and land uses within those viewsheds).
With respect to historic and archaeological resources, the shift in the pattern of development
resulting from the proposed action would reduce the potential for adverse impacts to known and
potential undiscovered cultural resources in the Sending Areas, by shifting development to the
hamlets (the Receiving Areas). The proposed TDR program would however increase the level of
development in the Sending Areas and, therefore, for the potential to impact cultural resources in
the hamlets. However, whether there are any such resources on a particular site would be
determined on a case-by-case basis during the site plan review process for each application,
which is the process that currently exists in the Town. As a result, there will be no change in the
potential for impacts to cultural resources in the hamlets, as all existing regulatory mechanisms
to protect these resources will remain in effect.
In summary, many aspects of this program reduce potential impacts on community character.
These have been identified in prior sections and are summarized below:
· There axe vaxious options for credit redemption which would tend to amortize new development
in a mariner that reduces the impact of any one form of new development.
· Chamges to conmaunity character will occur in small incremental chamges over a period of time.
· Hamlet axeas currently exist amd their conmaunity character would be expected to benefit as a
result of appropriate increased utilization which provides a consumer base for businesses.
· There axe limitations on growth in the hamlets which were subject to public review and input.
· Open space will remain in the hamlets as a result of this pro,am.
Page 3-14
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
As a result, significant adverse impacts to community character are expected to be minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
3.8 Socio-Economic Conditions
The proposed action will increase the level of residential development in the hamlet areas,
balanced by a reduced level of growth of this use in rural areas of the Town. The short-term
economic effect of this would be to increase the amount of construction employment and
associated costs, and the long-term effect will be to increase the total amount of taxes generated
and tax revenues allocated to all taxing jurisdictions. The social impact will be to increase the
total number of residents in the hamlet areas. Both of these will occur through small incremental
changes, over a period of time.
The proposed action is anticipated to maintain the equity value of the lands designated as
sending and receiving sites, as well as of the development rights generated. Experience with
Pine Barrens Credits (associated with the Central Pine Barrens legislation and plan) have shown
that the value of credits has steadily and significantly grown since the inception of that program;
as the proposed action is similar in nature and design as this prior effort, it is expected that
similar results would occur.
Based on experience gleaned from the Pine Barrens Plan, it is anticipated that the shift in
development patterns results in other than conventional single-family homes, and thereby
reduces many impacts typically associated with single-family development. More to the point,
economic aspects are beneficial, particularly to school districts which will have to address a
smaller increase in new students to educate, a greater amount of available tax revenue (due to the
reduced cost educate the smaller increase in new students), resulting in overall positive tax
revenue to reduce the deficit of educating children from existing single-family homes.
In terms of socio-economics, businesses in the hamlets will experience increased customer bases
due to the increased populations residing in their vicinities. Associated with these increases will
be the fact that this growth would be within a short commute or even walking distance of these
local shops, with consequent strengthening of community character and vitality.
The program must be successful to realize the benefits of land preservation and redirected
growth. The program is designed to be successful as it incorporates the following elements that
address housing, fiscal, socio-economic and equity considerations:
· The pro,am will conform to SCDHS TDR stmadards, amd as a result is consistent with
~oundwater mmaagement as established under Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code.
· There axe a vaxiety of receiving site types on which the credits cam be located;
· While there are substmatially more sending sites than receiving sites, there are several alternative
pro,ams amd mechanisms whereby credits cam be redeemed, ensuring credit holders that there
would be sufficient nunabers of potential developers seeking their credits;
Page 3-15
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
· Experience with pine barrens credits has shown that there is a healthy market for credits, the value
of which has steadily ~own;
· The growth in credits' value indicates that developers consider credits a viable investment;
· Town has ability to administer laws already on books;
· Preservation of si~mificant natural lands in the Town was established as a priority by the Town;
and
· The Town amd its residents have a legitinaate desire to preserve natural resources and promote
orderly growth in areas able to sustain such growth.
3.9 Cumulative Development
The sending and receiving areas constitute the limits of the areas that may be impacted by the
proposed action are also the limits of the areas in which development may occur. These impacts
have already been delineated and discussed elsewhere in this section, and no additional
cumulative impacts may occur. As such, the individual impact analyses presented and discussed
in this section assume and include all potential cumulative development in these areas.
Therefore, as cumulative development is already included in the analyses presented here, the
associated impacts from such development do not need to be explicitly reanalyzed here.
Page 3-16
4.0
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
MITIGATION MEASURES
This section discusses measures which can be employed to reduce potential impacts identified in
Section 3.0. In general, few impacts were identified in relation to the proposed project as a result
of mitigation inherent in the proposed action. Section 3.0 identified six (6) key factors
incorporated into the project to reduce impacts. These are summarized below:
1. The proposed action is voluntary on the pact of both landowners that choose to sell development
rights from sending parcels amd those that wish to advance a land use project involving purchase
and redemption of development credits in a receiving area.
2. The proposed action is to create legislation that would establish a TDR pro,am in the Town of
Southold; the action does not authorize actual land use, as any development which would use
transferred credits would be subject to individual site plan and/or subdivision review for the
specific land use application that would involve the redemption of transferred credits. As a result,
further review would occur on a site-specific, project-specific basis. This document is a
Supplement to a Generic EIS that identified this prograna as potentially beneficial, and as is
required under SEQRA, analyzes the potential impacts associated with the creation of this
legislation. The analysis is by necessity generic and can not anticipate all site-specific or project-
specific impacts. Each future action which proposes to redeem transferred credits must be
evaluated in temas of confomaance to the Statement of Findings that will be generated on the
Supplemental GEIS record, and a decision made if the project is consistent with the Findings
and/or if there are potential impacts which have not been adequately addressed.
3. There is a linfit on the amount of new residential development which would be received in the
hamlets, primarily as a function of the need to comply with Article 6 of the Suffolk County
Sanitary Code.
4. Hamlet ~owth will be monitored through pro,am implementation to ensure that open space
remains in hanalet areas, and development occurs in a mauner that is consistent with desitin goals
of the Town.
5. Development will take the roma of small incremental increases as a result of the various options
for redemption of credits in receiving zones, specifically, options include:
· Single Fanfily Homes through limited density increases of new subdivisions;
· Two-Family Homes through creation of such homes where appropriate;
· Multiple Fanfily Dwellings where appropriate and subject to Town Board change of zone.
· Detached Accessory Dwelling Units associated with existing homes, and
· Mixed use or flexible zoning developments under potential future Plm~ned Development
District
6. Purchase of development rights and outright land purchase pro,ams will continue, thus
continuing to reduce density and potential impacts of land development primarily outside of
hamlet areas.
These factors are relevant to impact analysis but also were tenets of the program that were
designed to minimize impacts. Overall, the project will implement Town land use programs in a
manner that is consistent with past planning studies. The intent of the program is to provide
options for land preservation through alternative forms of compensation to landowners that will
leverage the purchase of development rights program. Land use will occur in areas where
infrastructure exists and reasonable controlled growth can be accommodated. Discussion of
mitigation relating to individual resource areas is provided herein, and summarized in Table 4-1.
Page 4-1
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
4.1 Geological Resources
Mitigation of potential impacts to geological resource is inherent in the proposed action, as it
would reduce development on agricultural land and on lands that are presently open spaces. The
accompanying relocation of development into hamlet areas (and away from the above-noted
geological resources) would be a significant mode of protection to these resources, due to the
reduced amount of clearing and grading of valuable lands. Use of erosion control techniques
during construction operations will further reduce the potential for adverse impacts to the Town's
geological resources.
In general, hamlet areas have experienced historic growth as a result of their geographic factors
which encouraged settlement and development in the first place. As a result, no significant
unique geologic features such as significant slope areas or other major land use limitations would
be expected. Individual land use applications will be reviewed for potential geologic impacts;
however, overall, clearing and grading will be localized to specific project sites.
4.2 Water Resources
Implementation of the proposed action would provide substantial mitigation; the relocation of
development to the hamlet areas would result in a reduction in groundwater usage in the rural
portions of the Town, with an associated reduction in the potential for adverse impact to
groundwater quality from sanitary wastewater recharge and lawn chemical usage in these areas.
While development in the hamlets would be increased, the requisite groundwater supply system
is already in place and the Town and Suffolk County Water Authority have agreed upon a water
map that anticipates increased utilization of hamlet areas where water supply is necessary to
serve existing needs. Use of water-saving plumbing fixtures would further reduce potential
impacts to groundwater supplies.
The Hamlet Density Model establishes an average density based on 20,000 SF lots, and this
density is further reduced through a density limit that provides a large safety factor. The density
limit is a primary management tool that provides mitigation with respect to land use density and
potential impact to groundwater resources.
4.3 Ecological Resources
As a consequence of the proposed action, the potential for impacts to ecological resources would
be significantly mitigated, in comparison to conditions if the action were not implemented. This
is due to the reduced amount of development and guidelines/limitations with respect to
development in farm and agricultural areas of the Town, which would tend to retain and preserve
wind rows, edge habitat, contiguous rural areas and better protect habitats for wildlife.
Page 4-2
Table 4-1
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
Ge~!6gi~a! ReS6hf~¢s · Would result in clearing and grading in HALO · No significant unique features exist; clearing and grading will be localized to specific
areas for development resulting from density shift, project sites; site plan and subdivision review will minimize potential impacts.
· Would use public water supply in HALO areas · Public water will be supplied by the Suffolk County Water Authority in conformance with
and not in sending area locations, the approved water map; hamlet locations are identified as appropriate water supply areas.
wa~er ~eS0Ur¢¢s · Would locally increase nitrogen load in HALO · A model was used to ensure that the average density of new development will not exceed
areas through transfer conforming to Article 6,
with reduced load in sending areas. Article 6 limitations based on 20,000 SF lots.
· HALO areas generally are suitable for development due to the current land use pattern;
· Would decrease natural vegetation and habitat
E~01~gi~al R~S~S acreages in HALO areas for those parcels which current activity levels preclude the presence of unique or sensitive wildlife species; impacts
would be localized to specific projects sites and site plan and subdivision review would be
currently possess such characteristics, used to ensure that significant adverse impact will not occur.
· Though traffic would increase in some areas, it is noted that density is transferred from
· Would generate traffic in HALO areas with other locations within the hamlet and many of these trips would exist on area roads;
Trans~0~ati0~ reduced traffic generation in sending areas; development in hamlets is encouraged for walkability shared parking and trips and use of
HALOs are more walkable and promote use of public transportation where available; individual land use proposals will be subject to site
alternative trar~sportation, plan and subdivision review for site access geometry, sight distance and traffic impacts
which can be mitigated once a problem is identified.
Land Us~i Zoning & · The proposal would implement the Towns intended land use pattern through zoning law
· No adverse impacts expected, measures in conformance with past land use plans and studies; land use can be monitored
and adjustments made if found to be necessary.
· Service providers would experience small incremental increases in demand over a long
· Would result in need for community services and period of time and as a result, providers would have time to anticipate and serve
infrastructure in HALO areas, with reduced community needs; it is noted that the TDR program anticipates equal density between
C~0n~ty S~ demand in sending areas; HALOs can more transfer and receiving areas and would not increase density.
readily provide infrastructure. · Existing infrastructure is more prevalent in the hamlet areas and therefore better able to
accommodate localized land use projects which redeem development credits.
· Communities participated in planning during the hamlet study and in the Pall of 2006 when
· Would result in more development in HALO the Hamlet Density Model was discussed; a limit on development that will be monitored
areas, with resultant reduction of development in
will be used to control density and assist in addressing community character; community
Commonly Ckaxa~t~r sending areas; HALO development would be use will be subject to small incremental changes over time and as a result can accommodate
varied and potentially smaller in unit size. reasonable use through equal der~sity transfer.
· The program anticipates equal density with no increase in what is permitted under full build
· Would necessitate costs to provide services to the out Townwide; the TDR program is voluntary which is a mitigation in itself; the program
S~!0:E¢0~0~!~S HALO development, provides options to landowners wishing to preserve agricultural use, and will be used to
supplement the PDR program; increased service demand will be addressed by utility
providers in accordance with their charters, these providers will regain costs through rates.
Page 4-3
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
HALO areas generally are suitable for development due to the current land use pattern and
historic settlement of these areas. Current transportation corridors, commercial areas, existing
residential land use and the current activity levels preclude the presence of unique or sensitive
wildlife species. Potential impacts would be localized to specific projects sites and site plan and
subdivision review would be used to ensure that significant adverse impact will not occur.
4.4 Transportation Resources
Because of the relocation of development associated with the proposed action (into the hamlets),
there would be a substantial reduction in the potential for impacts to the Town's rural
transportation resources, but a potential increase in impacts in the hamlets. The pattern of
development and impacts would be changed, to the vicinities of the hamlets and the roadways
linking them, and away from the more rural portions of the Town.
Inherent mitigation exists as a result of the availability of public transportation and alternative
forms of travel including pedestrian and bike activity. It is noted that most residents of rural
areas of the Town require automobiles and travel and between hamlets for goods and services,
thus placing vehicle trips on roads associated with hamlet areas by necessity. The program will
not increase vehicle trips as the transfer ratio is one-to-one from sending to receiving areas. Trip
generation may be reduced if alternative forms of development area sited in the hamlets, such as
smaller units with less children that require less vehicle trips for family activities. Further, and
as noted above, the walkable environment that is established through mixed, incremental
increases in use intensity in the hamlets with also reduce reliance on automobile travel.
Site specific actions can be considered as site plans and/or subdivisions are reviewed. Traffic
improvements such as site access geometry, sight distance and road improvements, if necessary,
can be considered in connection with use and site specific land use projects. The Town may also
seek traffic-calming measures which are consistent with hamlet revitalization efforts and are
often candidates for funding assistance under various New York State revitalization programs.
4.5 Land Use, Zoning and Plans
Mitigation of potential impacts to land use, zoning and land use plans is inherent in the proposed
action, as follows:
· While the proposal would reinforce the existing pattern of lamd use in the Town, the goal is to
achieve a level of protection for valuable aesthetic and environmental, social and other
chaxacteristics amd resources that would otherwise not be achievable absent the proposed action.
This would be achieved by a relocation of this ~owth towaxd the hamlets amd away from the
areas where these resources are found.
· The proposed action would confom~ to the zoning pattern in the Town (in order to achieve the
specific land preservations amd development concentrations inherent in the proposal), amd this
development would be in confom~amce with the applicable elements of the Town Zoning Code.
Page 4-4
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
The proposed action has been formulated specifically to implement a number of the
reconmaendations contained in numerous Town land use plans and studies prepared over the past
20± years, and therefore is consistent with the Town's comprehensive plato, including
preservation of farmlamd, conmaunity character amd addressing housing needs.
In summary, the proposal would implement the Towns intended land use pattern through zoning
law measures in conformance with past land use plans and studies. Over time, land use can be
monitored and adjustments made, if found to be necessary.
4.6 Community Services
Service providers would experience small incremental increases in demand over a long period of
time and as a result, providers would have time to anticipate and serve community needs. It is
noted that the TDR program anticipates equal density between transfer and receiving areas and
would not increase density. Existing infrastructure is more prevalent in the hamlet areas and
therefore better able to accommodate localized land use projects which redeem development
credits. Land use review of specific projects would ensure that significant increases in demand
for services are addressed prior to the demand for such services.
In summary, the relocation of future development in the Town away from primarily rural and
agricultural areas and toward the existing hamlets (where infrastructure systems such as solid
waste handling and disposal, water supply, wastewater treatment, and energy are established)
would minimize impacts on these systems, as the availability of these services would be greater
in the hamlets.
4.7 Community Character
The proposed action contains its own mitigation of impacts to community character, as the
development resulting from this action would tend to enhance the vitality and small-town
character of the hamlets, while preserving the rural aesthetics of the adjacent open spaces and
farmlands.
Potential impacts to cultural resources would be mitigated by the proposed action by its
preservation of undeveloped and agricultural lands (under which as-yet undiscovered cultural
resources may lie undisturbed), thereby reducing the potential for impacts on established cultural
resources. Land use in the hamlets will require consideration of site-specific resources at the
time of land use review, which will provide adequate mitigation of cultural resources.
From the standpoint of community aesthetics and related considerations with respect to
character, stakeholders in individual hamlets participated in planning during the hamlet study
and in the fall of 2006 when the Hamlet Development Model was discussed. The Model
proposed potential density limitations that will be monitored and will be used to control density
and assist in addressing community character. Overall, community use will be subject to small
incremental changes over time and as a result can accommodate reasonable use through equal
density transfer.
Page 4-5
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
4.8 Socio-Economic Conditions
It should be noted that the purpose of the proposed action is to provide for residential
development to be located in the hamlet areas of the Town (where necessary infrastructure is
present), rather than in the rural areas (where such supporting public facilities and services may
not be available). An additional Town consideration is to reinforce and enhance the aesthetics of
the hamlets with well-designed and appropriately-located growth that conforms to the character
of each hamlet. This will simultaneously preserve and protect the rural character of major
portions of the Town, which is the source of much of the Town's attraction for tourism and
business.
Since the program anticipates equal density with no increase in what is permitted under full build
out on a Townwide basis, socio-economic aspects are little changed. The TDR program is
voluntary which is a mitigation measure in itself in terms of the impact to individual landowners.
The program is intended to provide options to landowners wishing to preserve agricultural use,
and will be used as a supplement to the PDR program. Increased service demand will be
addressed by utility providers in accordance with their charters, and these providers will regain
costs through the ratepayers and as a result, major economic changes are not expected.
4.9 Cumulative Development
Mitigation measures are inherent in the proposed action itself, as it has been conceived as a way
to accommodate legitimate and needed residential development in the Town and simultaneously
preserve the Town's valuable rural aesthetics and agriculture industry. The variety of receiving
sites and the small incremental increase in density, provides mitigation from multiple projects
should such development occur. The program is designed so that there is a limitation on
development in the hamlets, and growth can be monitored as it unfolds. As a result, cumulative
mitigation would be in-place as a result of the program.
Page 4-6
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
$.0 ADVERSE IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED
Section 2.0 of this document summarizes the character and environmental resources of the
Town, and Section 3.0 assesses the potential for adverse impacts to those conditions resulting
from the proposed action. Then, Section 4.0 analyzes those features of the proposed action that
would mitigate the above-discussed impacts on those resources.
Based on the proposed program and these analyses, it is noted that impacts directly caused by
this program are very limited. The TDR program is essentially a geographic shift of resident
populations that provides a more appropriate and sustainable land use pattern for the overall
Town of Southold. This is because the existing pertinent Town Code regulations regarding
development would allow for the same number of residential units to be developed in the Town
using a different development pattern. There is a recognition that density would continue to be
reduced and land would be preserved through purchase of development rights and fee title
acquisition only. In addition, a major Town planning goal is to increase transportation efficiency
and to create attractive alternatives to automobile travel, while preserving the scenic amd historic
attributes of roadways in the Town. The TDR pro,am is expected to further this goal.
The program was envisioned in prior Town planning studies and as noted in Section 3.0, there
are five significant factors that limit potential impacts: 1) the proposed action is the creation of
legislation for a voluntary program to purchase development credits from sending areas, and
place the same number of credits in a receiving area; 2) there are limitations on new development
density in receiving areas as a result of Suffolk County groundwater management density limits;
3) growth in the hamlet receiving areas will be monitored for density, design, community
character and aesthetics; 4) development in the hamlet receiving areas will occur through small
incremental increases using a variety of development types; and, 5) purchase of development
rights programs will continue and will result in further density reduction and open space
preservation. The proposed TDR program is intended as a supplement to these programs so that
PDR funds can be leveraged for continued acquisition. As a result, the primary impact is
localized and involves physical changes that may occur as a result of an actual development
project. Any new development resulting from this program will be subject to SEQRA and will
have a corresponding benefit in terms of farmland protection in a nearby location within the
Town.
Therefore, some impacts may still exist for which no mitigation is available; these impacts are
primarily related to site specific land use. Impacts which cannot be avoided are noted below:
During the construction period for individual site development, there will be temporary increases
in truck traffic amd potential fugitive dust and noise generation, paxticularly during Fading
operations.
· Clearing for individual sites will still occur, with possible reductions in vegetation and habitats for
sites possessing such resources.
· There will be change in the distribution of potable water required from the public water supply.
Page 5-1
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
There will be a potential local increase in the concentration of nitrogen in recharge as compared
to current conditions; however, the pro.am is intended to conform with SCDHS ~oundwater
mamagement requirements for density.
There will be change in the pattern of vehicle trips generated by lamd use in the hamlets, reducing
trip generation in the rural areas of the Town and increasing populations in the hamlets. This will
cause some local increases in vehicle trips; however, resident population shift to the hamlets will
also promote use of other forms of transportation (pedestrian, bicycle, bus, etc.), and the vehicle
trips without the pro.am would still entail residents using their cars to access hamlet areas for
goods amd services. Traffic calming measures in hamlet areas will help minimize this impact.
There will be a shift in vaxious demo~aphic patterns, including school-age children amd senior
citizens, though an increase is not expected since the program involves equal density from
sending to receiving areas.
There will be increases in the need for and use of the various conmaunity services and upon
infrastructure resources, though it is noted that the hamlets are better able to acconmaodate the
increased density than rural amd farm areas that may not have convenient access to infrastructure
and conmaunity services.
In summary, the affected resources of the Town have been characterized, and the potential
impacts of the proposed action on those resources have been assessed. Some impacts may still
exist for which no mitigation is available; however, these impacts are primarily related to
development of individual sites when and if this occurs. Where possible, the impacts have been
quantitatively and qualitatively discussed in previous sections of this document. The impacts of
the proposed action are minimal as discussed in Section 3.0, and site specific development
impacts will be minimized where possible by conformance to applicable development standards
and regulations.
Page 5-2
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
6.0 GROWTH-INDUCING ASPECTS
Growth-inducing aspects are those characteristics of an action that would cause or promote
further development, either due directly to the proposal or indirectly, as a result of a change in
the population or development conditions of that community or its market. An action's growth-
inducing aspects may be analyzed in conjunction with those of other similar or complementary
applications in the vicinity, or of its potential for promoting such applications.
It should be noted that this proposed action does not propose any development, construction or
growth; it has been formulated specifically to control the amount and pattern of furore growth
expected in the Town. In this sense, the prospect that the Town will experience growth is
inevitable it is the control of this growth and how it is accomplished that is the thrust of the
TDR program. The proposed action is simply intended to channel expected growth into
appropriate areas while reducing the mount of this growth in areas which the Town Board,
based upon numerous prior plans and studies, proposes to preserve and protect, and to minimize
the potential impacts of this growth on the environment.
Obviously, relocation of growth to hamlets and commercial centers will increase the amount of
and need for infrastructure improvements in these areas, if such are not already present or prove
inadequate. These improvements include sanitary, water supply and drainage systems, roadway
improvements, increased community services capacities (schools, solid waste handling, energy
supply, public transportation, parldng, etc.). In addition, increased populations may increase the
potential for changes in need for and types of commercial businesses, particularly if these
population changes include shifts in age and/or income distribution.
The proposed Town Board action would provide an increased level of protection for agricultural
land and open space and the rural qualities of the Town associated with these uses, while
maintaining the capability of these privately-held properties to provide a reasonable economic
return. Residential units would be available for development as transferred development rights
or credits, to be used in designated receiving areas.
In consideration of the foregoing, it may be concluded that the proposed action is not expected to
result in a significant adverse change in the growth potential in the Town and that changes would
be beneficial as a result of better conformance to land use plans and location of growth in more
appropriate locations.
Page 6-1
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
This section of the DSGEIS presents alternatives to the proposed action. SEQRA calls for a
description and evaluation of the range of reasonable alternatives to the action that are feasible,
considering the objectives of the project sponsor. The Town's "objectives" in this case, are the
previously stated Town goals:
· To preserve land including famaland, open space and recreational landscapes
· To preserve the rural, cultural anad historic character of the han~lets and surrounding countryside.
· To preserve the Town's remaining natural environment; to prevent further deterioration of the
Town's natural resources amd to restore the Town's de~aded natural resources back to their
previous quality.
· To preserve amd promote a range of housing and business opportunities that supports a socio-
econon-dcally diverse conmaunity.
· To increase transportation efficiency amd to create attractive alternatives to automobile travel,
while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of roadways in the Town.
The discussion and analysis of each alternative should be conducted at a level of detail sufficient
to allow for the comparison of various impact categories by the decision-malting agencies. For
the subject application, the following alternatives have been established:
1. No Action - assumes that the proposed action is not implemented.
2. Density Transfer Incentive - assunaes that development credits axe increased when transferred to a
receiving area.
3. Use of Open Space as Sending Areas assumes that farmland combined with open space (non-
agricultural and/or wooded lands) or open space alone are established as sending areas.
4. Non-Residential Credit Redemption - assunaes that development credits can be redeemed for non-
residential use.
5. TDRBank assumes the Town establishes a method for purchase and re-sale of transfer credits.
7.1 No Action
7.1.1 Description of Alternative
The no action alternative assumes that the proposed action will not take place, and the status quo
will prevail. Under this alternative, existing land preservation programs will continue, but a
TDR program will not be implemented.
7.1.2 Assessment of Compliance with Town Goals and Impacts
This alternative does not meet the Town's goal of establishing a TDR program as outlined in the
Comprehensive Implementation Strategy. Existing zoning and land use controls allow as-of-
right development to occur throughout the Town's most important open space and agricultural
Page 7-1
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
areas. Under this alternative, Town land use under current zoning would prevail, and land use
controls including, conservation subdivision, clustering, PDR and land acquisition, would
continue.
If build-out continues with land preservation through the techniques noted above, there is a
potential that the Town's goals would not be met. Development in areas outside of the hamlets,
should it occur, would be more likely to require additional infrastructure and services. Current
land preservation efforts will help to prevent potential impacts related to inappropriate
development; however, availability of preservation funds and the voluntary nature of
participation in conservation subdivision and PDR, could potential place an emphasis on
clustering, which would result in development in areas throughout the Town, in contravention of
Town goals. Maintaining existing purchase of development rights and acquisition programs
would result in long-term cost to taxpayers and/or continuation of the 2 percent sales tax funding
for an extended period of time, the fate of which is not known.
The Town's goals of providing a range of housing opportunities and promoting properly planned
development in the hamlets would also not be served. Existing zoning and land use controls, as
well as experience with the nature of development that has taken place within Town, suggests
that the type of new development that would take place would not necessarily expand the
diversity of the housing stock or the range of housing opportunities. It is anticipated that the
type of new housing constructed under this alternative would be typical high-end, detached
single-family residences. This type of housing only serves a portion of the housing market, and a
limited number of Southold residents. In this sense, the no-action alternative does not comply
with the spirit of Town housing goals.
Finally, traditional single-family residences do not support the Town's goal of increasing
transportation efficiency. Additional single-family homes will generate additional automobile
trips and would not promote a more sustainable development pattern which would include
placing development in areas where road linkages, alternative transportation including public
transit, bike opportunities and walkability are more prevalent.
The purpose of the proposed TDR program is to provide an alternative to the expenditure of
public funds for the purpose of land preservation. As envisioned, the TDR program would
leverage available funding to target other lands for preservation. Since the TDR program
involves a shift of development to more appropriate areas, does not increase density and is
voluntary, impacts are substantially reduced in terms of private landowner rights.
Implementation of the program would add a mechanism to achieve land preservation in rural
areas of the Town, while shifting potential development to more appropriate areas in a manner
that is more sustainable, and could potentially reduce density as a function of the type of housing
units that are created as a result of the transfer.
This alternative is not in keeping with the Goals of the project sponsor, the Town Board of the
Town of Southold, as this governmental body initiated the TDR Planning Report and is moving
forward with a variety of land preservation methods including TDR in order to maintain the
qualities and character of the Town of Southold through sound land use planning.
Page 7-2
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
7.2 Density Transfer Incentive
7.2.1 Description of Alternative
This alternative considers a program where an increase in the number of units is achieved when
transferring density. For example, for each credit purchased, more than one development unit
could be achieved within a receiving area.
7.2.2 Assessment of Compliance with Town Goals and Impacts
The Town has had a history of seeking to reduce overall density in the Town. Density reduction
is achieved through PDR, land acquisition and conservation subdivision, where participants use
other compensation methods or voluntary density reduction to build less than the as-of-right
density. Increased density resulting from TDR would appear to be counter to density reduction
initiatives of the Town.
In terms of potential impacts, density increase would result in a greater number of development
units than would otherwise be achieved, and as a result, could increase density-derived impacts
in the hamlets. Not providing an incentive however, may make the program less attractive and
less likely to be used, thereby causing the program to be less effective in achieving its intended
goals. The TDR Planning Report considered this condition in the excerpted passage below:
Thus, an adequate incentive may not be a sufficient,fkature fi)r a TDR program to be succes.~fid,
but it is a necessa~T one. Such an incentive could include provision fi)r an increased density fi)r
tram]krred yield, so that an increased number Of'credits are generated fi)r a lando,~'ne~; thereby
increasing the potential return on investment. Such an increase in development potential must be
car¢fiJlly considered by each jurisdiction contemplating TDR so that tran~'fkrred density reduces
impacts through reduced unit size and appropriate siting to ensure sustainable development in
areas where ir~fi~astructure and the land use pattern is capable of'accommodating grou'th. In
addition, the unit types realized in a receiving zone may be smaller and have less impact than
the same unit u,ere developed in the sending area. Finally, it is common fi;r only a small number
Of' credits to be located at a particular receiving site, as there are other physical and
environmental,fbctors such as parking and sanita~T capacity to be considered. This is a unique
consideration in the Tou'n of'Southold, and it is possible that, given water resource limitations,
receiving area constraints and a unique real estate market, a density neutral tram'fkr may have a
high probability Of'success.
The proposed program provides a wide range of alternatives for redemption and use of TDR
credits. When evaluating these forms of development using TDR, it is expected that there is an
incentive provided for the use of credits. Each of these receiving area development types are
considered below:
Single Family Homes Single fanfily homes can be constructed on 20,000 SF lots in hamlets
using TDR. This provides a signific~<t potential increase over existing zoning, which in most
locations requires 40,000 SF lots. Owners and investors in vacant lands including B, HB, RO, R-
Page 7-3
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
40, R-80, A-C and R-200 zoning districts would be expected to take advantage of this density
increase. The resultant unit is a single fanfily home, and as a result this is a sigmificant incentive.
· Two-Fanfily Homes Additional flexibility would be provided to create two-fanfily homes
within a variety of zoning districts including: R-40, R-80 and A-C zones. Existing homeowners
that may wish to increase revenue or provide a single attached unit would be expected to seek this
opportunity.
· Multiple Family Dwellings Since most HD zoned parcels are developed, there is a sigmificant
incentive to seek a change of zone from the Town Board on appropriate parcels within the
hamlets, where multi-family housing may be appropriate. The Town is not and has not been
included to change the zoning from low density, to increased density. However, use of
transferred credits does not result in an increase in density, amd may facilitate development which
would otherwise not occur, while at the same time redeeming credits thus resulting in land
preservation elsewhere.
· Detached Accessory Dwelling Units This option provides a sigmificant incentive as it does not
currently exist. Existing homeowners wishing to supplement income or provide the flexibility of
an additional dwelling unit cam purchase a credit and reap the long-term benefit of creating a
Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit on the sanae lot.
· Mixed use or flexible zoning developments under potential furore Plarmed Development District
Should the Town create a PDD local law, this option would exist. PDD's have been
consistently demonstrated as a way to achieve redemption of credits in connection with land use
projects across Long Island. It is expected that appropriate development using PDD would result
in the redemption of transferred credits as a means of achieving public benefits in cormection
with create land use proposals.
If Town policy with regard to density changes and a greater emphasis on TDR is needed to
achieve other land preservation goals, a density incentive could be considered. It is recognized
that smaller units have less impact, and as a result, increased density can be justified if an
individual 4-5 bedroom single family home that would otherwise have been built in a rural area
of the Town is replaced with a smaller home in a hamlet area. The benefits of smaller housing
units are undisputable and include:
· Less generation of school aged children with concomitant tax revenue increases.
· Generally less vehicle trip generation due to smaller fanfily size.
· Potentially lower volun~e of sanitaxy flow amd water use, particularly if the unit is less than 1,200
SF in size or is a senior citizen unit.
· Lower generation of solid waste due to smaller fanfily size.
· Lower sales price thereby creating additional nfixed housing stock.
· More sustainable form of development, located in a hamlet axea and able to maJce use of local
goods amd services, walkability amd alternative forms of transportation.
As a result, increased density could be considered and would be justifiable. Given the concern
over increased density, density incentive could be considered in terms of a small fractional
increase. A potential revised redemption schedule could be contemplated by considering the
transfer credit to redemption credit in a ratio format noted as follows:
Page 7-4
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
· Single Family Homes
· Two-Family Homes
· Multiple Family Dwellings
· Detached Accessory Dwelling Units
· Retirement Unit
· Plarmed Development District
1:1.0 (sending credit: receiving number of units)
1:1.5 (sending credit: receiving number of units)
1:2.0 (sending credit: receiving number of units)
1:2.0 (sending credit: receiving number of units)
1:3.0 (sending credit: receiving number of units)
Dependent upon unit type as per above
It should be noted that a density increase would require some definition and limitation on the size
of units at the receiving site. In other words, the incentive for increase is based on an outcome
that ultimately reduces unit size and resultant impacts. For example, if a credit from a receiving
zone is redeemed for two (2) multiple family units, the multiple family units should be limited in
terms of number of bedrooms and square footage so that the impact is reduced thus justifying the
incentive. The appropriate limitations can be determined if the Town seeks to move in this
direction. It is noted that the program of 1:1.0 (sending to receiving credits) is simple and easy
to implement and would allow for any size and type of receiving area unit without the need for
complicated definitions, restrictions and monitoring.
This proposed ratio would have the potential of further encouraging use of TDR as a result of the
density incentive. The reduction in unit size and resultant reduction of impacts supports density
increases up to a 1:2.0 ratio, when considering water use and sanitary flow, demographics,
school children, tax revenue, trip generation and solid waste, as was demonstrated through the
Regional Impact Assessment Model used in the Town Comprehensive Implementation Strategy.
This alternative would not change the density of development allowed in the hamlets, as the
maximum permitted number of units would remain the same as for the proposed project. This
alternative would be expected to promote the use of TDR perhaps over other programs, and as a
result, would cause the maximum allowed development to be reached sooner than would
otherwise occur through equal density TDR. As a result, this alternative would not necessarily
add receiving area unit potential, and therefore does not address a more equal balance between
sending area density and receiving area density. The Town would still have to rely on PDR and
other land preservation tools to achieve ultimate preservation and agricultural use protection
goals.
In terms of impacts, this alternative would not be expected to cause a significant adverse impact
since an increase for certain land uses which redeem credits in density is justified by virtue of the
lesser impact of smaller units which would be created in hamlet areas. The Town's intent to
create a straightforward, achievable program which allows TDR to be used as a voluntary option
for land preservation with a density shift and no expenditure of taxpayer dollars is a sound
program, and can be implemented based on the proposed 1:1.0 ratio currently being considered
as the proposed project. The sensitivity of the Town's resources, the unique economic
conditions, the inability to develop within some rural areas of the Town given limited water
supply resources and other sensitivity, all support maintaining a neutral density program. As
noted, this alternative could be in keeping with the goals of the project sponsor if policy and land
preservation needs shift to a greater dependency on TDR in the future; however, at this time,
there does not appear to be a compelling reason to select this alternative.
Page 7-5
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
7.3 Use of Open Space as Sending Areas
7.3.1 Description of Alternative
This alternative involves adding open space (woodland and lands other than agricultural land) to
the sending areas, and/or using TDR for just open space lands rather than agricultural land. This
alternative would operate in a similar manner to the proposed project by providing a means of
preserving open space through a voluntary program between a seller of development rights in a
designated sending area, to a buyer of development rights that intends to shift the density which
would have been developed in the sending area, to various unit types permitted in the proposed
receiving area.
7.3.2 Assessment of Compliance with Town Goals and Impacts
This alternative would be consistent with Town goals in terms of open space preservation, and
would advance a TDR program that would shift density, preserve open space and not deplete
open space preservation funds as the program would involve private transactions between sellers
and buyers. During the course of preparation of the TDR Planning Report, this alternative was
given strong consideration. There were a number of considerations that lead to the
recommendation contained in the TDR Planning Report and it is beneficial to state these
considerations in consideration of this alternative for the purpose of this DSGEIS.
Consideration of TDR off Famaland and/or Open Space
Several discussions about including famaland, non-famaland, or both as sending zones took place.
Given the targeting of non-famaland for fee title preservation, and the lack of residual income
potential from non-fam~lamd, it was felt that fee title acquisition would be most appropriate for
continued acquisition of non-famaland. As a result, agricultural lamd was felt to be appropriate
for desigmation as sending areas under the TDR program, provided SCDHS density criteria would
be met in the receiving zones. This cam be accomplished, and is discussed in more detail in
Section 4.4. [of the TDR Plm~ning Report].
An additional discussion centered around how to designate farmlamd for the purpose of sending
areas. The Town has various fam~lamd strategies through which a listing of parcels and GIS
inventory observed to be actively farmed has been created. This however does not constitute am
official map and involves subjective deternfination of lamd use status. The team felt it was
necessary to seek a more objective inventory and as a result considered the Town database which
records existing Agricultural District parcels and parcels with individual conmfitment status.
This inventory was found to already have controls in place to objectively deternfine whether a
parcel is actively famaed. The inventory is in GIS amd is maintained in an up-to-date fashion to
ensure that parcels in this district axe recogmized. As a result, the Town Agricultural District
parcel inventory and lamds which are the subject of am individual conmfitment were believed to be
the most appropriate method of desigmating farm status for sending parcels. It should be noted
that parcels cam apply for Agricultural District and individual conmfitment status, as long as they
Page 7-6
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
meet the parameters for such desigmation. As a result, the sending area will be updated
periodically as parcels are accepted or removed to or from the Agricultural District or individual
conmfitment status. The Town may wish to consider adopting a revised sending area map every
three (3) years based on the updated inventory.
In addition, as is noted in the TDR Planning Report, there are more TDR credits than parcels that
can receive those credits. This is atypical of most TDR programs; however, the Town of
Southold has a number of unique considerations which include the following:
· Water supply limiting factors may ma&e it infeasible to build on certain parcels in sending areas.
· Continuing ag~essive land acquisition amd purchase of development rights programs.
· Continuing ag~essive conservation subdivision plarming which results in density reduction and
open space preservation.
· Unique real estate market which places value on residential units which are able to be constructed
within the Town.
The TDR Planning Report ultimately recormnended that parcels which are subject to
Agricultural District designation or an individual cormnitment, be adopted as sending areas. A
surmnary of the basis for this recormnendation is provided as follows:
· PDR is directed toward agricultural parcels; TDR is viewed as a pro,am to supplement the PDR
pro,am amd reduce required expenditure of public funds.
· There was a desire to not have TDR complete with other acquisition programs including fee
simple acquisition which is most conmaonly used for wooded open space parcels.
· Use of fee title purchase allows the Town to use parcels that are purchased for public access to
passive open space; under TDR, the landowner retains ownership of the parcel.
· TDR would target parcels which have residual value for farm use, after development rights
transfer; this allows a landowner to continue to put the land to productive use, amd provides
compensation to the owner.
· Inclusion of open space parcels would further increase the potential sending credits, which would
further linfit the ability to provide receiving areas for all of the credits generated in sending areas.
As a result, there is logic to not expanding the potential number of sending area credits and for
reasons noted above.
If TDR were used for wooded open space parcels only, and not for agricultural land, the number
of potential sending credits would be reduced; however, PDR would be the primary method for
protection of agricultural lands as it is currently. As a result, the goal of providing supplemental
funding of farmland protection through private transactions involving the purchase and transfer
development rights to more appropriate locations would not be addressed. A TDR program
directed only toward open space lands would apply to a limited number of parcels since the vast
amount of land which the Town is seeking to protect is farmland.
There is one benefit in terms of clear conformance with SCDHS requirements under Article 6 of
the SCSC. Use of TDR only for non-agricultural land would shift density from parcels that do
not cause nitrogen loading, and as a result would allow the Town TDR program to more readily
conform with SCDHS density limitations. More specifically, transfer off of agricultural lands is
Page 7-7
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
not viewed as a shift in sanitary flow since farmed parcels are considered to cause nitrogen
loading similar to residential development. As a result, receiving parcels must conform to
Article 6 of the SCSC by providing development densities on lots greater than 20,000 SF in size,
unless double density is permitted through Board of Review decisions consistent with SCDHS
General Guidance Memo #17. The Town has endeavored to create a program that ultimately
will not increase density over what would be allowed under Article 6 and General Guidance
Memo #17, and so this benefit is not considered significant.
This alternative would not be expected to cause significant enviroamental impact as it would be
voluntary (similar to the proposed project) and would involve preservation of land and transfer of
density from rural areas to hamlet centers. This was studied in Sections 2.0 and 3.0 of this
DSEIS, as related to the TDR program for transfer from agricultural land. The inclusion of open
space lands is more of an economic issue as to whether there are sufficient opportunities to
redeem credits in the receiving areas.
Based on the discussion of this alternative, there does not appear to be a compelling reason or
benefit to expanding the sending area to include open space parcels, nor does there appear to be a
substantial benefit to applying TDR only to open space and not to farmland. The Town Board
can further evaluate sending areas through this SEQRA process and after adoption of a program
to best address the needs of the Town through the TDR program.
7.4 Non-Residential Credit Redemption
7.4.1 Description of Alternative
This alternative assumes that development credits could be redeemed for non-residential use. More
specifically, this would allow the receiving area to increase conmaercial square footage or use intensity,
through redemption of credits which originate from the sending area.
7.4.2 Assessment of Compliance with Town Goals and Impacts
The redemption of credits for commercial use was considered during the preparation of the TDR
Planning Report. An overall theme was to create a program that is simple and can be
implemented, in order for the Town to offer options to sending area landowners that would
promote preservation of farmland through compensation, while shifting land use density to more
appropriate locations in the Town HALO areas. Consideration of non-residential credit
redemption was viewed as more complex than locating residential credit opportunities for several
reasons:
· A fomaula would need to be established to convert a development credit which originates from
residential lamd, to a corresponding conmaercial use intensity.
· Market conditions will establish the needed amount of conmaercial space in the hamlet centers;
there may be sufficient conmaercial space in the hamlets either existing or which cam be built
Page 7-8
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
under current zoning, to acconmaodate this demand. As a result, an incentive for transfer of
conmaercial density may not be attractive.
Business zoned amd used parcels in the hamlets tend to be smaller and as a result, transfer of
density to these smaller parcels would result in ~eater difficulty in complying with density
limitations under Article 6 of the SCSC.
A commercial transfer program currently exists through Suffolk County's Board of Review, a
variance board that considers requests for density increases above the Article 6 requirement.
There are numerous Towns and Villages that have zoning in place that would permit more
intense development under their zoning, than that which could be achieved under Article 6. The
Board of Review often requires a sewage flow credit in order to justify relief from the 300 or 600
gpd/acre sanitary flow limit (depending upon which Groundwater Management Zone and if
public water is available). As a result, land is sterilized and there is no actual increase in
development over what is permitted by zoning.
The Town Board may wish to consider providing a commercial density transfer component of
the program in the future, after the program is established and the need for further credit
redemption options is determined. Attachment F of the TDR Planning Report (contained in
Appendix B of this DSEIS) includes the Suffolk County design flow figures assigned to various
uses. A single family residence has a design flow of 300 gpd, which is referred to in the table as
a Single Family Equivalent. A credit in terms of both sanitary flow as well as the proposed
Southold TDR program, is essentially one (1) residential dwelling, and therefore has a sanitary
flow equivalent of 300 gpd. Commercial uses can therefore be equated to a transfer credit, by
dividing the design flow of that use into 300 gpd to determine the number of square feet that is
equal to a single family dwelling (SFD). For example, dry stores have a design flow of 0.03
gpd/SF. Therefore, 10,000 SF of space is equal to an SFD (300 gpd / 0.03 gpd/SF 10,000 SF).
A direct relationship of providing 10,000 SF of dry store for a single credit would create too
large a structure if transferred to a hamlet. If such a program is contemplated, it is recommended
that a reduction factor of 50% be applied to the calculated single family equivalent density in
order to not cause a significant increase in commercial square footage through this technique,
and in order to still maintain a program where residential density transfer is attractive. A table of
typical commercial uses, equivalencies to an SFD (or credit), and the recommended transfer
square footage, is provided below.
TABLE 7-1
COMMERCIAL CREDIT EQUIVALENCY SCHEDULE
General Office 0.06 gpd/SF 5,000 SF 2,500 SF
Medical Office 0.10 gpd/SF 3,000 SF 1,500 SF
Dry Store 0.03 gpd/SF 10,000 SF 5,000 SF
Industrial Storage/Warehouse 0.04 gpd/SF 4,000 SF 2,000 SF
Restaurant Seat (nitrogen flow only) 10 gpd/seat 30 seats 15 seats
Bar Seat (nitrogen flow only) 5 gpd/seat 60 seats 30 seats
Page 7-9
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
The TDR program is based on complying with Article 6 of the SCSC by determining the
maximum potential number of units that could be built on 20,000 SF lots over the vacant
unencumbered land in each HALO, and by applying a maximum number of units of less than
this calculated amount. This is also logical since many of the zones which permit business use,
also permit residential use and these zones are included in the determination of maximum yield.
If a commercial credit transfer program is based on a Single Family Equivalent, each time one
credit is used, this could be subtracted from the remaining maximum credits assigned to each
hamlet. In this manner, if SCDHS agrees with the program method for Article 6 compliance, a
commercial credit transfer can be integrated into the TDR program in a relatively simple manner.
Separate from the maximum density permitted in a hamlet, ifa parcel which permits business use
only seeks to increase commercial density through credit transfer, this could be achieved through
direct conformance to Article 6 of the SCSC for on-site density. As a result, commercial credit
transfer could be considered for sites that are of sufficient area to accommodate the use under
Article 6, for such sites that cannot achieve that maximum use under Town zoning restrictions.
The SCDHS Board of Review could also double the density if a sanitary credit (one which
sterilizes vacant land) is used.
A site which is of a size that can construct a wastewater treatment facility, could also use
commercial credit transfer as a means of achieving a land use project and purchasing and retiring
transfer credits. This may include using this technique in connection with Planned Development
District, mixed-use projects, should the Town provide a local law for this form of
zoning/development as recommended in the CIS and the TDR Planning Report. The Town
could also encourage the continuation of the SCDHS Board of Review practice of requiring a
sanitary transfer credit in connection with applications for relief from Article 6 density
requirements as this results in sterilization of land which effectively reduced potential density
elsewhere in the Town, without an increase in density in the hamlets so long as the resulting
project does not exceed existing Town zoning.
This alternative has advantages of providing additional mechanisms for density transfer which
would result in a reduction in residential uses, and an increase in commercial square footage.
Ultimately in terms of population, this would be a density reduction, rather than a density shift.
No new residential units would be constructed in conjunction with transfer credits originating
from residential land in rural areas. The result would change residential density to commercial
use for each credit that is redeemed for commercial purposes. Commercial uses do tend to
generate more traffic, but if located in an existing hamlet, such density would be placed in an
area where shared parldng and vehicle trips would be expected, and some opportunities for
public transportation would be available. In addition, commercial square footage provides
increased tax revenue and consumer opportunities. The market response to this opportunity is
not known. As noted earlier in this section, it may be possible that the existing businesses
address current consumer demand in the hamlets, otherwise there would be pressure to build-out
the remaining business zoned land.
Page 7-10
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
This alternative would promote the preservation of farmland and would result in further
commercial development in the HALO areas (where development is considered to be
appropriate) which is in keeping with Town goals. No significant adverse environmental
impacts are anticipated as this alternative is also voluntary, and would complement a beneficial
land use program that is in keeping with Town land use and preservation goals.
In conceiving this program for the purpose of establishing a TDR program, the Town Board
sought to explore a straightforward and achievable program. Application of TDR to residential
transfers only, seemed to best achieve this goal. The Town Board felt that once a program was
established, other options could be examined and potentially added to the program. There do not
seem to be any significant disadvantages to providing the opportunity for commercial credit
transfer under the parameter indicated in this section, and the advantages of providing additional
credit transfer incentive to complement the TDR program are a benefit. As a result, the Town
Board could consider this alternative as a supplement to the TDR program either now or in the
future.
7.5 TDR Bank
7.5.1 Description of Alternative
This alternative assumes the Town establishes a method for purchase and re-sale of transfer credits as
opposed to the proposed project which envisions that the Town will only record credit issuance and
redemption amd allow the private market to engage in credit transactions.
7.5.2 Assessment of Compliance with Town Goals and Impacts
This alternative would support the TDR program through a more active role of government in
the purchase and sale of TDR credits. If implemented, the Town could create a fund to purchase
credits from landowners for compensation based on fair market value which would be similar to
PDR transactions. Property owners would have the option of selling credits privately or to the
Town. The Town would retain credits and re-sell them to purchasers that would use credits in
conformance with the options for credit redemption outlined in the TDR Planning Report.
This alternative would support and promote the TDR program in a pro-active manner and is a
logical complement either in the early stages of the program or in the future. This alternative
would not be expected to have a significant environmental impact since it is primarily a financial
alternative that would not change the rudiments of the TDR program. However, it is noted that
Town funds would be required for purchase of credits. Over time, it is expected that any outlaid
funds would be reimbursed through sale of credits. The Town may wish to consider funding and
creating a TDR bank in support of the program.
Page 7-11
Town ol~ Southold
Transfer ol~Development Rights Program
Drat't Supplemental Generic EIS
APPENDICES
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
APPENDIX A
Findings Statement, CIS, Town Board
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Findings Statement
STATE ENVIRONMENTAl, QUAI,ITY REVrEW ACT
FINDINGS STATE1VrENT
SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION
STRATEGY
Town Board, Town of Southold
Pursuant to Article 8 of the Ne~v York Environmental Conservation Law and Title 6, New York
Codes, Rules and Regulations Part 617, the Town Board of the Town of Sonthold, as Lead
Agency, hereby makes the following findings.
Name of Action:
Lead Agency:
Contact Person:
Date Findings Filed:
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Town Board of the Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Hon. Joshua Horton, Supervisor
(631) 765-1800
September 23, 2003
INTRODUCTION
This Findings Statement has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of 6NYCRR Part
617.11, which requires that no Involved Agency shall malce a decision on an action that has been
the subject of a Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) until such time as the agency has
made a written Findings Statement concerning the facts and conclusions of the Draft and Final
EIS relied upon to support its decision, weighed and balanced relevant environmental impacts
with social, economic and other considerations, and provided a rationale for the agency's
decision. In order to meet this SEQRA provision, the Southold Town Board has prepared these
Findings related to the significant issues identified in the Draft and Final Generic EIS prepared
for the proposed action. These findings consider the GEIS record as well as comments received
from the public during the extended comment period provided on the FGEIS.
LOCATION
The proposed action will apply to the entire Town, though individual recommendations may
apply to only specific areas or zoning districts.
Page 1
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Findings Statement
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
The proposed action involves the evaluation and, ~vhere appropriate, implementation by the
Southold Town Board of the recommended planning and program tools and measures described
in the planning studies undertaken within the Town over the past 20 years, in order to ensure that
Southold's growth conforms to established goals. The studies, plans and recommendations have
been reviewed in terms of current needs and Town goals to achieve the Town's vision. The
series of actions represented by the proposed action has been designed to achieve these goals
primarily through legislative means, with educational and public awareness efforts, capital
improvements and expenditures, direct Town management and inter-agency/quasi-agency
initiatives to be utilized secondarily. It should be emphasized that the proposed action does not
include specific physical changes. During the course of the project's formulation, the Town's
goals and intent were further refined flxrough a series of policy discussions held w/th the Town
Board at public work sessions. These discussions provided clear guidance in terms of factors
that the Board would like considered in the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy. The
Town's goals that are addressed in the strategy are:
To preserve land including farmland, open space and recreational landscapes.
To preserve the rural, cultural and historic character of the hamlets and surrounding
countryside.
To preserve the Town's remaining natural environment; to prevent further deterioration of
the Town's natural resources and to restore the Town's degraded natural resources back to
their previous quality.
To preserve and promote a range of housing and business opportunities that support a socio-
economically diverse community.
To increase transportation efficiency and to create attractive alternatives to automobile travel,
while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of roadways in the Town.
The 43 recommendations which were delineated during review of the plans (consolidated and
summarized in Table 1) are being considered by the Town Board for implementation in the form
of amendments to Town procedures, the Town Code and various Town regulations, in
conformance with the Town's Master Plan. 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 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 2
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Findings Statement
TABLE 1
IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS AND KEY GOALS
1. A-C District Use/Dimensional Parameters (mechanics of zone; now essentially same as other residential zones)
2. Rural Incentive District (based on incentive zoning; excbange of benefits, i.e. maintain open space/farm use for period
of time in exchange of PDR at appropriate yield/density)
3. Agricultural Overlay District/A-C Zoning Review (geographic definition and goals)
4. 5-Acre Upzoning (A-C District town-wide or specific area)
5. Reviexv Special Exception Provisions (Winery-Vineyard; adequate farmstand parking)
6. Review of Zoning Code (mandatory clustering, recreational reqairements, revise Sign Ordinance; review R-0, LB
district; water dependent uses; accessory apartments, AHD standards (expirations), B&B's, home occupations,
discourage strip shopping centers & fast food in HB, flag lots, encourage common driveways; change of use
requirements)
7. Review Zoning Map (Mattituck Creek, industrial on Route 25 west of Greenport, HD in Greenport; water dependent
uses, AHD - repeal or expand)
8. Review Subdivision Regulations (road requirements; drainage; lighting; infrastructure)
9. Review Highway Specifications (road requirements; drainage; lighting; infrastructure)
10. Conservation Subdivision Program (define and implement 75-80% land preservation tbrough land use tools and
density reduction)
I1. Planning Process & Encourage Committee/Agency Participation (formalize pre-submission conference, review
departmental organization; review committees; emergency service provider input)
12. Transfer of Development Rights (mechanism for appropriate density relocation/management)
I3. Planned Development District Local Law (provide for flexible development/yield in exchange of special public
benefits, i.e. affordable housing, infrastructure, dedication, etc.)
14. Tree Preservation Local Law (limit removal of trees unless through subdivision/site plan review; define tree size and
applicable acreage)
I5. Critical Environmental Lands Local Law (steep slopes and escarpments, shallow groundwater, wetlands, waterways;
define for yield purposes)
16. SEQRA Local Law Review/Revision (Type I List; possibly add Scenic-Byways; Critical Environmental Areas)
17. Scenic By-Ways Overlay Development Controls (Route 48/25; define corridor 1000'/500'; reconcile farm structures;
setbacks, mass, architecture; Committee review, SEQRA designation)
Page 3
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Findings Statement
18. Agricultural District Review/Education (Agriculture and Markets Law; encourage participation; maintain existing
participants)
19. Create General Guidance Documents (Design Manual, transportation management/traffic calming, develop
illumination standards; BMPs; cross access agreements; side road access)
20. Natural Environmental Education (ensure good quality surface/ground surface waters; BMPs; IPM; coastal erosion
control; beach width monitoring)
21. Watershed Protection Zone/SGPA's (signage, educational distribution materials, link with land use controls)
22. Encourage Use of Public Transportation (relate to Transportation Management Plan; create hubs; ferry linkages;
winery shuttles)
23. Transportation Management Plan (Transportation Commission; encourage transportation/pedestrian improvements
and public transit; create hamlet hubs; ferry linkages, winery shuttles, signage; "best route to"; work with LIRR)
24. Economic Development Plan (manage tourism; commercial fishing; recreational boating; uniqueness of agriculture;
mariculture; capital improvement program; B&B's, network of visitor centers)
25. Enforcement (illegal conversion of agricultural buildings; use expansion controls; change of use requirements)
26. Improve Waterfront Access (acquisitions; obtain/maintain; inventory Town land and improve)
27. Administer Parks of Town-wide Significance (inventory Town land, conform to park plan; public beach quality
improvements)
28. Prioritize and Supplement CPPP (additional acquisitions; scenic by-ways acquisitions; sensitive land; prioritize)
29. Create a Centralized Year-Round Recreation Complex (determine need, implement if necessary)
30. Affordable Housing Policy (geographic/type diversity, targets and new development, review every, 2-5 years; provide
incentives, accessory apts., financial assistance; Housing Authority)
31. Concentrate Development in Hamlets (def'me hamlets; ensure appropriate infrastructure; affordable housing; link with
land use mechanisms/tools; capital improvement program; traffic calming)
32. Park District/School District Boundaries Conformity (determine need and reconcile districts)
33. Update Park Inventory and Management Plan (prior 1980 study needs updating; input into GiS; manage recreational
resources)
34. Create a Parks and Recreation Department (manage parks, recreational resources, non-church cemeteries)
Page 4
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Findings Statement
35. Scenic By-Ways Management Program (Route 48/Route 25 currently designated; signage, link witb Overlay for
standards/guidelines/land use controls)
36. Trail Inventory/Trail Committee/Bikeways (Transportation Commission exists, determine appropriate committee;
inventory, input into GIS, manage, trailhead directional information in kiosks)
37. Inventory and Manage Cultural Resources (archaeologically sensitive areas; Historic District designation; plaques;
landmark designation; input into GIS, manage)
38. Architectural Review Board and Design Parameters (determine need; establish body; generate guidance; integrate into
land use review process)
39. Scenic Advisory Board (determine need for new Committee; manage scenic corridors, town-wide scenic resources)
40. Housing Financial Assistance Program (North Fork Housing Alliance; review otber opportunities based on 1993
report and Updated Affordable Housing Policy)
4I. Develop Water Supply Master Plan (Town involvement, SCWA preparing; manage infrastructure with other agencies)
42. Emergency Preparedness (groundwater contamination, drougbt management; ensure adequate emergency services
(police, fire, ambulance); flood hazard mitigation plan; erosion)
43. Social Services Programs (senior citizen care, adequate community facilities, day care, meals on wheels, chumhes,
libraries)
Page 5
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Findings Statement
STEPS TAKEN IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED ACTION
The following steps have been taken by the Town Board, in compliance with the Environmental
Conservation Law:
The Town government, private groups and concerned citizens came together in an effort to address
land use issues before it became too late to save the Town's natural resources and valuable and
unique character. The Town Board enacted a moratorium on residential subdivisions and multi-
family developments requiring site plan approval, so that the Town would have sufficient time to
determine the extent of land use problems and to develop and implement a plan to protect Town
resources and qualities. The purpose of the moratorium specifically states that several inter-related
planning initiatives should be considered, noted as follows: the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon
Commission and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP), and concerns in regard to
affordable housing availability and public infrastructure usage.
The Town Board formed a working group/moratorium team for the express purpose of determining a
legally defensible, cost-effective, efficient and effective implementation strategy to achieve the
Town's goals. During four intensive sessions held during September 2002, 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. The group concluded that the basic goals of the Town remain sound and should
be built upon. The inter-relationship of existing and proposed programs should be reinforced so that
revised procedures and legislation result in more consistent and better decisions by Town boards and
departments.
The Town Board was advised of the preliminary Findings and Recommendations of the working
group and, as a result, formally authorized the Town Planner, Town Attorney, Land Preservation
Coordinator, two planning consultants and two consulting land use attorneys to advance this
Implementation Strategy. The issues to be addressed were categorized by the moratorium team as
being primarily either environmental or socio-economic in character. The Moratorium Team
synthesized a total of forty-three (43) different recommendations from these studies.
These recommendations are being considered by the Town Board for implementation, in the form of
amendments to the Town Code and in various Town regulations, to modification of Town
procedures, and other policy and management initiatives; these changes would be provided to better
implement the Town's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed action involves legislative changes, with
no specific physical changes within the Town proposed.
The Town Board intends to initially consider all currently relevant 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.
By late 2002, the Town Board determined that its formulation of the proposed action had evolved to a
point where it was appropriate to initiate formalized public and agency review. Therefore, in
consideration of the definition of "action" under SEQRA, the Southold Town Board indicated its
determination that this proposed action may have significant impacts, and issued a Positive
Declaration on its action, thereby initiating the SEQRA process.
Page 6
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Findings Statement
An Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I based upon the proposed action was prepared for
the Town Board (by the Town Planner and Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC, as consultant to the
Town).
The Town Board reviewed tim EAF and, in conjunction with the provisions of SEQRA, determined
that the proposed action meets the criteria for a Type I action, and, as the Town Board proposed to
undertake the action itself, assumed Lead Agency status.
Based upon this document, the Town Board, as Lead Agency under SEQRA, determined that the
proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment, and issued a Positive Declaration,
requiring that a Generic EIS be prepared (January 7, 2003), and scheduled a public scoping meeting
for January 29, 2003.
The draft scope for the GEIS was prepared by the project sponsor and submitted on January 7, 2003
consistent with SEQRA procedures. Subsequently, a public scoping meeting was held on January 29,
2003, and written comments were accepted by the lead agency until February I0, 2003. A revised
draft scope which addresses the valid comments and issues raised during the entire public comment
period (as determined by the lead agency) was prepared, and the lead agency issued its Final Scope
on April 8 (22), 2003. The Draft GEIS was prepared based upon tbis Final Scope.
On June 3, 2003, the Town Board accepted the Draft GEIS as complete and adequate for public
review and issued a Notice of Completion of the Draft GEIS. The DGEiS was filed in accordance
with SEQRA procedures identified in 617.12, and was broadly disseminated and made available at
multiple locations including libraries, Town Hall offices and the Town of Soutlmld web site.
A public hearing on the Draft GEIS was held on June 19, 2003, and was continued to June 23, June
24, July 8 and July 15, 2003; the Lead Agency accepted written comments until July 28, 2003.
A draft Final GEIS was submitted to the Town on August 29, 2003. The Town Board met to discuss
this draft on September 4 and September 9, 2003.
A Notice of Completion of the Final GElS was issued by the Town Board on September 9, 2003.
The public review period on the FGEIS was expanded beyond the minimum 10 days required to the
close of business on September 22, 2003.
Two comment letters were received by the lead agency from the public during the extended comment
period on the FGEIS. One letter addressed the issue of Country Inns, requesting that the subject of
Country Inns be removed from the document. The GEIS record is complete and comments from the
public are noted with respect to Country Inns. Reference to Country Inns cannot be removed from
the document as it bas been a consideration of past studies and may present certain options that the
Town Board may wish to consider in tbe future. Any proposed legislation would require review
consistent with Part 617.10 (d) to determine if it was addressed adequately in the FGEIS. Further
SEQRA consideration should be based on the specifics of proposed legislation.
The second letter comments on tbe adequacy of responses in the FGEIS with regard to projecting a
build out analysis based on a continuation of land preservation efforts, providing several exmnples,
and suggestiag that tbe authors of the FGEiS were seeking to support a particular planning tool. The
FGEIS sought to disclose facts and make projections related to land preservation, recognizing that
Page 7
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Findings Statement
land preservation would continue, and establishing the relative success of such continued efforts
toward meeting the stated goals of the To~vn for land preservation and density reduction. The
analysis indicated that land and development rights acquisition alone would not allow the Town to
meet it's stated goals. The FGEIS indicated that xvater restrictions may not always exist, particularly
in view of the Suffolk County Water Authority findings that various water supply options would not
have a significant adverse effect on the environment; this supports the concept that proper land use
planning measures should be in place so that the water supply needs of the Town can be met for
protection of the health and welfare of the community.
The GEIS did not support a particular tool or series of tools, but sought to examine the potential
adverse environmental impacts of possible planning initiatives assembled for the purpose of analysis.
The Draft and Final GEIS are the documents of the Town Board. The Board designated a team of
independent consultants and Town planning, legal and land preservation staff to prepare
documentation for Town Board consideration. Two liaisons of the Board met with the team
throughout the process, and report text was made available to tim overall Town Board for review,
comment and input prior to finalization. The Town Board is ultimately responsible for the content of
the GElS documents, regardless of who prepares them. Town Board input and review occurred
throughout the preparation of SEQRA documents, and the Board adopted the Draft and Final GEIS
reports by resolution.
In review of letters received during the comment period on the FGEiS, no new substantive comments
were received which would alter the basic findings of the GEIS record. These letters are on file in
the office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Southold.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is clear that the Southold Town Board, as lead agency, has
fully and properly complied with the procedural requirements of SEQRA.
Page 8
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Findings Statement
POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The following is a compilation of the potential significant impacts that were analyzed in
conformance xvith the Final Scope for the GEIS.
Regional Impact Assessment for Build-Out Conditions
Land Preservation Efforts and Future Development Trends
Resource hnpact Analysis
Geological Resources
Water Resoumes
Ecological Resoumes
Transportation Resources
Air Resources
Land Use, Zoning and Plans
Demographic Conditions
Community Services
Infrastructure
Community Character
Cultural Resources
Economic/Fiscal Conditions
Use and Conservation of Energy Resources
Potential Impacts oflmplemeotation Tools
These Findings surmnarize the facts and conclusions of the Final GEIS. The Final GEIS (which
includes the DGEIS by reference) is the seminal document in the identification of those activities
considered to have significant environmental impacts and in the identification of those measures
designed to mitigate such impacts. The commentary received from involved agencies and parties
of interest were used in the analysis of significant impacts to the enviromnent and in the
formation of these Lead Agency Findings.
FACTS, CONCLUSIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED WITIqlN THE~
DRAFT & FINAL GEIS'S RELIED UPON TO SUPPORT TILE, LEAD AGENCY
DECISION
Summary of Existing Land Preservation Efforts
Southold Town has been aggressive in pursuing volnntary preservation methods to reduce
density and achieve farmland and open space preservation. The Planning Board office and Land
Preservation office are available to assist landowners, and actively participate with owners to
structure creative projects that reduce density and preserve land. The use of PDR is a common
land preservation/density reduction tool. In addition, groups such as the Peconic Land Trust are
active in working with farm and landowners to achieve adequate limited development,
compensation/equity and tax relief, in connection with permanent land use and preservation. A
tracking procedure was established as part of the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy, and
statistics show that the Town has been successful in preserving land and reducing density.
Page 9
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Findings Statement
In considering these trends, three facts are apparent: increasing development pressure can be
expected due to decreased land availability to the west, coupled with a strong demand for
housing; the Town and other governmental jurisdictions do not control, and may not be able to
ensure continued, voluntary preservation at cuIrent levels; and, the lack of available public water
may not always be an impediment to development. The tracking and statistics compiled in
connection with the Town's preservation efforts are laudable and informative; however,
diligence must be exercised for proper zoning, planning and preservation efforts if the Town is to
grow in a manner consistent with it's goals.
Information compiled for the Final GEIS indicated that the average an~ount of land preservation
from 1997-2002 was 260 acres per year. The estimated average amount of residential
development over fire past 6 years has been 200 to 225 acres per year. Assuming the rate of
development will not decrease and is now marginally less than the rate of preservation and
further assuming a target goal of preserving 80 pement of all farm and open space land within
the Town, then it is clear that the rate at which land is being preserved will have to be increased
dramatically in order to counter the rate at which land is being developed. Continued PDR is an
important ongoing component of the Town's farmland and open space protection program.
Other measures are explored in the CIS GEIS for the Town to consider in order to conform to the
Town's stated goals.
Impact Analysis
A "Build-Out" analysis was prepared to determine the character the Town would assume if land
use proceeds in a manner strictly according to the zoning of the land, considering only permanent
protection measures and legal mechanisms that would restrict growth. In general, a build-out
analysis is a planning exercise used to determine the mnount of development that can occur
under existing zoning and land use controls. The basis for Southold's Build-Out analysis is in
the Town's 9 residential and 8 non-residential zoning districts. The Build-Out analysis was
compiled using the Town's Geographic Information System (GIS). Using GIS, a theoretical
projection of how much development could occur on a given parcel in a particular zone was
produced. It must be understood that the Build-Out Analysis is a "theoretical" one, based on the
potential acreage and number of units that could be built on land that is not in some way
permanently protected. This assumes that all unprotected land is developed to its full potential
and would occur over an extended period of time. This theoretical full Build-Out is useful as a
reference point to determine the nature of development that could be achieved if full build
conditions remain in effect, as compared with modifications of those conditions. Development
as described by tlfis Build-Out analysis might never be achieved, and if it were approached, it
would take place over an extended period of time. The net difference between full Build-Out
and Build-Out under modified conditions provides a basis to understand the magnitude of change
and therefore impacts from a proposed project or altemative.
The FGEIS found that some of the tools (proposed actions) were of a procedural or legislative
nature, which would not have a physical environmentai impact on resources. However,
evaluation of some tools in the context of potential physical changes to the Town's environment
Page 10
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Findings Statement
was conducted in the FGEIS. The analysis primarily reflected physical changes due to density
reduction and open space preservation initiatives. Other tools dealing with transportation, capital
improvements, housing and social services would have no effect on environmental resources.
The following is a synopsis of the conclusions of the Lead Agency with regard to the
environmental impacts associated with the subject action. These conclusions are based upon a
review of the Draft GEIS, the Final GEIS and public conmaentary as well as all other relevant
planning, zoning and environmental information. Relevant considerations are as follows:
Geological Resources
Of the tools that would have an impact on geological resources, a reduction in available
residential lots resulting from density reduction measures is expected to significantly decrease
the amount of land cleared and graded for development. In addition, it should be noted that the
geographic distribution of clearing associated with development of this reduced nmnber of units
would be concentrated in areas where such impacts could be tolerated due to the presence of
existing disturbance and development, and on soils having less value relative to farming
potential. These considerations would reduce the potential for impact to geological resources.
Water Resources
Of the tools that would potentially impact water resources, reduction in residential units would
result in a corresponding significant reduction in groundwater pnmpage; specifically, the lower
number of units will require less water for in-home consumption and less water for lawn
irrigation. As a consequence of the overall reduction and relocation of development, the
potential for adverse impact to groundwater supplies and quality would be significantly reduced,
as growfl~ would be directed towards areas already served by public water suppliers, where
adequate water supply and infrastructure already exist. As development would occur in areas
distant from agricultural use, the potential for impact to irrigation water would be reduced.
Additionally, there will be a reduced potential for impact to groundwater quality, as the volume
of sanitary sewage will be reduced, and the reduced acreage of lawns will reduce the potential
for impacts from lawn chemicals, particularly due to nitrogen loading. Density reduction and
control, retention of natural vegetation, limitations on fertilizer dependent vegetation, and
reduction in residential irrigation needs are all components of the implementation tools that will
tend to benefit the Peconic Bay and Long Island Sound estuaries as well as the Towns creeks and
inland freshwater lalces, ponds and wetlands.
Ecological Resources
Elements of the proposed action would result in a decrease in the amount of developed areas
within the Town. Therefore, ecological impacts are not expected as a result of these elements.
Additionally, few impacts to the Town's wetland resources are expected, as all future
development will continue to require both Town and State wetland permits, requiring
conformance with current regulations. Furfl~er protection would be given to sensitive beach,
bluff and dune environments, reducing future development and disturbance of these ecologically
sensitive areas. Potentially larger buffer areas could be expected adjacent to sensitive site
features (wetlands, bluffs, dunes, etc.) due to an increase in the amount of required preserved
Page 11
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Findings Statement
area. The hamlet areas ~vhere development would be directed are generally less constrained by
sensitive ecological features than are the Town's outlying rural areas.
Transportation Resources
Density reduction tools would result in a decrease in vehicle trips due to a reduction in the
number of residences. Other vehicle trips would be redirected. Reduced trips would be
generated from areas where existing development, infrastructure and alternative forms of
transportation are present such as hamlets; the potential for impact to such resources would be
reduced. It is noted that hamlets currently experience traffic congestion, traffic safety problems
and speeding. Hamlets are generally situated along NYS Route 25; Southold is fortunate to have
alternative east-west arterial roads (NYS Route 25 and CR 48), and many north-south local roads
to inter-connect the arterial road system. As a result, access to hamlets is generally good, but
congestion in hamlets and at certain destination locations taxes existing transportation resources.
In addition, Southold is unique in that there is a ferry service from Orient Point that connects the
east end to New England, thus causing trips through the Town with no destination within the
Town. Ferry service is a source of traffic; however, internal trip generation, seasonal uses that
increase traffic volumes, and destination locations within the Town for agri-tourism, visitation to
quaint hamlets, dining and recreational experiences and second-home owners and their guests,
are all traffic generation factors that affect transportation patterns in Southold. In many cases, it
is the attraction of hamlets for shopping, dining and a destination experience at farmstands and
wineries, for example, that creates this congestion.
Reduction in vehicle trips by reducing ultimate development density is one direct measure that
has quantifiable results. This alone is not sufficient to ameliorate the traffic congestion that the
Town may experience as a result of other influences noted above. The Town will need to pursue
traffic calming measures in coordination with State and County agencies. In addition, a
transportation management plan and outgrowth of efforts identified in the SEEDS project will
assist in public education and promoting alternative forms of transportation. Management and
redirection of growth, reduction in ultimate density, coordination with State and County
transportation agencies, promotion of intermodal transportation, and traffic calming measures are
intended to control the negative impacts of new growth on existing transportation resources.
Air Resources
The reduction in development would result in a decrease in the potential for and amount of dust
raised during construction operations. In addition, the amount of potential vehicle emissions
would be reduced. As the geographic distribution of growth would be directed primarily to areas
which are already developed, the potential for impact to rural areas of the Town from dust and
vehicle exhausts would be reduced; for areas where development is to occur, emissions
associated with this an~otmt of growth are not anticipated to be sufficient to significantly impact
air quality. Other legislative tools evaluated as part of the action, which would improve
construction and development practice, would result in beneficial air resource conditions.
Land Use, Zonin~ and Plans
Implementing elements of the proposed action would result in a redistribution of the Town's
development potential. Future growth would be directed primarily to hamlets rather than be
Page 12
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Findings Statement
distributed throughout the Town. As the number of residential units would be reduced, there will
be a commensurate reduction in the potential for adverse impacts to land use patterns,
particularly as development would preferentially be directed into hamlets.
It is not anticipated that this growth would impact the pattern of zoning in the Town, as all
development is assumed to occur in accordance with the zoning of each site or through programs
to promote more desirable growth such as strengthening of hamlets, and projects which provide
special public benefits including affordable housing.
Density reduction is intended to implement the recommendations of Town plans and studies.
Implementation of the recommendations of relevant studies will allow the Town to more closely
conform w/th goals such as protecting open space, agricultural, rural character and resources, as
well as providing housing diversity and a reasonable pattern of growth and development
consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Demographic Conditions
Predicted increases in total Town population, as well as in the school-age child and senior citizen
cohorts, would be less as a result of the density reduction. As a result of this reduction, the
potential demographic impacts would be reduced, and impacts associated with demographic
characteristics would also be reduced. As the growth associated with reducing density would
redirect growth primarily to the existing hamlet centers, the demographic impacts would also be
concentrated in these areas, with correspondingly reduced potential for such impacts in the rural
portions of the Town.
With regard to specific school district impacts, if Build-Out were to occur, a 127 percent increase
in students above current enrollments would result, while elements of the proposed action are
predicted to increase total enrollments by 80 pement. Each district must evaluate growth
potential within their service area in relation to capacity in order to formulate long-range plans to
accommodate the anticipated student population. School districts must propose budgets, provide
bonding and ensure that adequate educational services are available as growth occurs within their
districts.
The implementation of affordable housing programs, and the use of techniques (Transfer of
Development Rights, Planned Development District) to promote affordable housing, special
public benefits and enhancement of hamlets will provide improved conditions for specific
demographic segments of the Town.
Community Services
The comparative decrease in development and associated populations on a Town-wide scale
(with locations of these impacts directed toward the hamlet areas) would represent a decrease in
the impacts on commtmity services. Additionally, as the geographic distribution of these
impacts will be limited primarily to hamlet areas, the need for and costs of expansions and
improvements will also be limited to these areas and associated service providers.
Page 13
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Findings Statement
Infrastructure
Solid l~Zaste Handling and Recycling - Under a reduced density potential, future development
would result in a decreased mount of residential solid waste generated. Wlfile there would
be a shift in the geographical distribution of solid waste generation toward the hamlet areas,
this would not be significant as all wastes would be handled in the san~e facility regardless of
where they originate.
Water &tpply - Density reduction would decrease the number of residential units in the
Town, resulting in a decrease in the potential increase in water demand. In addition, as this
new growth would be distributed preferentially to the hamlets, the pattern of increased water
demand will likewise be unevenly distributed, but toward areas already served by adequate
water supply.
Drainage - The pattern of new development associated with redistribution of growth would
have to provide on-site stormwater retention facilities, in conformance with Town and/or
County regulations.
171Zastewater Treatment ~ Potential future volumes of sanitary wastewater would be reduced
under elements of the proposed action; the pattern wastewater generation will likewise
change, to be directed toward the hamlets. This may have the result of increasing the
number of on-site septic systems or, if economic and density factors prove sufficient, the
establishment of community sewer systems.
Electricity - The decreased anmunt of residential development would decrease the demand
for expanded electrical services within the Town. Also to be considered is the change in the
pattern of this demand; as development would be concentrated toward the existing hamlets,
the pattern of demand (and pattern of associated electrical service system growth) will be
changed.
Ncmn'al Gas - Similar to that for electrical services, the demand for and pattern of demand
for piped natural gas services will be decreased by the reduced level of development.
Community Character
Reducing the level and geographic distribution of new residential development would have the
effect of reducing the potential for adverse impacts to the rural quality and character of the entire
Town (by maintaining and preserving the breadth and depth of viewsheds and the character of
the land and land uses within those viewsheds). In addition, the "small town" character of the
individual hamlets would be protected, by locating appropriate residential uses in proximity to
these areas.
Cultural Resources
The decreased amount of development would reduce the potential for adverse impacts on
existing and undiscovered cultural resources, and would also reduce the potential for impact on
Page 14
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Findings Statement
such resources as have already been determined, by locating development in hamlet areas and
away from rural areas.
Economic/Fiscal Conditions
The demand for services would be less under elements of the proposed action. This is evidenced
by the decrease in the impact on school districts, specifically related to a lower number of
school-aged children, thereby reducing the cost to educate children. Though full Build-Out
results in more uuits and greater tax revenue, the greater demand for services creates a greater
deficit. The reduced density scenario reduces this deficit, and in combination with other
planning efforts, provides for greater efficiency. More specifically, reduced density lowers tax
burden overall, and this combined with more compact density in hamlets results in greater
efficiencies of public infrastructure, which translates into lower cost of maintenance and
services. Further reduction in the number of school-aged children may affect the actual ratio of
tax dollars to demand for services. Seasonal homes, Milch do not require education of children,
decreasing household size, and other measures to reduce density would be expected to further
reduce the potential deficit. It is noted that all development, even to a reduced density, occurs on
a long-term basis, allowing school districts to evaluate needs, tax resources and other factors
needed to ensure adequate education facilities.
Use and Conservation of Energy Resources
The elements of the proposed action represents a decrease in the demand for energy (electrical
and natural gas) services in the Town. As use of energy-efficient building materials and
mechanical systems, and passive energy-conserving site and building layouts are expected, the
amount of energy resources required to serve this growth would be minimized. Use of such
energy-conserving measures is not only required by New York State, but is a sensible business
practice for developers, particularly in light of the increasing cost of energy resources. It is
expected that the affected public utilities in the Town will be able to meet this reduced increase
in demand, in consideration of the reliable revenue fi:om the customer base generated by this
growth.
However, it should be noted that growth that could occur in the Town would be significantly
greater in terms of quantity, and redistributed in terms of location, than if development assumed
in the proposed action were not implemented. Such a level of development would have
significant Town-wide implications for energy demand and consumption. Thus, this reduced-
density scenario represents a significant reduction in potential impacts on energy resources, in
comparison to that which would occur if the proposed action were not implemented.
Review of the above discussions indicates that individual elements of the proposed action
primarily related to density reduction and open space preservation would not result in adverse
env#'onmental #npacts to the resource categories analyzed
Potential Impacts of Implementation Tools
Overall, the proposed action is identified overwhelmingly as having substantial beneficial
impacts to the Town in relation to confomaance with Town goals, land use plans, the pattern of
Page 15
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Findings Statement
land use and zoning and land use compatibility, the need to address affordable housing issues,
improved land use requirements, review and procedures, and an overall improvement in the
protection of Town resources in conformance with the five goals of the Town. More
specifically, the Town is expected to benefit from: preservation of fam~land and open space;
decreased intensity of land use; less burden on resources; maintenance of rural character;
strengthening of cultural features including hamlets and historic resources; expanded housing
opportunities including affbrdable housing; responsiveness to recreational and social needs; and,
protection of natural resources with resulting benefits to marine fisheries, wildlife habitat and the
qualities that make the Town unique. Table 2 lists and presents (briefly) the impacts and
mitigation features of the proposed action, hi a matrix format.
The DGEIS contained fifteen (15) alternatives that were developed, like the proposed action, to
achieve the Town's goals. These alternative scenarios were described, analyzed in terms of
compliance to the Town goals, and their potential impacts were discussed in the GEIS. The
results did not indicate that any of these alternatives would be preferable to the proposed action
in tenus of ability to achieve the Town's goals ~vhile minimizing potential adverse impacts nor
were any of the alternatives (other than the no-action alternative and the alternative to allow a
regional governmenffutility to establish a watershed protection zone) found to have any
significant adverse environmental impacts.
Page 16
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Findings Statement
TABLE 2
IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS - PRELIMINARY LMPACT M~TR1X
.., . ~ ools [Benefietal Pr~mnry Impacts and Imphcations
rmnmn~ rrocess, Zoning and Zoning
Code
1. A-C District Use/Dimensional Parameters Reduces potential development in agricultural areas; provides greater Land retains value and other use options;
(mechanics of zone; now essentially consistency with legislative intent; removes potentially incompatible uses from
same as other residential zones) farmland areas, special exception uses could be incompatible.
2. Rural Incentive District (based on Voluntary program that retains landowner's equity in landwhile retainingIand Funding efforts will continue; alternative
incentive zoning; exchange of benefits, in farming; gives Town & landowners "breathing space" while preservation equity measures are available (PDR,
i.e. maintain open space/farm use for efforts continue; maintains rural quality of Town; enables Town to conservation /agricultural easement, land gift
period of time in exchange of PDR at permanently attain long-term goal of 80% farmland/open space for tax benefit, voluntary yield reduction, TDR
appropriate yield/density) preservation/60% density reduction; provides "incentive" zoning with speciaI alternative economically viable uses (country
public benefit to Town and to the landowners, inns), and/or any combination of the abo,ve.
3. Agricultural Overlay District/A-C Zoning Provides greater control of development in agricultural areas; provides for
Review improved site design where development occurs; designates importance of Agricultural lands are key to Town character
(geographic definition and goals) unique geographic area/resource of Town. and economic vitality.
Mandatory regulation that reduces potential development in farmland areas;
allows for "transfer" of development rights to be redirected to areas with
suitable infrastructure; addresses long-term regionaI development pressure; SCDHS Article 6 density limitation is equal to
4. 5-Acre Upzoning (A~C District Town- improves compatibility between agricultural and residential use by reducing 5-acre zoning for agricultural areas with 80%
wide or specific area) number of residences in agricultural areas; maintains rural quality of Town; farm preservation; prior plans support 5-acre
enables Town to permanently attain long-term goal of 80% farmland/open zoning for groundwater protection; Iand retains
space preservation/60% density reduction; consistent with SGPA, farm/development value at 5-acre density.
WSM&WPS and Cornell study recommendations.
5. Revise Special Exception Provisions (to
ensure special permit standards are Enables better control of land use types and patterns in farmlands throughout Proper control methods are responsibility of
adequate to preserve character of Town Town. Town.
while protecting agriculture, etc.)
6. Review of Zoning Code (mandatory
clustering, recreational requirements,
revise Sign Ordinance; review R-O, LB Enables better control of land use types and land use patterns throughout
district; water dependent uses; accessory Town; provides alternative compatible land uses; provides for improved site Proper control methods are responsibility of
apartments, AHD standards (expirations), design; provides applicants with better understanding of Town requirements; Town; accessory apartments will be limited due
B&B's, home occupations, discourage >rovides better definition of hamlets; provides potential affordable housing; to sanitary flow restrictions; country inns to be
strip shopping centers & fast food in HB, )rovides consistency with goals and prior studies; improves enforcement, reviewed case-by-case.
flag lots, encourage common driveways;
change of use requirements, country inns)
Pagel7
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Findings Stntement
Imp .... ntation Tools Bea~ficial p~ma~ ~ac~ and implication~ Prelimin n ~ Discussion/Analysis
7. Review Zoning Map (Mattituck Creek
industriaI on Route 25 west of Greenport,
HD in Greenport; water dependent uses Provides for better land use pattern in sensitive and important areas of Town; Proper land use pattern is responsibility of
AHD - repeal or expand process) Town.
8. Review Subdivision Regulations (road Enables better control of site development; provides applicants with better
requirements; drainage; lighting; understanding of Town requirements; clarifies review procedures; potential Probable SEQRA Type li action, continuing
infi'astmcture; reduced density, decrease in infrastructure cost; provides greater compatibility with rural agency administration; change will provide
subdivision, clustering, yield calculations) character/quality, improved guidance and review procedures.
9. Review Highway Specifications (road Enables better control of site development; provides applicants with bette:
requirements; drainage; lighting; understanding of Town requirements; clarifies review procedures; potential Probable SEQRA Type II action, continuing
infrastructure) decrease in infrastructure cost; provides greater compatibility with rural agency administration; change will provide
character/quality and greater environmental protection, improved guidance and review procedures.
I0. Conservation Opportunities Planning Provides greater control of development in agricultural and environmentally
(COP) Process (define and implement 75- sensitive areas; enables Town to permanently attain long-term goal of 80%
80% land preservation through land use farmland/open space preservation; provides landowner with the option to sell Land retains value and other use options.
tools and density reduction) development rights and still obtain limited yield.
I1. Planning Process (formalize pre-
submission Enables more efficient & effective development review & planning processes; Improved coordination of land use input early
conference, review departmental )rovides forum for committee input./involvement; provides applicants with In process Mil result in benefit to development
organization; review committees; better understanding of Town requirements; clarifies review procedures, community.
emergency service provider input)
12. Transfer of Development Rights Enables relocation of development to areas appropriate and suitable for such
(mechanism for appropriate density growth, preservation of valuable farmland/open space; reduces acquisition cost Program is optional, but is an available tool;
relocation/management) of farmland/open space preservation, redirects growth to appropriate locations.
13. Planned Development District
Local Law (provide for flexible Enables better development patterns and infrastructure, to areas appropriate for Incentive zoning is valuable tool for flexible
development/yield in exchange of such; provides opportunity for special pubic benefit; provides land use land use opportunities; special public benefits
special public benefits, i.e. affordable flexibility f or beneficial projects, required.
housing, infrastructure, dedication, etc.)
I4. Tree Preservation Local Law (limit
removal of trees unless through Establishes protection of trees and site aesthetics; benefits habitat/ecology, Tree preservation is necessary; clearcutting
subdivision/site plan review; define tree visual resources, impacts ruraI character, habitat, erosion, visual,
size and applicable acreage) etc.
15. Critical Environmental Lands Local Law
(steep slopes and escarpments, shallow Provides protection of valuable natural resources of Town; provides applicants Adds clarity to definition ofbuildable land now
groundwater, wetlands, waterways; with better understanding of Town requirements; clarifies review procedures, in Code; recognizes/protects natural resources.
define for yield purposes)
Page 18
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Findings Statement
Implementati°n T°01s I B~nefi~ial Pri~a~ Impacts ahd Implicati0ns I prelimln"~/DiscuSsion/Analysis
16. SEQRA Local Law Review/Revision
(Type 1 List; possibly add Scenic- Enables better control of land use patterns & analysis of potential Identifies projects that may have an impact and
Byways; CEA's) environmental impacts, are more likely to require an ElS up front.
17. Scenic By-Ways Overlay
Development Controls (Route 48/25;
def'me corridor I000¥500'; reconcile Provides preservation/protection of valuable Town aesthetic character and Code would assist with protection of
farm structures; setbacks, mass, visual resources; provides applicants with better understanding of Town views/rural character for large # of viewers;
architecture; Committee review, SEQRA requirements; clarifies review procedures, early input/clarity.
designation)
Education/Enforcement
18. Agricultural District Review~Education
(Agriculture and Markets Law; Provides awareness; encourages farmowner participation; preserves farmland
encourage participation; maintain economy and benefits; maintains rural/farmland character; gives tangible tax Probable SEQRA Type I1 action; no significant
existing participants) benefits to farmowners, adverse impacts identified.
19. Create General Guidance Documents
(Design Provides for improved development control and design; streamlines review
Manual, transportation process; benefits resources that are topics of guidance documents (stormwater, Probable SEQRA Type II action; no significant
management/traffic calming, develop groundwater, intermodal transportation); protects environment, prevents adverse impacts identified.
illumination standards; BMPs; cross expense ofrepairing damage to environment, saves developers time.
access agreements; side road access)
20. Natural Environmental Education
(ensure good quality surface/ground Provides improved public awareness of natural environmental resources of Probable SEQRA Type Il action; no significant
surface waters; BMPs; IPM; coastal Town; increases protection of such resources, adverse impacts identified.
erosion control; beach width monitoring)
21. Watershed Protection Zone/SGPA's
(signage, Provides improved public awareness of natural environmental resources of Designation/control of watershed area is
educational materials, link with land use Town; increases protection of such resources, important for management, protection &
controls) education.
22. Encourage Use of Public Transportation Decreases use of private autos, with associated reductions ~n emmsions, trips,
(relate to congestion; increases use of public transit; reduces needs for transportation Probable SEQRA Type Il action; no significant
Transportation Management Plan; create improvements, extensions and infrastructure; adds off-road trails, etc. for averse impacts identified.
hubs; ferry linkages; winery shuttles) public use.
23. Transportation Management Plan
(Transportation Commission; encourage Decreases use of private autos, with associated reductions in emissions, trips,
transportation/pedestrian improvements; congestion; increases use of public transit; reduces needs for transportation
encourage public transportation, create improvements, extensions and infrastructure; increases efficiency of Intent is to promote intermodal and alternative
hamlet hubs; ferry linkages, winery transportation system operations; increases walkability of hamlet centers; transportation to reduce congestion; no
shuttles, signage "best route to"; work protects rural character, significant adverse impact identified.
with LIRR)
Page 19
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Findings Statement
lmPlemen~tiOa TOOls ; B~neficial prlmary ImpaCts and Impli~fions ;prelimlnary Discussion/AnalYsis
24. Economic Development Plan (to:
manage tourism; protect commercial
fishing; enhance recreational boating; Improves economic health & efficiency of Town's commercial uses; increases
emphasize uniqueness of agricultural overall vitality of Town's economy and public perception as an attractive
opportunities and mariculture; included tourism/recreation destination; directs public infrastructure in a cost-effective lntcnt is to improve socio-economic aspects of
in capital improvement program; support manner; helps entrepreneurs establish/revitalize businesses; preserves cultural Town; no significant adverse impact identified.
B&B's and network of visitor centers; and aesthetics resources.
capitalize on historic character and
rehabilitation & reuse ofthase resources)
25. Enforcement (illegal conversion of
agricultural
buildings; use expansion controls; Reduces illegal/improper/unsafe land uses; ensures that Town goals will be
change of use met. Probable SEQRA Type II action.
requirements)
Capital Improvements/Expenditures
26. Improve Waterfront Access
(acquisitions; Increases public access to waterfront & Town control of waterfront uses; Consistent with LWRP and best management
obtain/maintain; inventory Town land improves quality of life; ensures adequate access; promotes local economy and of scarce coastal land resources for Townwide
and improve) eeo-tourism, benefit.
27. Administer Parks of Town-wide
Significance Increases Town control of and quality of public parks; better services and Parks are important aspect of
(for benefit of all Town residents) facilities for residents, recreational/social setting and Townwide
28. Prioritize and Supplement CPPP needs.
(additional
acquisitions; scenic by-ways Continues & expands valuable Town-wide open space preservation program; Bond issue would have Town endorsement; 2%
sales tax not a direct burden to local taxpayers.
acquisitions; sensitive land; prioritize)
29. Create a Centralized Year-Round Increases Town-wide recreation facilities; better services and facilities for Town responsible to provide community
Recreational Complex residents.
Direct Town Management facilities to meet required service demand.
30. Affordable Housing Policy
(geographic/type diversity, targets and Addresses critical demographic need for affordable housing at various low-
new development, review every, 2-5 moderate income levels; beneficial socio-economic impact; enables Town to Town accepts responsibility to provide
years; provide incentives, accessory increase hamlet development & identity with associated benefits (stimulates incentives/ mandates necessary to meet
apts., financial assistance; Housing economic activity, reduced congestion, mixed housing opportunities), affordable housing needs.
Authority)
Page 20
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Findings Statement
Implementation T°oIs B~nefi~i~ pri~ Impa~S aad Implicafibns Prellmina~ Discussion/Analysis
31. Concentrate Development in Hamlets Increases Town control of development in hamlets while reducing Smart growth principals direct growth to
(define hamlets; ensure appropriate development elsewhere; increases economic &sociaI health & vitality of hamlet centers proximate to services to
infrastructure; affordable housing; link hamlets; increases hamlet "sense of place"; enables Town to increase hamle improve social setting and reduce external
with land use mechanisms/tools; capital development & identity with associated benefits (stimulates economic activity, traffic; strengthens hamlet and businesses;
improvement program;traffic calming) reduced congestion, mixed housing opportunities), assist with need for affordable/ alternate
32. Park District/School District Boundaries housing.
Conformity (determine need and Enables improved coordination of planning between school and park districts Probable SEQRA Type II action; no significant
reconcile districts) and recreational facilities of both; provides park access to entire Town. adverse impact identified.
33. Update Park Inventory and Management Facilitates assessment of need and corresponding ~mprovements; enables
Plan (prior 1980 study needs updating; improved management of park and public recreational facilities; provides Probable SEQRA Type II action; no significant
input into GIS; manage recreational improved plan for expenditure of park funds; enables Town to budget for adverse impact identified.
resources) capital and operating expenses.
34. Create a Parks and Recreation
Department (manage Town properties, Enables improved management & operation of park and public recreationa
recreational resources, non-church facilities. Town to evaluate need for new department.
cemeteries)
35. Scenic By-Ways Management
Program (CR 48/NYS 25 currently
designated; signage, link with Scenic Enables improved control of transportation resources and simultaneous Scenic By-Ways are of Townwide importance
By-Ways Overlay for standards, ~reservation/protection of valuable Town aesthetic character, and observed by many viewers.
guidelines & land use controls)
36. Trail Inventory/TraiI
Committee/Bikeways (Transportation
Commission exists, determine Provides for significant Town-wide recreational, aesthetic and environmental
appropriate committee, inventory, input resources and use thereof by public; promotes alternative transportation; Probable SEQRA Type 1I action; no significant
into GIS to manage, trailhead directional provides public recreational opportunities supportive ofruraI character., adverse impact identified.
information in kiosks)
37. Inventory and Manage Cultural
Resources (archaeologically sensitive Provides for improved preservation, restoration, management & beneficial usc Probable SEQRA Type II action; cultural
areas; Historic District of Town-wide cultural resources; maintain historic/cultural Town character; resources are part of Town's heritage and
designation; plaques; landmark conforms with Historic Preservation Act. character.
designation; input into GIS, manage)
38. Architectural Review Board and Design rowdes improved control & regulation of development, with associated
Parameters (determine need for and Improvement in aesthetics of Town; maintain consistent cultural Town
establish ARB; generate guidance character; provides socio-economicbenefit. Architectural qualities are important due to
documents and integrate into land use Southold's unique cultural/rural character.
review process)
Page 21
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Findings Statement
Implementati0n T0°Is Beneficial primary Im0act~ and lmnli~...~,a.. .....
~ - . ...... : rre~mmary Dlscusslon]Aualysis
39. Scenic Advisory Board (determine need Provides for improved Town control & preservation of valuable characteristics Scenic by-ways and resources are of Townwide
for SAB, to manage Scenic By-Ways which contributes significantly to Town aesthetics, and thereby its value as importance and observed by many viewers.
Progra~m) recreational/tourist destination; economic asse~rotection.
Inter-A eric /Quasi-A erie Initiatives
40. Housing Financial ^ssist0nce Program Addresses critical demographic need for affordable housing at various Iow-
(North Fork Housing Alliance; review moderate income levels; bcneficiaI socio-cconomi¢ impact; enables Town to
other opportunities based on 1993 report increase hamlet development & identity with associated benefits (stimulates Public-private partnerships beneficial to
and Updated Affordable Housing economic activity, reduced congestion, mixed housing opportunities); benefits create/stimulate necessary affordable housing
Policy) accrue as a result of public-private partnerships and less expenditure of Towr opportunities.
funds.
41. Develop Water Supply Master Plan Provides potable water to Town residents; provides improved & cost-effective Town residents need, require and deserve a
(Town involvement, SCWA preparing; method of Town control of future development by determining where dependable source of potable water for daily
agencies)manage infrastructure with other coordinationinfrastructureprovides(and greatertherebYbenefit.gruwth) should be located; inter-agency needs; water resources are limited and require
42. Emergency Preparedness management.
(groundwater contamination, drought
management; ensure adequate Protects Town residents by pre-planning and inter-agency coordinated Probable Type II; Town residents need, require
emergency services (police, fire, response; establishes Town procedures & plans in case of emergency, thereby and deserve proper emergency preparation and
ambulance); flood hazard mitigation minimizing damage costs and safety problems, services.
plan; erosion)
43. Social Services Programs (senior citizen
care, adequate community facilities, day Establishes inter-agency coordinated Town-wide program to meet the resident Probable Type Il; Town residents need, require
needs; socio-economic benefits to residents in need of key services; and deserve proper social services; no impact
libraries) care, meals on wheels, churches, strengthens overall community and social interaction, identified.
Page 22
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Findings Statement
The impact analysis prepared for the proposed action and analyzed in the DGEIS was based
upon developmen! confo~w,ing to the above-referenced recommendations; aa' the analysis
h*dicated that no adverse envh'onmental impacts u,ouM result fi'om the proposed action, it may
be concluded that the hnplementation tools themselves wo~dd not resttlt in adverse impacts.
COMPREHlq~,NSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
This section specifies the choice of tools and procedures which the Town may consider (along
with reasonable alternatives) in the future in order to achieve its goals as stated in the DGEIS. A
GEIS process has been completed to analyze the potential impacts of the listed tools. No
significant adverse impacts were identified as a result of this analysis. The GEIS process fulfills
the Town's obligation to analyze these impacts. However, certain actions may, by their nature,
wmTant additional analysis. The subsection immediately below lists each goal, followed by
those tools that would serve to achieve that goal. Following that is a brief description of the
SEQRA procedures which would be appropriate for the type of future action proposed.
Findings/Strategy Procedures
The Goal - To preserve land including farmland, open space and recreational landscapes
The individual tools that address land preservation goals are:
Planning Process, Zoning and Zoning Code Rural incentive District [proposed]
Agricultural Overlay District/A-C Zoning Review [proposed]
A-C District Use/Dimensional Parametem [existing]
o 5-Acre Upzoning [proposed]
Review of Zoning Code [existing]
o Conservation Subdivision Program [proposed]
Transfer of Development Rights [proposed]
° Planned Development District Local Law [proposed]
Tree Preservation LocalLaw [proposed]
° Scenic By-Ways Overlay Development Controls [proposed]
Edncation/Enforcement
~ Agricultural District Review/Education [existing]
o Watershed Protection Zone/SGPA's [existing]
Capital Improvements/Expenditures
o Improve Waterfront Access [existing]
o Prioritize and Supplement CPPP [existing]
° Create a Centralized Year-Round Recreational Complex [proposed]
D#*ect Town Management
o Park District/School District Boundaries Conformity [existing]
° Update Park Inventory and Management Plan [existing]
Create a Parks and Recreation Department [proposed]
Page 23
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Findings Statement
Scenic By-Ways Management Program [proposed]
Trail Inventory/Trail Committee/Bikeways [proposed/existing]
The Goal - To preserve the rural, cultural and historic character of the hamlets and
surrounding countryside.
The following lists the tools noted above as well as others that relate to maintaining the character
of hamlets and surrounding areas:
?lannh~g Process, Zon#~g and ZonhTg Code
Rural incentive District [proposed]
5-Acre Upzoning [proposed]
o Transfer of Development Rights [proposed]
Planned Development District Local Law [proposed]
o Tree Preservation Local Law [proposed]
Scenic By-Ways Overlay Development Controls [proposed]
Education/Enforcement
° Create Gener~ Guidance Documents [proposed]
Wmershed Protection Zone/SGPA's [existing]
Enforcement [existing]
Dh'ect Town ~lanagement
Concen~ate Development in Hmlets [existing]
Scenic By-Ways M~agement Pro~ [proposed]
~ventu~ ~d Manage Cultural Resources [existing]
Architec~al Review Board and Design Parmetem [existing]
The Goal - To preserve the Town's remaining natural environment; to prevent further
deterioration of the Town's natural resources and to restore the Town's degraded natural
resources back to their previous quality.
The following lists those tools that assist in implementing this goal:
Plannh~g Process, Zoning and Zonh~g Code
Rural Incentive District [proposed]
o 5-Acre Upzoning [proposed]
Review of Zoning Code [existing]
o Review Zoning Map [existing]
Conservation Subdivision Program [proposed]
Transfer of Development Rights [proposed]
Tree Preservation Local Law [proposed]
Critical Environmental Lands Local Law [proposed]
Education/Enforcement
Create General Guidance Documents [proposed]
o Natural Environmental Education [existing]
Watershed Protection Zone/SGPA's [existing[
Page 24
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Findings Statement
* Economic Development Plan [proposed]
Capital Improvements/Expenditures
o Administer Parks of Town-wide Significance [existing]
Direct Town Management
o Concentrate Development in Hamlets [existing]
, Scenic Advisory Board [proposed]
Into'-Agency/Quasi-Agency Initiatives
* Develop Water Supply Master Plan [proposed/existing]
The Goal - To preserve and promote a range of housing and business opportunities that
support a socio-economicaHy diverse community.
Implementation tools that inter-relate with housing and business planning are listed as follows:
PlannhTg Process, Zoning and Zonh~g Code
Agricultural Overlay District/A-C Zoning Review [proposed]
° A-C District Use/Dimensional Parameters [existing]
° Review Special Exception Provisions [existing]
o Review of Zoning Code [existing]
° Review Zoning Map [existing]
o Transfer of Development Rights [proposed]
Planned Development District Local Law [proposed]
Education/Enforcement
Agricultural District Review/Education [existing]
Create General Guidance Documents [proposed]
Economic Development Plan [proposed]
Direct Town ~Vianagement
· Affordable Housing Policy [proposed]
· Concentrate Development in Hamlets [existing]
Inter-Agency/Quasi-Agency Initiatives
· Housing Financial Assistance Program [existing]
· Social Services Programs [existing]
The Goal - To increase transportation efficiency and to create attractive alternatives to
automobile travel, while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of roadways in the
Tools identified as part of this CIS that relate to transportation planning are listed as follows:
Planning Process, Zonh~g and Zonh~g Code
Review of Zoning Code [existing]
Review Subdivision Regulations [existing]
° Review Highway Specifications [existing]
Planning Process & Encourage Committee/Agency Participation [existing]
SEQRA Local Law Review/Revision [existing]
Edncatio~z/Enforcement
Page25 ~
Seuthold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Findings Statement
Create General Guidance Documents [proposed]
Encourage Use of Public Transportation [existing]
Transportation Management Plan [proposed]
D#'ect Town Management
Concentrate Development in Hamlets [existing]
Scenic By-Ways Management Program [proposed]
Trail Inventory/Trail Committee/Bikeways [proposed/existing]
b~ter-Agency/Quasi-Agency Initiatives
Emergency Preparedness [existing]
Thresholds for Further Review
It is noted that the SEQRA regulations state that "GEIS's and their findings should set forth
specific conditions or criteria under which fitture actions will be undertaken or approved
including requh'ements for any subsequen! SEQR compliance." Therefore, SEQRA review of
future implementation will be conducted pursuant to the GEIS procedures for future actions as
follows:
6 NYCRR Part 617.10(d)
No further SEQRA compliance is required if a subsequent proposed action will be carried
out in conformance with the conditions and thresholds established for such actions in the
GEiS or its findings statement;
An amended findings statement must be prepared if the subsequent proposed action was
adequately addressed in the GEIS but was not addressed or was not adequately addressed
in the findings statement for the GEIS;
A negative declaration must be prepared if a subsequent proposed action was not
addressed or was not adequately addressed in the GEIS, and tbe subsequent action will
not result in any significant environmental impacts;
A supplement to the final GEIS must be prepared if the subsequent proposed action was
not addressed or was not adequately addressed in the GEIS and the subsequent action may
have one or more significant adverse environmental impacts.
CERTIFICATION OF FINDINGS TO APPROVE/UNDERTAKE:
Based upon the information contained in the Final GEIS, as outlined in these Findings and the
supporting documentation provided, the Southold Town Board hereby finds that the proposed
Comprehensive Implementation Strategy minimizes potential environmental impacts and will
provide the necessary balance between the protection of the environment and the need to
accommodate social and economic considerations. Therefore, having considered the Draft
GEIS, the Final GEIS and having further considered the foregoing written facts and conclusions
Page26
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Findings Statement
relied upon to meet the requirements of 6NYCRR Part 617.11, this Statement of Findings
certifies that:
1. The requirements of 6NYCRR Part 617 have been met.
Consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations from among the reasonable
alternatives thereto, the proposed action is one which minimizes or avoids adverse environmental
impacts to the maximum extent practicable, including the effects disclosed in the Final Generic
Environmental impact Statement.
Consistent with social, economic, and other essential considerations, to the maximum extent
practicable, adverse environmental effects revealed in the Final Generic Environmental Impact
Statement process will be minimized or avoided by adoption of the proposed plan and by
incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigative measures which are practicable
contained herein.
The Toxvn Board, pursuant to 6NYCRR Part 617.11 has prepared the Findings stated herein and
shall cause it to be filed in accordance with 6NYCRR Part 617.12(b).
Copies of this Statement has been filed with:
US Army Corps of Engineers, Mark Hellmann
NYSDEC, Commissioner, Albany
NYSDEC, Division of Regulatory Services, Albany
NYSDEC, Regional Office, Division of Environmental Permits
Environmental Notice Bulletin
NYSDOT Region 10, Acting Regional Director, Tom Olerich, PE
NYS Dept. of State, George Stafford, Dir. Of Coastal Resources
Central Pine Barrens Joint Policy and Planning Commission
Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services, Wastewater Management Division, Stephen Costa, PE,
Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services, Office of Ecology, K. Shaw, Bureau Supervisor
Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works, Commissioner Charles J. Bartha, PE
Suffolk County Water Authority
Suffolk County Planning Commission, Thomas Isles, A1CP, Director
Joshua Horton, Supervisor, Town of Southold
Greg Yakaboski, Esq, Town of Southold Attorney
Town Board, Town of Southold
Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk, Town of Southold
Planning Board, Town of Southold
Incorporated Village of Greenport, Christie Hallock, Village Clerk
Town of Riverhead, Barbara Grattan, Town Clerk
Town of Southampton, Marietta Seaman, Town Clerk
Town of Shelter Island, Dorothy Ogar, Town Clerk
Parties of Interest
Page27
Tmvn of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
APPENDIX B
Planning Report to the Town Board, TDR Program
Updated 3-26~08 for DSGEIS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
Town of Southold
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM
Planning Report to the Town Board
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
CONTENTS
PROGRAM FOUNDATION
PAGE
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
Components of a Successful TDR Program
Public Need
Town Objectives
Background and History of Town TDR and Related Programs
PROGRAM OVERVIEW AND GENERAL PARAMETERS
7
7
10
10
11
PROGRAM ELEMENTS
13
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
Sending Zones
Receiving Zones
Interrelationship of Land Preservation Programs and Tools
Density Limitations in the Receiving Zones
Program Mechanics Summary
$.0 CONCLUSION
14
14
18
21
23
28
31
Page
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A
Attachment B-1
Attachment B-2
Attachment B-3
Attachment C
Attachment D
Attachment E
Attachment F
Attachment G
Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Background
Sending Area Map
List of Sending Zone Parcels
Receiving Area Maps and Potential PDD Parcels
Sample R-20 Local Law
Land Preservation Flow Chart
SCDHS General Guidance Memorandum #17
SCDHS Design Flow Factors
Hamlet Development Model
Table 3-1
Table 4-1
Table 4-2
Table 4-3
Tables
School Districts and Hamlets
Sending Area Credits by School District
Potential Receiving Credits
Sending Credits vs. Receiving Credits
13
17
26
26
Page ii
Town of Southold
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM
Planning Report to the Town Board
Draft 6-25-07; Revised for DSGEIS 3-26-08
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document provides a TDR Planning Report to the Town Board of the Town of Southold for
consideration in pursuing a Transfer of Development Rights program. The report was prepared
by Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC (NP&V) in coordination with a team of Town representatives
including planning, data processing, land preservation and legal staff: The team sought to
prepare a simple, understandable and implementable TDR program for consideration by the
Town Board. After seeking input from the Town Board on various aspects of a program, the
team endeavored to work through complex issues and consider the TDR program in relation to
other land preservation programs and planning goals of the Town. This report outlines the team
recommendations for a program, and provides discussion of the rational for these
recommendations. The Town Board will ultimately determine the nature of a TDR program, so
at this time, this report is intended to provide a basis for discussion, analysis under the State
Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) through a Generic Environmental Impact
Statement (GEIS) and to assist in identifying alternatives to the recommendations as contained
herein.
The program outlines the components of a successful TDR program, which includes: 1. Encouraging TDR Sales
2. Selecting Receiving Sites
3. Facilitating the Use of TDRs, and
4. Building Public Support
Through further Board consideration, hearings and the EIS process, it is the hope of the team that
public support can be garnered for a meaningful TDR program. This program is voluntary, and
represents an additional tool which the Town can use for preservation with corresponding shift in
density to appropriate locations. In addition, the program contemplates that one sending credit
will equal one development unit in a receiving area.
The program considers farmland as a primary candidate for sending areas. This is because
farmland has residual value after transfer of development rights, allowing such land to remain in
productive use to the benefit of the owner. In addition, wooded areas, environmentally sensitive
areas and other forms of open space are prime candidates for the use of outright fee title
acquisition, as these lands must be managed and maintained for passive open space and/or
recreation. Since the use of TDR to preserve some farmland does not require expenditure of
Page 1
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
public funds, it allows the dollars allocated for Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) and fee
title acquisition to be leveraged more effectively for farmland and open space preservation.
The Town conducted the Hamlet Study in 2005, and has recently taken initiatives to establish
Hamlet Locus (HALO) boundaries for the purpose of identifying those areas of the Town which
represent hamlet centers. Through many past planning studies, the hamlet centers have been
thought of as areas where additional properly planned development could be sustained in a
manner that promotes good planning. This TDR Planning Study reinforces this planning concept
by identifying the HALe's as receiving areas for the purpose of shifting density from farmland
to the hamlet centers.
The form that development takes within the HALO areas is a critical aspect of designing the
TDR program. For the purpose of this program, it was determined that a simple and easy way to
implement the initial program would involve only redemption of credits for the purpose of
creating residential dwelling units, not for increase in commercial density. Zoning districts
within the hamlets which are identified for receiving TDR credits include the B, HB, LB, Re,
AHD, HD, R-40, R-80 and A-C zones.
Through discussions and research, it was determined that there were a limited number of ways
that credits could be redeemed and density could be realized within the HALe's. The form that
increased density could take includes the following:
· Single Family Homes
· Two-Fanfily Homes
· Multiple Family Dwellings
· Detached Accessory Dwelling Units, and
· Mixed use or flexible zoning developments under potential future Plmmed Development District
These forms of TDR credit redemption would be provided for through the TDR local law that
would specify the parameters for development as noted above. The identification of forms of
credit redemption provides a means to visualize and understand the type of development that
would result in the HALO's as a result of the TDR program. Part of the benefit of the program is
the creation of options for various forms of development that would result in use of credits in a
manner that does not overburden the HALe's and does not create any one type of new
development. This issue identified the need for a limit to the amount of increased density which
would occur in the HALO areas. Consideration was also given to Suffolk County Department of
Health Services (SCDHS) density requirements.
In 2006 a team was formed through the Town's Planning and Zoning Committee to create a
Hamlet Development Model that would determine the potential TDR credits that could be placed
in the HALe's based on a 20,000 square foot (SF) lot size. The concept and methodology of the
Hamlet Development Model is recommended as a basis for establishing limitations on the
amount of development which can occur within each hamlet. The total acreage of each HALO
was determined, then reduced by removing unbuildable lands (wetlands and community
facilities/infrastructure), existing protected lands and lots less than 20,000 SF, and density was
then calculated based on the resultant total buildable acreage in the HALO. A total number of
Page 2
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
potential TDR units was computed for each HALO area. For the purpose of this study, and
consistent with the Hamlet Development Model meetings that were conducted in 2006, it is
recommended that several additional factors related to potential over-development be
considered. Each hamlet was conceptualized as including both development and open space at a
ratio of 70 percent developed area to 30 percent open space. A cap of 30 percent of the total was
applied as a value that would be monitored and potentially revised over time as HALO
development is realized.
In comparing the number of available sending credits, to the number of potential receiving
credits, it is evident that there are more sending credits than receiving credits. If TDR were the
only mechanism for land preservation, there would be concern that land preservation goals
would not be achieved; however, the Sending Zone TDR's will be eligible for PDR and other
preservation methods.
The large number of available Sending Zone TDR's indicates that there would be a continuing
need for PDR as well as Conservation Subdivisions. The TDR program will supplement the
public expenditures associated with PDR and fee title acquisition of open space lands, by
providing a means whereby private landowners, developers and investors can acquire
development rights for the purpose of increasing density in connection with parcels in the HALO
areas. The combination of these programs gives the Town multiple land use tools to achieve
land preservation goals.
As development in the HALO's continues, the Town may wish to review the cap and ultimately
achieve density increases at a level between the recommended 30 percent cap and the total
potential receiving zone credits. An annual audit by the Town's Planning Department would
maintain growth rate by recommending modifications as needed.
The 20,000 SF development model is a conceptual residential density scenario. Consideration
could be given to expanding the program in the future to include other methods to increase
commercial density in the hamlets through TDR credit redemption, in a manner that would not
adversely impact the character of these areas. This must be balanced with SCSC Article 6
compliance, parldng requirements and design guidelines.
The use of PDD's remains a recommendation to assist in the redemption of TDR credits. This
technique has been used successfully in other Long Island Towns, and provides a means to
achieve public benefits which could include use TDR's, in connection with creative, flexible and
compatible development projects.
The Hamlet Development Model provides residents with the assurance that reasonable density
limits will be established in their communities. From a land use perspective, the overriding
benefit of TDR is the preservation of land where development is inappropriate (such as
agricultural areas in the Town of Southold), with a resultant increase in density in the hamlets.
Hamlets, and their surrounding HALO areas, have been identified and mapped by the Town in
recognition of the fact that these areas are appropriate for additional development given the
following land use considerations:
Page 3
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
· Infrastructure such as roads, utilities and water supply currently exist.
· Residential density proximate to the hamlets strengthens the business environment.
· Residential density in the HALe's provides opportunity for alternative transportation such as
walking and bicycle travel.
· Use of TDR's in the HALe's may promote beneficial investment and redevelopment.
· Use of TDR's in the HALe's will provide alternative forms of housing to single fanfily detached
development, thus increasing housing stock providing potentially more affordable housing of
various types.
As a result, the author's of this report believe that transfer of density to the HALO's in
accordance with the Hamlet Development Model and the considerations noted above, is a
responsible form of development which allows the Town to achieve both significant land
preservation goals while also preserving the scale and uniqueness of each of the hamlets,
provided that appropriate design standards and guidelines are established, as per the
recommendation in the Hamlet Development Model.
In conclusion, the TDR program is only expected to address a portion of the potential available
credits. The Town of Southold continues to pursue other land preservation programs and tools
listed as follows:
· Fee Tide Lamd Purchase
· Purchase of Development Rights
· Conservation Subdivision
· Stamdard Subdivision
This TDR Planning Report is a draft report prepared by NP&V in coordination with Town
professionals that will assist in implementing the program on an ongoing basis. This report is
submitted to the Town Board for the purpose of identifying a simple and effective TDR program
which considers the unique aspects of the Town of Southold, ensures compliance with SCDHS
density requirements, and factors in other related programs to ensure program compatibility to
achieve the planning and preservation goals of the Town. It is requested that the Town Board
receive this report for the purpose of conducting the SEQRA process through preparation of a
GEIS. This will ensure that the potential environmental impacts of the program are addressed,
and will provide a forum for public input and consensus building.
Page 4
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
Town of Southold
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM
Planning Report to the Town Board
Dra£16-25-07; Revised 3-26-08 £or DSGEIS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Town of Southold is seeldng to implement a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
Program for the purpose of enhancing the range of tools available for land preservation and to
provide incentives for appropriate growth in the hamlets. The Town Board of the Town of
Southold is pro-actively involved in advancing this initiative. As a means of defining a program
that recognizes the complexities of a TDR program in Southold, the Town Board retained an
environmental planning consulting firm to coordinate efforts with a team of Town
representatives. The program as recommended by the team is outlined in this Planning Report to
the Town Board, and is intended to provide a base framework for environmental impact
evaluation [in the form of a Supplement to the prior Generic Environmental Impact Statement
(SGEIS) for the Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy (CIS)] and to facilitate
drafting of a proposed Local Law to implement the Program.
The program contained herein provides recommendations only, based on the judgment of the
team members. The team was designed to include Town representatives who recognize and
appreciate the inter-relationships among land preservation programs, data management, smart
growth planning principles, and the planning and legal process, and would be expected to
continue in a capacity that will assist in implementing the program once some form of legislation
is adopted. The rationale associated with various recommendations is discussed relative to
various program elements, in order to identify various complexities and the logic used to resolve
issues. Those issues which still remain can be identified and studied as alternatives in the
Supplemental GEIS process. While recommendations and guidance are provided through this
report, final decisions are to be made by the Town Board, and flexibility exists in outlining and
implementing program elements as directed by the Board.
Team participants are listed as follows:
Mark Terry, Town Principal Plarmer ~d Project Manager
John Sepenoski, Town Data Processing
Patricia Firmega<, Esq., Town Attorney
Melissa Spiro, Town La<d Preservation Coordinator
Leslie Weisma<, Member Southold Town ZBA & Chair of Southold Hamlet Stakeholder
Conmfittee
Chaxles Voorhis, CEP, AICP, Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, Consulta<t
The team met on a regular basis between January and May of 2007; periodic involvement of
Town Board members provided direction and policy guidance during the course of this study.
Other Town staff and resources of Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC ("NP&V"), consultant to the
Page 5
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
Town, were used in the preparation of this study. This report constitutes the study's findings and
team recommendations resulting from these efforts.
The purpose of this report is to define the elements of a Town of Southold TDR Program. It
should be noted that, through the TDR Program, the Town seeks to provide an additional
mechanism for the preservation of farmland, without expenditure of public funds. At present,
the Town has successful farmland and open space preservation programs underway through the
Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program and fee title acquisition of land. In addition,
the Conservation Subdivision program provides a means to reduce density and maximize open
space preservation. The Town seeks to continue these programs, but seeks to provide a means to
expand programs which provide for land preservation in those areas of the Town which warrant
such preservation, and to leverage funds through alternative preservation tools that do not require
public expenditures. The proposed TDR program is viewed as a means of accomplishing this
goal.
Existing preservation programs primarily involve purchase of fee title land or purchase of
development rights which result in the permanent extinguishment of development rights of a
given parcel or part of a parcel of land. The TDR Program is recognized as a program that shifts
development (hereafter, referred to as a more general term of "density") from the rural areas of
the Town, where density is not desired, to the hamlets where an increase in density is viewed as
appropriate. The balance between preservation, density shift and ability of the hamlet areas to
absorb density while maintaining the character and qualities valuable to the residents of Southold
will be examined in this study as key elements of the overall program.
Once the Town Board approves this document for the purpose of commencing review under the
State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"), a Draft Supplement to the Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for the Town of Southold Comprehensive Implementation
Strategy will be prepared. This will provide an opportunity for further review by the Town
Board, the public and involved agencies. Issues which warrant study of alternatives to the
program or elements of the program can be identified and examined in the Alternatives section
of the DSGEIS. The DSGEIS will be the subject of a public hearing and comment period, and
all substantive comments on the DSGEIS will be addressed in a Final SGEIS. The Final SGEIS
may support the TDR program, or changes to the program may occur if necessary to adequately
respond to comments. After completion of a FSGEIS, a 10-day public consideration period must
pass, after which the Town may issue a Statement of Findings which would form the basis for a
decision on the TDR program. In addition to compliance with SEQRA, completion of this
process ensures that involved agencies, parties of interest and the public have an opportunity to
comment on and provide input into the TDR program, and further ensures that the Town Board
has the benefit of this input in the decision-making process.
Page 6
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
2.0 PROGRAM FOUNDATION
The Town of Southold has a long history of preserving its rural heritage and character through
sound land use planning. Since early 2005, the Town Board has had a limited TDR ordinance
(Chapter 117), to use as an additional tool in achieving affordable housing goals in tandem with
land preservation efforts. The TDR mechanism was recommended for widespread use in the
Town CIS of 2003 and the Town Hamlet Study of 2005. Additional insight regarding the
existing Town TDR law and the prior findings of the Town CIS are contained in subsections of
Section 2.0. It is noteworthy that the Town CIS included TDR as an implementation mechanism
number 12, and the CIS was the subject of a Generic Environmental Impact Statement. The
Findings of the CIS recognized TDR as a valuable land preservation/density relocation
mechanism subject to further definition of the program. This TDR Program Planning Report and
any subsequent SEQRA review builds upon the prior Town CIS recognition of the
environmental and social value of TDR in the Town of Southold.
In this proposed TDR Program, the Town seeks to make use of a land use tool whereby sites in
established rural areas of the Town ("sending areas"), would shift density to target hamlet
parcels within the respective hamlet HALO zones where appropriate infrastructure, infill
potential, reuse potential, public services and/or lack of environmental constraints are present
("receiving areas").
The following sections present additional information on the TDR concept, the Town's need for
such a program, the Town-wide objectives of preservation, and the history of the Town's efforts
to preserve land through TDR.
2.1 Components of Successful TDR Programs
Transfer of Development Rights is defined in the New York State Town Law as "...the process
by which development rights are tran~*ferred fi'om one lot, parcel, or area of land in a sending
district to another lot, parcel, or area of land in one or more receiving districts." This planning
tool is used to protect land where development is not desired by shifting density to more
appropriate areas.
TDR is a well-established, progressive land use tool that has been utilized nationwide in order to
preserve one or more significant environmental characteristics of land areas for the benefit of an
entire community, while at the same time protecting the value of landowners' property by
enabling the development potential of that land to be realized elsewhere in the community, in a
location more appropriate for development.
A TDR program permits the transfer of density, which would retain landowners' equity in their
land. Transferred development credits can be marketed privately or supported through municipal
measures to facilitate the program. The Town can determine in advance how transferred credits
or density may be used. For instance, transferred credits can be targeted for use as residential
units in hamlet areas where density and planned growth is appropriate and sustainable. In order
Page 7
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
for a TDR program to work, the Town must identify sending and receiving areas for reduction
and corresponding increase in development.
A TDR program must be designed with a number of common elements in order to be successful
in achieving the comprehensive planning goals it is intended to achieve. The Program should be
conceived and implemented through cooperative efforts between local and regional governments
and planners, civic and environmental groups and other stakeholders. The major part of a
successful program is to ensure that an adequate, achievable or attractive incentive package
exists, in order to draw landowner and developer interest. An analysis of other TDR programs in
the U.S. identified the following factors that were more likely to contribute to a successful
program. Southold Town has already implemented some of these recommendations which will
be reviewed in the next section of this report:
1. Encouraging TDR Sales
Successful TDR pro,ams encourage TDR sales by reducing the development potential of the sending
sites through zoning incentives, favorable alternatives to development, restrictions, envirorm~ental
regulations, farmland protection measures, and ordinances that require adequate public facilities
before development cam occur.
Just as sending site owners need to be encouraged to sell their development rights, receiving site
developers must be motivated to buy TDRs. Developers will only buy TDRs if they can make a
~eater profit from a project that uses TDRs. A most important concept is that there must be
sufficient incentive to encourage a seller to sell, and a buyer must be encouraged to buy.
2. Selecting Receiving Sites
One approach is for the conm~tmity to consider desi~mating village or hamlet areas where more
concentrated development will be encouraged. TDRs cam then be used to obtain the higher densities
that are possible in these select areas.
3. Facilitating Use q/'TDRs
After appropriate stakeholder involvement and adoption of appropriate legislation subject to public
disclosure, heatings and review processes, most conm~unities approve TDRs administratively,
without public heaxings or discretionaxy decisions. This approach can increase the use of TDRs since
it gives developers ~eater certainty over the cost, tinting, amd approval of their projects.
Many conm~tmities also facilitate transfers by treating TDRs as a conm~odity, available for sale to
anyone at any time. In addition, some progran~s feature a "TDR bank" which serves as a buyer amd
seller of TDRs when private transactions become too tinge consunting. Finally, the most successful
TDR pro,ams provide ongoing infom~ation to the general public, as well as staff support amd
instructional materials to assist TDR buyers and sellers.
4. Building Public Support
A successful TDR pro,am will mean more intense development at receiving sites. The conm~unity
as a whole needs to understand and accept that this will occur. Conm~unity-wide, comprehensive
planning efforts are in~portant in developing TDR progran~s. In the context ora comprehensive plan,
Page 8
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
the public is encouraged to identify areas where more intense development would be appropriate (i.e.,
the receiving areas) as well as areas that need to be preserved (i.e., the sending areas).
Not surprisingly, the most successful TDR pro,ams are in conm~unities that specifically desigmed
their comprehensive plans to be implemented through TDR.
An effective TDR pro,am can add optimism to the plm~ning process by offering a way for
compensation to be provided to property owners without the use of tax dollars. This optimism cam
encourage the public to establish stronger lamd use protection goals.
Thus, an adequate incentive may not be a sufficient feature for a TDR program to be successful,
but it is a necessary one. Such an incentive could include provision for an increased density for
transferred yield, so that an increased number of credits are generated for a landowner, thereby
increasing the potential return on investment. Such an increase in development potential must be
carefully considered by each jurisdiction contemplating TDR so that transferred density reduces
impacts through reduced unit size and appropriate siting to ensure sustainable development in
areas where infrastructure and the land use pattern is capable of accommodating growth. In
addition, the unit types realized in a receiving zone may be smaller and have less impact than if
the same unit were developed in the sending area. Finally, it is common for only a small number
of credits to be located at a particular receiving site, as there are other physical and
environmental factors such as parking and sanitary capacity to be considered. This is a unique
consideration in the Town of Southold, and it is possible that, given water resource limitations,
receiving area constraints and a unique real estate market, a density neutral transfer may have a
high probability of success. This will be examined further in this report and the Supplemental
GEIS for the Town of Southold TDR program.
It is noted that the Town of Southold has made great progress in considering the key elements of
a successful TDR program. The following steps have been taken to date, that will facilitate a
successful program in the Town of Southold:
· The Town Board has long envisioned the concept of increased development density in hamlets
and substamtially decreased development with as much preservation of existing fam~ use as cam be
achieved in the rural areas of the Town outside of the hamlets, thus identifying both sending amd
receiving sites.
· The Town Board conducted prior studies ~d incorporated TDR into the plm~ning docun~ents
(including the Town-wide CIS) as a desirable tool, thus incorporating the concept into its
comprehensive plan.
· The Town has built conm~unity support by assembling staJceholders and conducting the 2005
Hamlet Study to determine the desires and concerns of local residents and identify hamlet centers
and surrounding HALO boundaxies (receiving sites), resulting in direction on a conm~unity-by-
conm~unity basis to build conm~unity support.
· The Town and the Suffolk County Water Authority have sought to mamage limited groundwater
resources, in a mariner that locates water supply infrastructure in already developed areas to serve
existing populations, as well as to serve water quality impaired areas. This necessitates reduced
expansion of water supply to rural areas, in order to maintain a balamce of ~owth potential due to
limited water resources, aquifer management and public health safety in coordination. Initiatives
include the Water Supply Management & Water Protection Strategy, amd adoption of an official
Water Map (of water supply extension areas) in 2000 amd amended in 2007.
Page 9
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
The challenges that lie ahead include the following:
· Defining sending amd receiving sites, particularly in view of the ruyriad of preservation pro~arus
currently in use, amd the desire to continue a policy of density reduction through purchase of
developruent rights.
· Detem~ining the land use ruechanisrus for rederuption of credits and realization of transferred
developruent in the HALO's.
· Providing adequate econonfic incentives to facilitate transfers, and ensuring a proper balance of
supply and demand.
· Ensuring a ruargin of pro~aru success in consideration of the Suffolk County Departruent of
Health Services (SCDHS) policy on density transfer.
The remainder of this document will focus on addressing these issues and providing a base
framework for enviroamental impact evaluation and to facilitate drafting of a proposed Local
Law to implement the Program. This will enable the Town to advance the most appropriate
program to the public review forum to garner further public support and input that will lead to a
final program.
2.2 Public Need
As discussed above, the Town of Southold, through the action of its Town Board, is seeking to
provide for the preservation of its significant environmental and agricultural resources, so that
those characteristics of the Town that give it its rural aesthetics and economy are protected. The
proposed action would utilize an existing land preservation tool of the Town Code, in
combination with the hamlet receiving areas outlined in the HALO Study, to enhance the
Board's ability to preserve land while promoting sustainable hamlet development.
2.3 Town Objectives
The overall program is intended to encourage development in appropriate areas and protect lands
with rural qualities that add to the Town's character, historic context and economic base, and
promote appropriate development on parcels where such development can be sustained. The
following factors were considered by the Town Board in formulating the current proposed TDR
program.
· The Town Board has in the past prepared GEIS's that evaluate the effects of proposed laws that
seek to protect identified valued natural resources within the Town.
· The Town Board acknowledges that agricultural amd other rural lands are a si~mificant resource in
the Town, in terms of both econoruics and aesthetics and provides for an iruportant sector of the
Town's econonfic base, while maintaining the open, rural atruosphere.
· As a result of the Town's efforts, a nun~ber of n~echanisrus are being used, that provide
opportunities amd alternatives to land developruent that are intended to provide an increased level
of land preservation.
Page 10
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
The proposed TDR program is expected to provide the following public benefits:
· Protect critical resources such as rural character, fam~ and agricultural land use associated with
sending parcels, to promote land preservation and environmental protection.
· Provide am increase in the amotmt of diverse housing stuck for a variety of income levels.
· Reduce suburban sprawl amd promote "smart [7owth' development principals including
strengthening of hamlets amd businesses, walkable conm~unities, sustainable [7owth, nfixed-use
development, improvements to and use of existing infrastructure, controlled in-fill development,
reduction in vehicle trip ends, amd increase in inter-modal tramsportation opportunities.
· Reduce infrastructure needs as a result of encouraging controlled development in appropriate use
areas.
· Promote beneficial design guidelines amd stamdards within the hamlets including neo-traditional
development in appropriate areas, maintenamce of natural vegetation, nfininfization of fertilizer
application, buffers and setbacks.
· Promote the long-tem~ plarming goals of the Town by utilizing TDR to protect critical and
valuable resources while helping to address the housing and social needs of the Town.
· Facilitate lamd preservation without expenditure of public funds.
In summary, the proposed TDR program is a furtherance of the Town's comprehensive planning
efforts to achieve its goals of protecting valuable environmental and cultural resources, providing
diversified housing to meet Town needs, managing limited resources, facilitating appropriate
infrastructure in hamlet areas and promoting appropriate development consistent with good
design and planning principles.
2.4 Background and History of Town TDR and Related Programs
Use of the TDR concept as a way to better control the rate and pattern of growth in the Town (as
well as to minimize potential adverse land use impacts) had been recommended in the Town CIS
Study of 2003. The Town CIS provided additional guidance regarding TDR as related to County
sanitary regulations and sound planning. The basic elements of the program were defined for the
purpose of analyzing a variety of land use, appropriate development and land preservation tools.
The program was recognized as beneficial in achieving Town goals, and laid the groundwork for
recognition of HALO areas, strengthening of hamlet centers and preservation of rural areas of
the Town. The Town CIS TDR component recognized a need to comply with SCDHS sanitary
density restrictions and ensure that the infrastructure of hamlet centers and HALO areas were not
over burdened. Sending areas were discussed broadly as involving lands worthy of protection,
subject to further review. The following quote from the Town CIS provides a general sense of
the program concept.
Because pr' Southold's unique environmental constraints, a TDR program u'ould have to
discourage/eliminate inappropriate development on sensitive and important lands and promote
appropriate development on parcels where such development can be sustained.
The Generic EIS for the Town CIS included an assessment of potential impacts related to TDR
which is valuable to consider in the context of updating and refining this program. Both
beneficial and potential adverse impacts were considered. The Town CIS recognized the need to
Page 11
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
balance preservation with land values and to ensure that affordable housing needs are also
addressed. The 2003 report was a broad-based planning study and implementation of many of
the tools identified in that report have been accomplished, including a number of provisions to
expand affordable housing programs in the Town of Southold.
Attachment A provides a summary of the Town CIS TDR component. It is recognized that
specific designation of sending and receiving areas had not been accomplished in the 2003 Town
CIS. As a result, refinement of the elements of the Town TDR program is accomplished in this
report.
The Town CIS also identified Planned Development Districts (PDDs) as a means of promoting
flexible zoning that would result in public benefits. The basis for a PDD local law was outlined
in the Town CIS, studied in the Generic EIS and is under ongoing consideration by the Town
Board. This TDR Program Report recognizes PDD legislation as a tool which can assist in the
use of TDR credits, as did the Town CIS of 2003. Included in Attachment A is a summary of
the considerations for a PDD local law as they were outlined in the Town CIS.
Subsequent to the Town CIS, Southold placed an initial TDR local law on the books. Chapter
117 of the Southold Town Code was enacted in March 2005, to strictly regulate the use of TDR
in shifting development from areas where it is not desirable ("sending areas") to areas where the
Town considers growth to be appropriate and desirable ("receiving areas"). The Purpose and
Intent section of that ordinance states:
,,ts set fi)rth in numerous comprehensive planning documents, the Town's goals include the
preservation ~f open space, agricuhural lands and recreational landscapes; prese~wation qf the rural,
cultural and historic character qf the hamlets and surrounding countryside; preservation qf the
natural environment and prevention qf ,fiwther deterioration qf resources; preservation and
promotion qf a broad range qf housing and business opportunities to support a socioeconomically
diverse community; and increased transportation ~#iciencT. To achieve these goals, it is the intent
and pu~ose qf this chapter to provide,fi)r the tran.~'fkr qf sanita~3~,flow credits, and thereby wan.~'fkr
development potential fi'om areas designated ,fi)r presetwation to areas designated as more
appropriate ,fi)r higher-density residential development. Unless expressly permitted herein, the
wan.~'fkr qf development potenfial may not occur in the Town qf Southold.
The basic purpose of Chapter 117 is to preserve land through Town purchase of open space,
capture the sanitary development credits for preserved land and use those credits to provide
affordable housing. The Town seeks to expand this program to enable private investment to
obtain TDR credits, and to use those credits for development and re-development in hamlet
areas.
For background, Chapter 117 defines a "sanitary flow credit" as the equivalent to a right to
develop a single-family residential parcel with an individual on-site sewerage system, or its
nonresidential wastewater flow equivalent. The ordinance created a Town TDR Bank, through
which sanitary flow credits are to be received, retained and sold by the Town Board for the
purpose of providing affordable housing. Revenues generated by the sale of development rights
are deposited into the Town Community Preservation Fund, for the purchase of additional lands
or development rights, in accordance with the Town land preservation goals noted above. It is
im ortant to note that, as part of this legislation, the Town Board designated all lands in the
~ Page 12
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
Town not defined as a Receiving District, as a Sending District, to maximize the potential for
transfer of development into those Receiving Districts. Receiving Districts are defined as all
lands zoned Business (B), Hamlet Business (HB), Residential Office (RO) or Affordable
Housing (AHD).
The Town Board and planning staff recognized that the TDR ordinance contained in Chapter 117
had limited application only for the purpose of promoting affordable housing. This TDR
Program Planning Report is intended to establish the basis for a more extensive TDR program
that will involve private exchange of development rights (facilitated by the Town) for the
purpose of preserving rural lands in the Town with a concomitant shift in density to appropriate
areas designated as receiving areas (HALO's).
3.0 PROGRAM OVERVIEW AND GENERAL PARAMETERS
This section of the report identifies the overall program and those parameters that are not
expected to change. The more specific program elements and the rationale for how they were
derived as recommendations are identified in Section 4.0.
Overall, the program involves establishing "sending areas" which would enable a landowner to
obtain TDR credits for land to be preserved through density transfer. Receiving zones would be
established in designated Hamlet HALO areas; these would represent locations where TDR
credits would be redeemed at a density that would not otherwise be permitted without the credit
redemption. It is contemplated that sending and receiving areas would be within the same school
district and that the program would be voluntary..
The Town Hamlet Study of 2005 provided a basis for defining the hamlets business centers and
HALO zones. The Study, which involved participation of stakeholders from each hamlet, also
allowed residents and business owners to identify and promote features that contribute to the
unique identity of their communities and make recommendations for future improvements and
growth. For the purpose of this program, the hamlets are identified and related to their school
district boundaries as follows:
TABLE 3-1
SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND HAMLETS
Mattituck Union Free School District Mattituck and Cutchogue
New Suffolk Conm~on School District New Suffolk (K-7); Southold (8-12)
Southold Union Free School District Southold and Peconic; New Suffolk (8-12)
Greenport Union Free School District Greenport; Oysterponds (9-12)
Oysterponds Union Free School District Orient amd East Marion; Greenport (9-12)
Page 13
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
In 2006, the Town's Planning and Zoning Committee appointed a TDR Work Group, whose
members also belong to this TDR Team. The group's task was to create a Hamlet Development
Model designed to study the feasibility of establishing a Town wide TDR program that would
provide the Town with another land use tool for desirable farmland preservation without creating
undesirable over development within the hamlets. The work group held meetings with each of
the hamlet stakeholder committees during mid to late 2006, to explain the model, review the
potential impacts on preservation and development in their respective hamlets, and obtain
feedback. Based upon projected Town wide numbers, the work group's study concluded that a
TDR program was feasible and that stakeholders recognized the benefits that would accrue to the
Town through the transfer of density. These results were presented to the Town Board. The
original Hamlet Development Model was based on the 2005 earlier geography of the hamlet
HALO boundaries, but has been updated in this report (see section 4.4 for further discussion).
Based on the TDR Work Group, Town Board, and Planning staff efforts preceding this report, a
number of basic components of the program have been established. These are listed as follows:
· The TDR pro,am would be voluntary, not mandatory.
· The HALO areas representing the hamlets noted above would be the receiving areas.
· Density transfer would occur within the same school district (unless authorized by the Town
Board).
· One TDR credit from a "sending" site would be equal to one development unit in a "receiving"
area; an increase in receiving area density per credit as am incentive will be explored as am
alternative under the SEQRA process for the TDR pro,am.
· The TDR program contemplates redemption of credits for residential units, but will examine the
potential for conm~ercial development as an alternative under the SEQRA process.
· Affordable housing would not be required as part of a development involving redemption of TDR
credits. Affordable housing will continue to be required of residential subdivision, and
establishment of parcels in the AHD zone cam be considered on a case-by-case basis.
· Each hamlet will retain open space, with a goal of 30 percent within hamlets, devoted to both
public use and visually open public amd private space.
At this time, the Town has formally adopted the HALO boundaries for Mattituck, Cutchogne,
New Suffolk, Peconic, Southold, East Marion and Orient (Greenport is pending). The
designation of the HALO areas and the program components noted above provides a basis for
further efforts to define the specific sending and receiving zone areas and establishing the
mechanics of the TDR program.
4.0 Program Elements
4.1 Sending Zones
Sending zones must be selected to identify the parcels from which development will be
transferred. It is necessary to identify sending sites in order to quantify the number of
development rights which will be generated, and to target the program to address preservation of
parcels in conformance with Town Comprehensive Plan goals, with a resultant density shift to
receiving sites that are also consistent with comprehensive planning goals.
Page 14
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
The general concept is to specify areas where new residential development is to be discouraged.
For Southold Town, areas outside of the hamlets are being targeted for preservation through
PDR. The Town has an aggressive and successful program and is working in concert with
Suffolk County government to actively purchase development rights of farm parcels. The
program is voluntary and has been used by many farm families to receive value for their land,
which allows them to continue farm businesses and retain ownership of the underlying land.
This involves expenditure of public funds, and thus far Southold has been successful in using
land transfer tax monies and bonds for this purpose. Additional preservation tools are needed to
leverage public funds with private investment, which would increase land preservation in the
sending areas, with managed density increases in the receiving areas. The Town and County
also use outright purchase of fee title lands, and has found this to be most successful for open
space non-farmed land that does not have underlying crop or agricultural value. It is expected
that the Town will continue to pursue PDR from farm parcels and fee title acquisition of
woodland open space and other environmentally sensitive lands. This understanding helps to
target the application of a TDR program and identification of sending areas.
Definition of Sending Areas
Sending areas are typically identified by a mapped geographic area and/or by designation of
individual parcels of land in one or more zoning districts. The Town GIS database was used to
initiate the identification of sending areas. The vast majority of land outside of the hamlets is
zoned Agriculture-Conservation (A-C) and is in farm use or has been farmed in the past and
contains suitable prime farm soils. Given the allowable density of 1 dwelling unit (du) per
80,000 SF in the A-C zone, once parcels are identified, the number of potential development
rights in a given area can be computed.
Discussions conducted by the team centered on ensuring that the program targets prime areas of
concern for preservation, while balancing the need to establish a sufficient number of credits for
a TDR program, but not an excessive number so that the combination of TDR, PDR and fee title
acquisition would ensure that Town goals are met. An additional consideration was the need to
ensure that transferred credits could be utilized on a receiving parcel, in consideration of the
SCDHS TDR policy which does not allow sanitary flow credit to be transferred from parcels
which will continue to be fertilized through farming or golf course use. In order to ensure
compliance, the density limit established by SCDHS for groundwater protection in areas with
public water (minimum 20,000 SF lots unless sewage treatment is provided) must be observed.
The sending area identification process began by eliminating the following:
· La<d in han-det a<d HALO axeas
· Business zoned la<d not subdividable (single a<d separate lots of less tha< the n-dnimum zoning
acreage) and non-subdividable residential zoned la<d of twice the n-dnimum zoning lot size
requirement
· Unbuildable land (wetla<ds, dune, beach, surface water)
· Existing conmaunity facilities (lands in public ownership, used for public purpose and certain
non-public la<ds (churches, utilities, etc.)
· La<d currently protected through prior PDR, acquisition or conservation subdivision
Page 15
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
The remaining land area included all buildable, subdividable, unprotected, non-community
facility land outside of the HALO's. Further consideration was given to the size of parcels to
target, which zoning districts were appropriate and whether both farmland and non-farmland
should be designated as sending areas. It was believed that larger parcels were more appropriate
so that preservation efforts were directed toward larger tracts of contiguous open space. As a
result, parcels of greater than 7 acres in size were targeted for the TDR program.
Consideration of TDR off Farmland and/or Open Space
Several discussions about including farmland, non-farmland, or both as sending zones took
place. Given the targeting of non-farmland for fee title preservation, and the lack of residual
income potential from non-farmland, it was felt that fee title acquisition would be most
appropriate for continued acquisition of non-farmland. As a result, agricultural land was felt to
be appropriate for designation as sending areas under the TDR program, provided SCDHS
density criteria would be met in the receiving zones. This can be accomplished, and is discussed
in more detail in Section 4.4.
An additional discussion centered around how to designate farmland for the purpose of sending
areas. The Town has various farmland strategies through which a listing of parcels and GIS
inventory observed to be actively farmed has been created. This however does not constitute an
official map and involves subjective determination of land use status. The team felt it was
necessary to seek a more objective inventory and as a result considered the Town database which
records existing Agricultural District parcels and parcels with individual commitment status.
This inventory was found to already have controls in place to objectively determine whether a
parcel is actively farmed. The inventory is in GIS and is maintained in an up-to-date fashion to
ensure that parcels in this district are recognized. As a result, the Town Agricultural District
parcel inventory and lands which are the subject of an individual commitment were believed to
be the most appropriate method of designating farm status for sending parcels. It should be
noted that parcels can apply for Agricultural District and individual commitment status, as long
as they meet the parameters for such designation. As a result, the sending area will be updated
periodically as parcels are accepted or removed to or from the Agricultural District or individual
commitment status. The Town may wish to consider adopting a revised sending area map every
three (3) years based on the updated inventory.
Consideration of TDR off All and/or Part of a Parcel
Extensive discussion was held regarding whether transfer of only part of the development
rights from a given parcel was appropriate. A major concern was that sale of part of the
development rights would provide revenue that could stimulate subdivision of the balance of
the land, contrary to preservation goals. In addition, the logistics of identifying what part of
a parcel the rights were transferred from and the record keeping of these transactions were
believed to be onerous. As a result, it was concluded that for the initial program partial
transfer would not be recommended except to allow an owner to of course to maintain any
existing use plus one additional credit to be subtracted from the parcel yield to be used in the
future subject to subdivision filing. During the preparation of the finalization of the SEQRA
Page 16
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
process for the TDR program, the Town adopted an Agricultural PDD (AgPDD). With the
adoption of the AgPDD, it may be possible to amend this legislation to allow TDR as a
means of selling all or part of the credits of a parcel enrolled in the AgPDD since full
protection is guaranteed unless the Town is unable to purchase the development rights over
time.
Recommended Criteria for Sending Areas
As a result, the following definition of sending areas is recommended as part of this TDR
Program Planning Report. Sending areas are proposed to include parcels considered to be
buildable and would exclude lands that exhibit the following criteria:
· Lamd in a designated HALO or han-det;
· Lamd recorded in Town GIS as being less than 7 acres in size;
· Lamd in Town GIS database as conmaunity facility lands;
· Lamd in Town GIS database as including wetlands, dune, beach and/or surface water;
· Lamd in Town GIS database as having a protected status through prior PDR, acquisition or
conservation easement; amd
· Lamd in the Town GIS database that does no~t have am AgnScultural District or Individual
Conmfitment status.
It should be noted that these criteria result in all sending area lands being zoned either A-C or R-
80 (both 80,000 SF minimum lot size for yield), except Oysterponds, which includes 41 acres of
R-200 (200,000 SF minimum lot size for yield). These criteria provide a logical, identifiable and
mappable land area to be considered for sending zones. Using the Town GIS database, a list of
parcels, zoning and size can be used to determine the sending areas, and to determine the
potential number of sending area credits for the purpose of analysis. A tabulation of the number
of credits is provided on the basis of individual school districts in Table 4-1:
TABLE 4-1
SENDING AREA CREDITS BY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Mattituck Union Free School District 1,907 1,030
New Suffolk Conmaon School District (CSD) 0 0
Southold Union Free School District (UFSD) 825 439
Greenport Union Free School District 8 4
Oysterponds Union Free School District 235 110
Notes: Mattituck UFSD includes Mattituck and Cutchogue HALO's.
Southold UFSD includes Peconic and Southold HALO's.
Oysterponds UFSD includes East Marion and Orient HALO's.
See Table 3-1 for grade level transfers between school districts.
Note: Credits derived based on acreage times a yield factor of 1.84 for A-C and R-80; and 4.60 for R-200.
This yield factor is consistent with the formula used by the Town for yield of conservation
subdivisions.
Page 17
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
Sending zone parcels are mapped and included in Appendix B-1. A list of parcels designating
the proposed sending zone is included in Attachment B-2; this list includes parcel tax number,
zoning and size.
4.2 Receiving Zones
Receiving Zone Designation
The Town Board has taken the initiative to designate HALO areas for Mattituck, Cutchogne,
New Suffolk, Peconic, Southold, Greenport, East Marion and Orient. The unique configuration
and historical origin of Orient is such that a hamlet is recognized in the area of a small
retail/service nucleus which is part of a small historical area of Orient. The Stakeholders
determined that increased density associated with the HALO designation could be sustained, but
not in this historical hamlet area. As a result, an area east of the hamlet was designated as the
HALO zone in Orient.
The designation of HALO's fully anticipated that increased density with concomitant density
reduction in rural areas outside of the HALO's would occur. The HALO Study and subsequent
stakeholder meetings with each hamlet all contemplated this density relationship between
HALO's and areas outside of HALO's. As a result, it is recommended that the HALO's be
designated as the broad receiving areas for the purpose of this study.
It is recognized that each HALO has a different composition of existing non-buildable land in the
form of community facility uses, existing protected land and environmentally sensitive areas. It
is on the lands not bearing one of these designations, that it is expected density will be increased.
As a result, a broad receiving zone boundary can be established coincident with the HALO
boundaries, but actual redemption of credits can only occur on lands which meet the criteria
noted above.
Receiving Zone Mechanics
The form that development takes within the HALO areas is a critical aspect of designing the
TDR program. Currently, there are a variety of zoning districts in the hamlets that could
potentially receive credits. These include:
· B-business
· HB-hamlet business
· LB-linfited business
· RO-residence office
· AHD-affordable housing district
· HD-hamlet density
· R-40 residential
· R-80 residential
· A-C agriculture-conservation
For the purpose of this program, it was determined that a simple and easy way to implement the
initial program would involve only redemption of credits for the purpose of creating residential
Page 18
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
dwelling units, not for increase in commercial density. As a result, use of credits in the LI
district (which exists in some hamlets) would not be possible. Increased commercial density
through TDR could be considered in the future, and will be explored as an alternative in the
GEIS.
Each of the other districts including B, HB, LB, RO, AHD, HD, R-40, R-80 and A-C , all allow
forms of residential development. With respect to AHD, it was determined that affordable
housing was a benefit in itself, and should not be burdened with purchase of credits that could
potentially increase building costs and cost of units and thereby defeat the purpose of the
affordable housing designation in the first place. As a result, the AHD zone was not considered
appropriate for redemption of credits, and it is recommended that the Town Board continues to
consider changes of zone to AHD where appropriate based on sound planning principles and
community needs and the merits of placing this zoning on a given parcel of land. This leaves
lands within the HALO zoned B, LB, RO, HD, R-40, R-80 and A-C as potential receiving zones,
plus potential future use of a PDD local law.
Incentives for TDR Purchase and Redemption
Proper incentives must be established to facilitate use of TDR credits, and proper zoning must be
established to ensure that if credits are redeemed in the HALO areas, that development will
achieve desired goals in design and density. A number of options are available to achieve the
function of incentivizing the redemption of credits in a form that will result in compatible land
use design. Consideration was given to use of several options; it was determined that retaining
the underlying zoning, but providing criteria under which increased density could be achieved
through TDR in a separate TDR local law based on each individual zoning district, was the most
appropriate option. This option would involve creating a TDR section of the Town Zoning Law
that would recognize the specific zoning district eligible to receive TDR credits. The code
section would specify the density that could be achieved through the use of credit redemption for
each zone. This was supported by the following considerations:
· Since the pro,am is voluntary, development could occur without redemption of TDR's and a
means of allowing such development to occur must be provided.
· This is the simplest option to ensure aaa understandable aaad effective pro,am.
· This option could be adopted as a separate TDR local law that would complement existing code
provisions.
Recommended Receiving Zones which are coincident with the HALO boundaries are mapped in
Attachment B- 1.
Receiving Zone Options
Through discussions and research, it was determined that there were a limited number of ways
that credits could be redeemed and density could be realized within the HALO's. The form that
increased density could take included the following:
· Single Family Homes
· Tw~-Family Homes
Page 19
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
· Multiple Family Dwellings
· Detached Accessory Dwelling Units, and
· Mixed use or flexible zoning developments under potential future Plm~ned Development District
The following provisions are recommended to facilitate the redemption of TDR's:
Single Fami(v Homes The intent is to permit transfer of credits to develop single family homes
in areas where additional density can be accommodated. The mechanics of how this can occur
are described below:
· Existing zones which are recommended for or permit single family residential uses
include the B, HB, RO, R-40, R-80, A-C, R-200 zones.
· Additional single family residential homes would be allowed in the zoning district
through further subdivision under guidelines noted herein.
· The TDR code would be used to permit such development by subdivision application to
the Planning Board.
· The recommended minimum permitted lot size would be 20,000 SF to ensure consistency
with SCDHS Article 6, and not over-intensify development.
· The Town may wish to consider creation of an R-20 zone to establish dimensional
requirements for 20,000 SF lot size which does not currently exist. A sample Local Law
for R-20 zoning is included in Attachment C.
Two-Fami(v Homes The intent is to permit transfer of credits to develop two-family homes in
appropriate areas, by the methods noted below:
· Existing zones which are recommended for or permit two-family homes include the R-
40, R-80, A-C zones.
· Two-family homes would be permitted in these zoning districts by allowing one, two-
family structure per lot.
· The establishment of a two-family dwelling would be allowed in the zoning district
through further subdivision under the guidelines noted herein.
· The TDR code would be used to permit such development by site plan/subdivision
application to the Planning Board.
· The recommended minimum permitted lot size would be 20,000 SF in the R-40 and
40,000 SF in the R-80 and A-C zones to ensure consistency with SCDHS Article 6, and
not over-intensify development.
· Consideration could be given to requiring dimensional requirements pursuant to 1.25
times the underlying zone to provide a larger lot to accommodate the two-family
dwelling.
Multiple Fami(v Dwellings' Multiple family dwellings could be constructed in appropriate areas
using transfer of credit through the measures noted below:
· New multiple family dwellings would be allowed on appropriate parcels through
application for a change of zone to HD or HB for qualifying lots based on sound planning
principles and merits of proposal.
· The Town Board would determine the appropriateness and location of such uses based on
change of zone review which would require use of TDR's.
Page 20
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
· The recommended dimensional requirements would be the same as for the existing
HD/HB zones.
Detached Accessory Dwelling Units A new provision is recommended which would allow an
existing residence or principal use to add an additional residence to an existing lot. This is not
currently provided for in Town Code. Recommendations are included below:
· This new form of dwelling unit is recommended for consideration in the R-40, R-80
andA-C zones, through a Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) special permit.
· The recommended minimum permitted lot size would be 40,000 SF.
Planned Development District PDD is an important tool that was recognized in the Town of
Southold CIS. PDD's are provided fi)r under NYS Town Law dealing with incentive zoning. A
PDD is a change of zone, O~pically to a more intense use than permitted by the underlying
zoning; however, aKv increase in densiO; must be offs'et by public benefits which would be
provided to the communion. Projects may include mixed uses, and project sites O~pically require
larger size fi)r appropriate setbacks, land use compatibilio; and potential location of sewage
treatment facilities. Redemption of TDR credits would be an appropriate public benefit, or other
benefits which enhance land use in the HALO's could also be considered. Recommendations are
provided below:
· This TDR Planning Study encourages the adoption of a PDD local law.
· The PDD would apply to HALe's through change of zone review at the discretion of the
Town Board.
· Larger lots are typically more appropriate, therefore identification of lots of 5 acres and
greater should be performed to identify potential PDD candidate sites. The Town should
seek mixed use development with public benefits.
· A major public benefit would be redemption of TDRs and potentially providing sewage
treatment facilities which could accommodate additional flow from oft-site parcels,
provided this conforms with hamlet character and Town goals.
These forms of TDR credit redemption would be provided for through the TDR local law that
would specify the parameters for development as noted above. The identification of forms of
credit redemption provides a means to visualize and understand that type of development that
would result in the HALe's as a result of the TDR program.
4.3 Interrelationship of Land Preservation Programs and Tools
The TDR program is only expected to address a portion of the potential available credits. The
Town of Southold continues to pursue other land preservation programs and tools listed as
follows:
· Fee Title Lm~d Purchase
· Purchase of Development Rights
· Conservation Subdivision
· Stm~dard Subdivision
Page 21
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
Fee title land purchase and PDR are both methods which involve total density reduction of the
parcel based on its potential yield. Conservation subdivision is a partial density reduction
technique which results in preservation of a portion of a property, combined with reduction in
density. The Conservation Subdivision local law provides options which preserve 80 percent
with a 60 percent reduction in density, or preserve 75 percent with a 75 percent density
reduction. This in effect is a creative land use technique that involves a combination of
clustering and yield reduction through voluntary yield loss, PDR or other creative tax incentive
and owner benefit programs through the assistance of Peconic Land Trust (PLT) and/or other
land preservation groups. A standard subdivision typically results in no yield reduction, but must
retain at least 60 percent of a property in open space.
In designing the TDR program, strong consideration was given to the interrelationship of these
programs. There is a desire to not compete with successful programs that achieve Town goals.
There is an awareness that agricultural land has residual value in farming, after the purchase or
transfer of development rights, whereas woodland and non-agricultural areas do not have
residential value, except as open space. The Town has primarily directed the PDR program
toward agricultural lands, and utilized fee title land purchase more for open space preservation.
Once the land is owned, management of open space for passive public recreational use (i.e.
hiking, birdwatching, etc.) provides public benefit beyond just maintaining rural character of
open space which is achieved in farmland preservation where the land continues in agricultural
production. These factors compelled the team to consider agricultural lands as target locations
for the use of TDR to supplement the Town PDR program. This allows public funds to be
leveraged in a manner that private purchase of development rights frees up funds for continuance
of the PDR program to preserve farmland as well as for acquisition of open space.
Directing the TDR program toward the larger agricultural parcels ensures several additional
important considerations. As noted in Section 4.1, use of TDR from part of an agricultural
parcel could provide a landowner/developer with revenue to pursue development on the balance
of the parcel which would be contrary to overall land preservation goals. The TDR program was
also felt to be inappropriate for preservation of smaller open space areas which would remain in
private ownership with no potential use or value, which could result in maintenance and nuisance
issues. Finally, the simplification of the application of the TDR program was considered
knowing the commitment of the Town Board toward creating an effective and implementable
program. These factors lead to the identification of land types and target preservation programs
as related to Town lands outside of the HALO areas.
A flow chart has been prepared in order to understand the interrelationship of these land
preservation programs. The chart, included as Attachment D, illustrates the options which
landowners have in pursuing either controlled development or total land preservation including
TDR. The chart relates to the sending areas and lands outside of the HALO's of the Town and
assists in defining the Town goals through various land preservation programs relative to parcel
size, location, existing use and special district designations.
Page 22
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
4.4 Density Limitations in the Receiving Zones
Suffolk CounW Department of Health Services DensiW Regulations
The number of potential sending area credits is computed and listed by school district in Table
4-1. Given the variety of receiving area options for redemption of credits as outlined in Section
4.2, it is difficult if not impossible to determine the actual number of credits that will be used and
by what means they will become established in a receiving area. In addition, the Town
recognizes the need to comply with SCDHS requirements as contained in the Suffolk County
Sanitary Code (SCSC) Article 6 in order to create a feasible TDR program. As a result, this
section documents Article 6 density limitations and establishes a basis for density limits within
the HALO's. This serves the purpose of providing compliance with Article 6, but also provides
assurance to hamlet stakeholders that reasonable density limitations and resultant development in
the HALO's will occur.
Article 6 establishes density limitations in order to achieve best groundwater management
practices relative to nitrogen load in sanitary effluent. The requirements stem from the Long
Island Waste Treatment Management program published in 1978 under funds provided by
Section 208 of the Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. The 208 Study identified hydrogeologic
zones based on groundwater recharge and flow characteristics, water quality, long-term water
supply goals and potential impacts to water bodies receiving groundwater outflow. Article 6 of
the SCSC codified the findings of the 208 study in the form of minimum lot size equivalents for
residential development.
The majority of Southold Town and all of the HALO areas are identified in Article 6 as lying in
Groundwater Management Zone IV. Zone IV allows a 20,000 SF minimum lot size where
public water is available, and requires a 40,000 SF lot size in areas without public water.
Densities in excess of yields based on these lot sizes require wastewater treatment. Article 6
became effective in 1981; any lawfully existing use or legally subdivided tax parcels which
existed prior to 1981 are grandfathered. As a result, any buildable lot, even ones smaller than
40,000 SF, would have an allowable flow equal to that of a single family dwelling of 300 gallons
per day (gpd) assigned to thatlot. Lots that are already built upon that exceed the allowable flow
would not be eligible for additional density unless permitted under the Town Code Accessory
apartment provisions and in conformance with the Article 6 exemption which involves no new
sanitary facilities. For parcels which are built upon and are less than the allowable flow, density
transfer and resulting new construction could occur. Any new subdivision or site plan
development occurring after 1981 must conform to the density provisions of Article 6, provide
wastewater treatment, or obtain a waiver from the Suffolk County Board of Review. Article 6 is
implemented through SCDHS review of realty subdivisions and site plans.
There are several additional aspects of SCDHS implementation of this program which are
important to understand. Suffolk County recognizes that consideration can be given to regional
compliance within a Groundwater Management Zone, provided excessive nitrogen loads are not
created in a given area. As Towns establish land use programs to preserve open space and direct
development toward appropriate location through TDR programs, SCDHS provided guidance on
how this could be accomplished and still conform to the goals of Article 6. This is contained in a
Page 23
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
General Guidance Memorandum #17 which pertains to agricultural and golf course density
(Attachment E).
In essence, if open space is to be retained and density transferred, the open space must not
continue to cause nitrogen load in addition to the transferred residential density, or the intent of
Article 6 is violated. As a result, lands established in agricultural or golf course use which
requires fertilization are not eligible for transfer. Further, the guidance document establishes a
limit for parcels receiving transferred density of twice the density allowed under Article 6. As a
result, the HALO areas can not exceed an equivalent of 20,000 SF density since the minimum
density required in these areas under Article 6 is 20,000 SF and the program as envisioned would
transfer density from agricultural land. If land from which density was transferred did not
involve continued nitrogen application, the minimum lot size would be 10,000 SF. Applications
which involve density transfer that are less than the Article 6 minimum lot size of 20,000 SF are
typically determined by the Board of Review.
Consistent with the Suffolk County TDR policy, the County also recognizes regional watershed
management plans and/or planning studies that include provisions for TDR in consideration of
watershed management. SCDHS has indicated that County-recognized watershed management
plans may exempt use of transfer credits from having to undergo review by the Suffolk County
Board of Review for approval. This would save time and expense on the part of applicants, and
would be a beneficial aspect of this program.
This TDR Program Planning Report will be subject to review under SEQRA, and the SCDHS
will be an involved agency that will have opportunity to comment on the program. The intent of
preservation of sending area parcels and increase of density for receiving area parcels is
consistent with regional watershed management strategies, provided there is compliance with
Article 6 and double use of density does not occur. In addition, this TDR document addresses
the interrelationship of TDR with other municipal land management programs that include
density reduction through PDR and Conservation subdivision.
The Town PDR program, coupled with Chapter 117 (which permits transfer of Town preserved
transfer credits for the purpose of affordable housing) ensures protection of watershed recharge
areas and provides a means to increase affordable housing opportunities. For those credits that
are not utilized, or density that is reduced through Conservation Subdivision there is a watershed
benefit as a result of reduced density through extinguished credits. This consideration is
important in continuing compliance with Article 6 and to address the legal mandate that
incentive zoning and TDR programs consider how such programs may impact affordable
housing.
SCDHS also establishes design flow for various uses which is important to understand as related
to sending and receiving of density. A single family residence of 1,200 SF or more in size has an
assigned flow of 300 gpd. Residences of between 600 and 1,200 SF have a flow of 225 gpd and
for dwellings less than 600 SF and senior-citizen residences, the assigned flow is 150 gpd.
Commercial flow is based on wet and dry uses, and there is recognition that food service uses
have a higher flow of gray water (non-nitrogen bearing waste). The Suffolk County design flow
factors are contained in Attachment F.
Page 24
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
Use of TDR for increase in commercial density is not considered as a receiving zone option
under this TDR Program Planning Report, but may be considered as an alternative under the
SEQRA process which will be conducted for TDR program implementation.
2006 Hamlet Development Model
As noted, due to the variety of receiving area options for redemption of credits, it is not possible
to determine the actual number of credits that will be used and by what means they will become
established in a receiving area. Part of the benefit of the program is the creation of options for
various forms of development that would result in use of credits in a manner that does not
overburden the HALO's and does not create any one type of new development. This issue
identified the need for a limit to the amount of increased density which would occur in the
HALO areas.
In 2006, at the request of the Town's Planning and Zoning Committee, Town staff; all of whom
are also members of this TDR program team, prepared a Southold Hamlet Development Model
to explore the feasibility of a TDR program and it's potential impact on hamlets, using Southold
as a pilot case study. The goal of the model was, "To create a planning modelfi)r Southold
Hamlet that will prevent undesirable over-development and protect the hamlet's' unique
qualities, scale and his'toric character". The model was discussed with the Southold Hamlet
Stakeholders, refined, and then applied to all of Southold Town's hamlets in order to estimate the
total number of potential TDR credits and the amount of potential farmland preservation Town
wide, and the total potential number of residential units within each hamlet. HALO (receiving
sites). Meetings were conducted with each of the hamlet stakeholder committees to discuss the
individual hamlet model results and to obtain feedback from these communities. The results were
presented to the Town Board.
The concept and methodology of the Hamlet Development Model is recommended as a basis for
establishing limitations on the amount of development which can occur within each hamlet. In
2007, the hamlet development model calculations were updated to be consistent with the HALO
boundaries finally adopted by the Town Board, and the boundary pending for Greenport as of the
date of this report. The Goals, Concept and Methodology associated with the model are
contained in Attachment G. In summary, the model calculates the additional density which
could be achieved in the HALO areas, based on a hypothetical standard subdivision model of
20,000 SF lots. The total acreage of each HALO was determined, then reduced by removing
unbuildable lands (wetlands and community facilities/infrastructure), existing protected lands
and lots less than 20,000 SF, and density was then calculated based on the resultant total
buildable acreage in the HALO. A total number of potential TDR units was computed for each
HALO; the results are provided for each school district in Table 4-2.
Page 25
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
TABLE 4-2
POTENTIAL RECEIVING CREDITS
Mattituck UFSD 185
New Suffolk CSD 57
Southold UFSD 302
Greenport UFSD 21
Oysterponds UFSD 98
Notes: Mattituck UFSD includes Mattituck and Cutchogue HALO's.
Southold UFSD includes Peconic and Southold HALe's.
eysterponds UFSD includes East Marion and Orient HALe's.
See Table 3-1 for grade level transfers between school districts.
The Hamlet Development Model considers several additional factors related to potential over-
development. Each hamlet was conceptualized as including both development and open space at
a ratio of 70 percent developed area to 30 percent open space. In review of the pilot model run
for Southold, the total number of potential credits gave rise to concern that the use of credits
should be monitored and capped at a percentage of the total potential at full buildout. A cap of
30 percent of the total was applied as a value that would be monitored and potentially revised
over time as HALO development is realized. Table 4-3 provides a summary of the TDR credits
available in each sending zone by school district, as related to the total receiving zone TDR's and
the receiving zone TDR's based on a 30 percent cap.
TABLE 4-3
SENDING CREDITS VS. RECEIVING CREDITS
Mattituck UFSD 1030 185 56
New Suffolk CSD 0 57 17
Southold UFSD 439 302 91
Greenport UFSD 4 21 7
Oysterponds UFSD 110 98 29
Notes: Mattituck UFSD includes Mattituck and Cutchogue HALO's.
Southold UFSD includes Peconic and Southold HALe's.
eysterponds UFSD includes East Marion and Orient HALe's.
See Table 3-1 for grade level transfers between school districts.
Review of Table 4-3 provides a basis for several conclusions. It is apparent that there are more
sending credits than receiving credits. If TDR were the only mechanism for land preservation,
there would be concern that land preservation goals would not be achieved; however, the
Sending Zone TDR's will be eligible for PDR and other preservation methods.
Page 26
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
The large number of available Sending Zone TDR's indicates that there would be a continuing
need for PDR as well as Conservation Subdivisions. The TDR program will supplement the
public expenditures associated with PDR and fee title acquisition of open space lands, by
providing a means whereby private landowners, developers and investors can acquire
development rights for the purpose of increasing density in connection with parcels in the HALO
areas. The combination of these programs gives the Town multiple land use tools to achieve
land preservation goals.
As development in the HALO's continues, the Town may wish to review the cap and ultimately
achieve density increases at a level between the recommended 30 percent cap and the total
potential receiving zone credits. An annual audit by the Town's Planning Department would
maintain growth rate by recommending modifications as needed.
The quantity of existing open space in the HALO's should be reviewed, and for those HALO's
where more than 30 percent open space exists, consideration should be given to identifying
additional potential TDR redemption strategies.
The 20,000 SF development model is a conceptual residential density scenario. Consideration
could be given to expanding the program in the future to include other methods to increase
commercial density in the hamlets through TDR credit redemption, in a manner that would not
adversely impact the character of these areas. This must be balanced with SCSC Article 6
compliance, parldng requirements and design guidelines.
The use of PDD's remains a recommendation to assist in the redemption of TDR credits. This
technique has been used successfully in other Long Island Towns, and provides a means to
achieve public benefits which could include use TDR's, in connection with creative, flexible and
compatible development projects. Parcels in excess of 5 acres located within the HALO
boundaries would be target parcels for such development, as this size permits adequate buffering
and provides sufficient area for potential single or mixed-use projects, and would also provide
the potential for location of on-site wastewater treatment facilities such as a Cromoglass rM
system which can treat up to 15,000 gpd on single and separate parcels in conformance with
SCDHS policy and regulations. Parcels of 5 acres or more (according to tax map data) are
inventoried as candidate parcels for PDD's; a map of these parcels is provided as Attachment B-
3. HALO and community.
The Hamlet Development Model provides residents with the assurance that reasonable density
limits will be established in their communities. From a land use perspective, the overriding
benefit of TDR is the preservation of land where development is inappropriate (such as
agricultural areas in the Town of Southold), with a resultant increase in density in the hamlets.
Hamlets, and their surrounding HALO areas, have been identified and mapped by the Town in
recognition of the fact that these areas are appropriate for additional development given the
following land use considerations:
· Infrastructure such as roads, utilities and water supply currently exist.
· Residential density proximate to the hamlets strengthens the business environment.
Page 27
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
· Residential density in the HALe's provides opportunity for alternative transportation such as
walking and bicycle travel.
· Use of TDR's in the HALe's may promote beneficial investment and redevelopment.
· Use of TDR's in the HALe's will provide alternative forms of housing to single fanfily detached
development, thus providing opportunities for housing stock of various types.
As a result, the author's of this report believe that transfer of density to the HALO's in
accordance with the Hamlet Development Model and the considerations noted above, is a
responsible form of development which allows the Town to achieve both significant land
preservation goals while also preserving the scale and uniqueness of each of the hamlets,
provided that appropriate design standards and guidelines are established, as per the
recommendation in the Hamlet Development Model.
4.5 Program Mechanics Summary
Quality Communities Grant
This TDR Program Planning Report has been prepared with funding through a New York State
Quality Communities Grant. The grant included a work program that identified the basic
requirements to be fulfilled. The language included in the work program of the grant is useful in
understanding the intent of the Town TDR program:
The quest fi)r controlled grou'th requires creafive planning and fi)resight. Tran.¥[kr q['development
rights is.just one mol used in the battle to contain sprau'l. TDR is the exchange q['zoning privileges
fiwm areas Mth lo~' population needs, such as jbrmland, to areas q[' high population needs, such as
the Hamlet Centers. These tran.¥[k~z~ allou'fi;r the preservation q['open space and historic landmarks,
while giving the Hamlet Centers areas a chance to expand and experience continued growth.
There are three basic elements to a TDR program: the sending district, the receiving district, and the
TDR credits themselves.
The grant work program includes eleven (11) tasks that must be examined in order to fulfill the
grant. A review of these tasks will be used for the purpose of providing a program mechanics
summary.
The following represents the consultant and Town representative team's interpretation of the
TDR program for Southold Town and is subject to review of the Town Board for the purpose of
commencing the SEQRA evaluation process. The final program will result from further
evaluation of potential environmental impacts, public and agency input, refinement of the
program to address comments received, and further deliberation by the Town Board. Work
program tasks under the grant are outlined below, and are followed by an examination of
program mechanics in a summary form and based on other sections of this report.
Page 28
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
Examination of Grant Tasks
1. How will the TDR Program work?
The program involves designation of sending zones which primarily include larger farm
parcels in the rural areas of the Town where there is a goal of preservation. Parcels would be
eligible for recognition of a number of credits related to their size and potential development
yield based on their zoning. Applicants would file for recognition of credits associated with
their parcel, and the assigned credits would be a salable commodity.
Receiving zones associated with the HALO of each of Southold's hamlets would be
designated as overall receiving zones. The zoning districts within the HALO boundaries
would be modified through a TDR program local law that would identify the means by which
credits could be redeemed in exchange for increased utilization of parcels in accordance with
guidelines established for individual zoning districts within the HALO's.
TDR credits would be exchanged privately and exchanges between buyer and seller could be
facilitated by the real estate market, as well as by the Town through a listing of TDR credits
issued, which would be researched by landowners, developers and investors seeking to
pursue development in the HALO's in conformance with the credit redemption options.
2. Who benefits from this program?
The residents and visitors of the Town of Southold benefit from continuing land preservation
of rural areas and retention of the bucolic character associated with the Town. Sending area
landowners benefit from an additional option to gain monetary value for their land, and their
continued ability to utilize the underlying value of the land absent the development rights.
Landowners, deveh)pers and investors benefit from an additional mechanism to facilitate
compatible and planned development projects that provide return on inveslment. HALO
communities benefit from inveslment in their hamlet areas resulting in redevelopment and
compatible land use which strengthens the hamlets and achieves other land preservation
goals. Local businesses benefit from an increased local consumer/customer base.
3. How much do TDR's cost?
The cost of TDR credits will be market based. It is expected that the Town's continuing
PDR program will provide a benchmark for TDR credit value, but the ultimate cost will be
determined between buyer and seller based on supply and demand.
4. How is the value of the TDR's established?
The value of TDR's is established by creating potential for redemption of TDR credits in
connection with land use and development that brings a return on investment to a landowner,
developer or investor.
Page 29
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
Is the program voluntary or mandatory?
The program as envisioned in this TDR Program Planning Report is voluntary, and not
mandatory.
6. What will be the Town's role in implementing and monitoring the program?
It is expected that the Town will implement the program by complying with SEQRA and
creating legislation in the form of a TDR local law which would be adopted by the Town
Board in conformance with the requirements established under New York State Town Law.
Once enacted, it is expected that the Town will implement the program through issuance of
credit certificates to sending area landowners, and will facilitate the redemption of TDR
credits through the land use review process for landowners and developers of projects within
the receiving areas. The Town will record redeemed TDR's in a manner that ensures that
parcels from which credits are transferred are recognized as having no residual development
rights. The Town will monitor the program and make adjushnents as necessary to facilitate
its success in conformance with applicable laws. The Town Planning Board, Town Board,
potentially the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Town Clerk would all be involved in
various aspects of program implementation. The Town may in the future pursue a credit
registry or credit bank; however, this is not essential to the initial program.
How do I participate ifI own land within a Sending Area?
A sending area landowner would contact the Town, make application on forms to be
provided, obtain a TDR credit certificate, and seek a private purchaser for the credits.
How do I participate ifI own land in a Receiving Area?
A receiving area landowner would contact the Town, make application for a land use
development in conformance with one or more of the options available to achieve density
increase using TDR's and process the application with the applicable Board.
How can the TDR's be used on the Receiving Area Properties?
TDR's can be used on receiving area properties for the purpose of increasing density of
Single Family Homes, Two-Family Homes, Multiple Family Dwellings, Detached Accessory
Dwelling Units, and potentially for Planned Development District projects at such time in the
future when the Town Board enacts a PDD local law. Additional details are provided in
Section 4.2 of this report.
10. Where are the Sending Areas located?
Sending areas are outlined in detail in Section 4.1 and mapped in Attachment B-1 of this
report.
11. Where are the Receiving Areas located?
Receiving areas are outlined in detail in Section 4.2 and mapped in Attachment B-1 of this
report.
Page 30
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
5.0 CONCLUSION
Southold Town has been progressive and successful in planning efforts to preserve farmland and
maintain the character and quality of the Town. The Town has considered TDR as a useful tool
to help achieve planning goals. The TDR program differs from other preservation programs in
that it would not eliminate development potential, but would shift the location of development to
appropriate locations in the Town which have been identified through previous studies. The
program also differs in that expenditure of public funds is not necessary. The use of TDR credits
would therefore preserve farmland and locate an equivalent density to the yield of a parcel in a
hamlet area where infrastructure exists. This allows public funds to go farther in achieving total
preservation goals through continued use of PDR. This form of development would also achieve
a greater level of sustainability since it would promote various forms of residential development
(not only single family homes) in areas where residents may live, work or seek recreation using
multiple forms of transportation (walking, biking, car pooling, public transportation).
This TDR Program Planning Report provides a basis for the Town to move forward with the
SEQRA process relating to this action, and to consider public and agency input for additional
deliberation by the Town Board in reaching an informed decision on the Town's TDR program.
Page 31
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A
Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Background
APPENDIX A
TOWN CIS - TDR AND PDD PROGRAM ELEMENTS
This Appendix includes excerpts from the Town CIS for the purpose of background and
recognition of the importance of TDR and PDD legislation in prior planning studies and to use as
a baseline in designing a program at this time. It must be recognized that elements of the
program may have changed since the completion of the Town CIS in 2003. The complete TDR
Program Planning Report should be reviewed for the current context and recommendations for
implementing a TDR program in the Town of Southold at this time.
The program must be consistent with Suffolk Couniy Department of Health Services'
(SCDHS) TDR provisions and must provide an overall communiO; benefit to preserve open
.space, improve groundwater recharge in sending areas, and promote %'mart growth" and
other community benefit in receiving areas. Sending areas should be those areas the Town
wants to protect such as environmentally sensitive parcels, critical woodlands, and
groundwater recharge areas. Receiving areas must be identified in zoning districts where a
small incremental increase in density may be permitted without serious environmental or
other detrimental impacts; these areas might include the HALO zones. Other receiving
opportunities could involve .special land use projects that provide mixed-uses or that
otherwise advance planning goals of the Town. ~4 TDR program can be designed to work
with incentive zoning provisions through a PDD and can be used to promote affordable
housing. In a~v case, a receiving area must have one or more of the fi;llowing
characteristics:
· Proximity to hamlet centers;
· Lack qfenvironmental sensitivity;
· Suitable road access;
· Availablepublic water; and
· Ability to handle sewage or access to a sewage treatmentplant (STP).
In Southold, a TDR program will have to assume a number of basic parameters' to ~,ntide the
program and provide consistency with the SCDHS TDR polic?, specifically as fi;llows:
· Tran.¥fkrs should be generally within the same school district,
· Tran.¥fkrs must occur within the same Groundwater Management Zone as d~fined by the
SCDHS,
· Density must be determined based on unde~qying single ]bmily residential zoning (by
accepted yield.fbctor.s), with the intent that a fl;rmula fi;r providing additional density fi;r
less-intensive units (muhiple ]bmily and senior citizen unit.s) will be established as an
incentive to shg~iing and creating appropriate development in receiving locations,
· Sending parcels must be appropriately encumbered through dedication to a public or
recognized non-prqfit entity or covenants restricting fi~ture development, and should be
registered by an appropriate tracking method through the Town,
· Receivingparcels should be within areas serviced bypublic water,
· Receiving parcels should not exceed re,ice the density allowed under the Sq[fblk County
Sanitary Code (SCSC) unless an appropriate fl;rm qf sewage treatment is available,
Receiving parcels should be sul?]ect to .fkrfilized area restrictions, clearing restrictions and
site plan or subdivision revie,~',
Receiving parcels should be sul?]ect to fiwther design standards and/or special exception
criteria as may be determined through fi~rther revie,~' and analysis; such standards may
include design parameters, development guidelines, bt4#kring, clearing restrictions, .fkrfilized
area restrictions, setbacks, ifffi~ast~nacture installation and measures to improve community
compatibility.
Because of Southold's unique environmental constraints, a TDR program would have to
dis'courage/eliminate inappropriate development on sensitive and important lands and
promote appropriate development on parcels where such development can be sustained.
The Generic EIS for the Town CIS included an assessment of potential impacts related to TDR
which is valuable to consider in the context of updating and refining this program. Both
beneficial and potential adverse impacts were considered and are noted as follows:
The Town would benefit fi~om a sound TDR program in a number of ways, noted as fi)lh)ws:
· Preservation pi'open space and u,atershed recharge areas associated Mth sending sites.
· Ability to redirect grou,th to areas suitable fiwm such grou,th considering environmental
resources and ir~[i~astructure.
· Ability to tran.¥[kr density credits fi~om outside to inside hamlet centers in a manner that
promotes creation p['q[j:brdable housing.
· Ability to promote mixed use, mulfi[bmily residential use and diverse housing opportunities
including q#brdable housing through density incentives and tram'[kr.
· Reduction in the number el'development rights and/or.[ke title purchases that u'ould need to
be made to achieve the Ton,ns open space preservation goals.
These measures' are dis'cussed and are analyzed in more detail below to provide the
fi~amework fi)r an effective TDR program. The program would not be expected to result in
groundwater impacts, provided it is consistent with the SCDHS TDR Standards, issued
September 30, 1995. These standards recognize that groundwater protection needs are
served when ()pen .space is protected in a sending area, and controlled increase in densiO) is
permitted at a receiving site and should therefi)re be incorporated into a Town TDR
program.
In general, TDR is an appropriate tool fi)r preservation and ()pen .space (and to a lesser
extent farmland, due to SCDHS TDR requirement.s) that envisions shifting densiO; to
appropriate areas, thereby providing a means for land protection without the resulting cost
of purchasing the deveh)pment rights, lit is noted that this aspect of the original TDR
research is being re-evaluated to determine how TDR can be utilized for farmland
preservation since transfer of development rights still allows a farmowner to maintain the
residual ownership and farmrights of a parcel. Measures for conforming to the SCDHS TDR
policy are considered in the current program as will be defined in subsequent sections of this
report.] Receiving areas can include limited densiO; increases in subdivisions h)cated outside
of the A-C and R-80 districts in areas referred to as HALO zones, mixed use opportunities in
hamlet center areas and, where appropriate, diverse housing opportunities including
affordable housing on larger parcels with sewage treatment potential. A PDD h)cal law is
also proposed to provide zoning and land use flexibility for well-designed projects that
provide .special public benefits that could include redemption of tran.sferred development
rights.
A sound TDRprogram depends on adequate incentives to ensureprogram success. The Pine
Barrens Preservation Act allowed Towns to adopt Pine Barrens local laws consistent with
the pine barrens plan; some Towns elected to provide incentives such that one development
right in a sending area, would be credited with 2 multiple family units or $ planned
retirement communiO; units at the receiving location. This is logical since, multiple family
units are generally smaller, and therefi;re have less sewage flow (within certain size
limitation.s), lower solid waste generation, less school-aged children, less traffic trip
generation, and generally cause less impact than a single family dwelling. The reduction of
impacts is even greater fi;r retirement units. Such receiving site opportunities would be
provided by .special land use projects that provide mixed-uses' or that otherwise advance
planning goals of the Town. This fi;rm of the TDR program would be designed to work with
incentive zoning provisions through a PDD. In addition, tran.sferred units remove densiO;
fi'om those districts where preservation is desired, to those areas where infi'astructure is
present. As a result, densiO; increases would be expected where bus routes and public
transportation opportunities are enhanced, and in hamlet center areas where walkabilio; and
local services' are provided.
[~ery minor densiO; increases may be permitted in areas that are currently experiencing
growth in accordance with zoning. Under this portion of the program, receiving areas would
be provided in zoning districts where a small incremental increase in densiO; may be
permitted without serious environmental or other detrimental impacts; these areas might
include the HALO zones.
An additional potentially beneficial aspect of the TDR program is the abilio; of the Town to
use acquired parcels fi;r redirection of growth to appropriate locations or fi;r appropriate
programs which would specifically include providing diverse and affordable housing. N¥S
Town Law 261-(a) requires' that "the town shall evaluate the impact of tran.sfer of
development rights upon the potential development o flow or moderate income housing lost
in the sending districts and gained in receiving districts and shall find either there is
approximate equivalence between low and moderate housing units lost in the sending district
and gained in the receiving district or that the town has or will take reasonable action to
compensate fi;r aKv negative impact upon the availabilio; or potential development of low or
moderate income housing caused by the tran.sfer of development rights." The proposed TDR
program has given strong consideration to ensuring that the program will not negatively
affect the availability of affordable housing, and in fact provides significant benefit in terms
of providing diverse housing opportunities including affordable housing.
The 2000 Census data provides relevant infi;rmation with regard to TDR and affordable
housing, including: demographics, income levels, housing characteristics and values. The
data clearly indicates a distinct lack of affordable housing throughout the hamlets of
Southold Town. Based on the cost of homes as noted in the Census and Home Sales data,
there are few if aKv housing affordable housing opportunities, particularly in the
environmentally sensitive (as well as scenic and desirable areas of the Town) coinciding with
R-80 and some A-C lands that would become the sending locations under this TDR program.
In addition, there are virtually no new multifamily unit opportunities in the Town and there is
a greater demandfi)r housing than supply.
The designation of sending parcels, and identification of receiving site opportunities which
include multifamily housing, mixed housing, and smaller unit development, as well as a
density incentive fi)r the creation of new housing opportunities at receiving sites',
significantly increases the potential fi)r affordable housing in the Town of Southold
Therefi)re, a Town TDR program would confi)rm to N¥S Town Law 261-(a), as it would
provide opportunities fi)r affordable housing that currently do not exist, and no affordable
housing would be removed by the program. Further, there is little likelihood of developing
new affordable units in the sending sites', as the necessary infi'astructure is not present or
sufficient to service such development, and the locations of sending sites is such that natural
resources would have made such development unlikely.
Further with regard to affordable housing, the Town is considering the potential to use land
acquired subsequent to the completion of the Build-Out analysis, fi)r transfer of development
credits fi)r affordable housing. This would involve selling a development credit fi)r each acre
of land preserved, to a private development compaKv and/or home~land owner that uses that
credit to create a unit or an accessory apartment available fi)r affordable housing in
pelpetuiiy. The credits would sell at a rediwed rate (perhaps 75% of the average of
development rights purchased under PDR) fi)r those projects that confi)rm to the program by
providing permanent affordable housing opportunities in appropriate locations. This
program has the added benefit of supplementing fimding fi)r ()pen .space acquisition.
envisioned, this program would work in tandem with the PDD or could be used fi)r accessory
apartments or addition of affordable housing to other existing Town zones where density
credits are needed and would confi)rm to the SCDHS ]'DR sanitary flow restrictions.
With regard to ]'DR, it is noted that wastewater impacts are not expected to be significanh as
the predicted concentration of nitrogen in recharge fi)r each zoning district at fidl build-out
indicates' that the highest potential concentration was 6.09 mg/l in the R-dO zoning district.
Only very limited increases would be permitted in the R-dO district, and only in confi)rmance
with SCDHS TDR standards'. Other hamlet zoning districts (HD, HB, AHD and others) all
were 5 mg/l or less, unless fidl densiO; is achieved at the maximum allowed by the zoning
district (if public water is available). This comes with the added benefit that natural
recharge areas would be preserved in sending locations and the overall densiiy would be
reduced as the Town achieves success in meeting densiO; rediwtion goals through vohmtary
PDR, upzoning or both. As this tool will comply with SCDHS and Town planning initiatives,
and site-specific review of aEv proposal would occur, no significant adverse impacts are
expected.
The Town CIS also recognized that an additional mechanism involving a Planned Development
District local law would also dovetail with the TDR program as a means of providing special
public benefits as required under NYS Town Law Section 261-b. The following is excerpted
from the CIS for the purpose of background and potential further consideration by the Southold
Town Board:
Planned Development Dis'trict (PDD)
The Town could implement a PDD Local Law consistent with Incentive Zoning as provided
fi;r under NYS Town Law Section 261-b so that, fi;r those hamlet-area properties which are
to be developed, a single use or a combination of complementary uses could be located on a
single site. The PDD law allows a property to be mapped and designated as a PDD, so that
all development within it would be planned, distributed and designed as a single unit, with
re&~dations and standards for setbacks, building heights, etc'. s'pecifically designated fi;r this'
zone. The PDD concept includes a requirement fi;r "xpecial public benefits", which would
be provided over and above other requirements that normally apply to the application.
Special Public Benefits could include: use of TDR, provis'ion of affordable housing,
community facilities', communiO; infi~astructure, or other creative incentives. In this' way,
development would occur on a well-planned basis' with minimal opportunio; fi;r adverse
impacts on infrastructure and services, as public benefits would be accrued to the community
and all infi'astructure requirements and amenities necessary would be included from the
onset of the project.
The impact evaluation for the PDD found a valuable tool with minimal impacts expected as
documented in the Town CIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement:
PDD Legislation
The PDD tool provides the potential to provide for development of a higher quality and more
imaginative design and amenities, in addition to the "special public benefits" which might
not otherwis'e be achieved. The PDD would be available to private applicants to pursue
more creative land use applications that provide affordable housing, redemption of transfer
credits, or other public benefits. The PDD would also be available to the Town Board to
study and/or designate parcels that are appropriate for creative development opportunities.
The program is' beneficial in providing diversified housing and mixed land use potential, as
well as design flexibility. Protection of environmental resources' would be achieved through
review of the individual site and individual land use proposal fi;r a PDD, which could only
occur under the program that establishes standards for locations, Opes of uses, and public
benefits in connection with such a program. Each proposal would be subject to site/use
.specific N¥S Environmental Qualio; Review Act (SEQRA) review, to ensure that there is' no
significant adverse impact on environmental resources and the overall goals of the Town are
met.
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
ATTACHMENT B
Sending and Receiving Zone Identification
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
Attachment B-1
Sending Area Map
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
Attachment B-2
List of Sending Zone Parcels
TDRSendList
Listing of parcels within proposed TDR sending area as of 6/13/0'
District Tax Map Number District Tax Map Number
1000 13.-2-6.2 1000 65.-2-16
1000 17,-6-14,2 1000 85,-3-8
1000 18,-3-30,3 1000 86,-1-10,9
1000 18,-4-7,1 1000 86,-1-15
1000 18,-6-4,1 1000 94,-3-2
1000 18,-6-5 1000 94,-3-4,1
1000 18,-6-17,3 1000 95,-1-1,1
1000 18,-6-19,3 1000 95,-1-2
1000 19,-1-8,4 1000 95,-1-3,1
1000 20,-3-4,1 1000 95,-1-7,2
1000 27,-1-2 1000 95,-1-8,3
1000 27,- 1-3 1000 95,-4-3,1
1000 27,-4-10,4 1000 95,-4-11
1000 50,-5-1 1000 96,-2-7
1000 51,-6-3,8 1000 96,-2-10
1000 52,-5-60,2 1000 96,-3-7,3
1000 54,-3-24,1 1000 96,-3-9
1000 54,-7-21,1 1000 96,-4-4,3
1000 55,-1-5,1 1000 97,-1-1
1000 55,- 1-9 1000 97,-2-23
1000 55,-2-10,1 1000 97,-5-2,1
1000 55,-3-6,1 1000 100,-2-3,2
1000 56,-5-1,3 1000 100,-2-4
1000 59,-3-27 1000 100,-3-12
1000 59,-3-28,5 1000 100,4-4
1000 59,-10-1 1000 101,-1-4,1
1000 68,-4-18 1000 101,-1-4,3
1000 69,-4-11 1000 101,-1-5,2
1000 74,-1-38 1000 101,-1-8,2
1000 74,-1-42,7 1000 101,-1-14,7
1000 74,-4-3, 2 1000 101,-2-3,1
1000 75,-2-8 1000 101,-2-5
1000 75,-6-6,1 1000 101,-2-6
1000 75,-6-11 1000 102,-1-5,2
1000 75,-7-2 1000 102,-2-16
1000 75,-7-6,1 1000 102,4-6,2
1000 83,- 1-32,3 1000 102,-6-20,2
1000 83,-2-16 1000 103,-1-19,3
1000 84,-1-11 1000 103,-1-19,12
1000 84,-1-13 1000 106,-9-2,3
1000 84,-1-25,2 1000 107,-10-10,1
1000 84,-2-3, 3 1000 108,-2-7,1
1000 85,-1-3 1000 108,-3-1
1000 85,- 1-9 1000 108,-3-5,44
1000 85,-1-10 1000 108,-3-6,2
1000 85,-2-7 1000 108,4-1,1
1000 85,-2-9,2 1000 109,-1-8,7
1000 85,-2-14 1000 109,-1-10,1
1000 85,-2-15 1000 109,-1-11
District Tax Map Number
1000 109.-5-23.3
1000 110.-6-2
1000 113.-7-2.5
1000 113.-7-2.6
1000 115.-4-8.6
1000 115.-7-13.2
1000 115.-9~
1000 115.-10-1
1000 116.-1-10
1000 120.-1-3
1000 120.-14
1000 120.-3-2
1000 120.-3-11.8
1000 120.-3-11.9
1000 120.-3-11.10
1000 120.-3-11.11
1000 121.-3-7.4
1000 122.-7-8.8
1000 125.-2-2.2
1000 125.-3-11
1000 127.-1-1
1000 127.-2-2.1
1000 127.-3-7
1000 127.-3-11
1000 127.-3-12
1000 129.-1-1
Page 1
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
Attachment B-3
Receiving Area Maps and Potential PDD
Parcels
Mattituck HALO Map
[] Community Facilities
[] Protected Land
~ HALO
E~ Hamlet Center
HALO Parcels Larger than
5 Builder's Acres
Map Prepared by
Town of Southold
Geographic Information System
June 20, 2007
Southold HALO Map
[] Community Facilities
[] Protected Land
~ HALO
E~ Hamlet Center
HALO Parcels Larger than
5 Builder's Acres
Map Prepared by
Town of Southold
Geographic Information System
June 20, 2007
Cutchogue HALO Map
[] Community Facilities
[] Protected Land
~ HALO
E~ Hamlet Center
HALO Parcels Larger than
5 Builder's Acres
Map Prepared by
Town of Southold
Geographic Information System
June 20, 2007
East Marion HALO Map
[] Community Facilities
[] Protected Land
~ HALO
E~ Hamlet Center
HALO Parcels Larger than
5 Builder's Acres
Map Prepared by
Town of Southold
Geographic Information System
June 20, 2007
New Suffolk HALO Map
[] Community Facilities
[] Protected Land
~ HALO
E~ Hamlet Center
HALO Parcels Larger than
5 Builder's Acres
Map Prepared by
Town of Southold
Geographic Information System
June 20, 2007
Orient HALO Map
[] Community Facilities
[] Protected Land
[~ HALO
E~ Hamlet Center
HALO Parcels Larger than
5 Builder's Acres
Map Prepared by
Town of Southold
Geographic Information System
June 20, 2007
Su!~olk County R~al Pro~er~y Tax Service Agenc?
®IS Baserrap COPYRI®BT 2007 County ol Sullo!k N Y
Peconic HALO Map
[] Community Facilities
[] Protected Land
~ HALO
E~ Hamlet Center
HALO Parcels Larger than
5 Builder's Acres
Map Prepared by
Town of Southold
Geographic Information System
June 20, 2007
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
ATTACHMENT C
Sample R-20 Local Law
Towna of Southampton
§ 330- l I, Residence Districlx Table of Dimensional Regulations9
[Amended 5-13-1986 by L.L. No. 7-1986; 10-24-1989 by L.L. No. 22-1989; 1-10-1995 by L L. No. 3-1995; ~13-2003 by LL. No, 41-2003; 6-10-2003 by L.L. No, 47-2003; 10-26-2004 by L.L No. ~3-2001; 6-28-2005 by L,L. No. 28-20051
NOTES:
08-15-2005
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
ATTACHMENT D
Land Preservation Flow Chart
EX~$ITNG
NON-$UBDIVIDABLE
LAND
SUBDZVZDABLELAND
NOTIN HALO
HALO
NOT ~N HALO
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
ATTACHMENT E
SCDHS General Guidance
Memorandum #17
DEPARTMENT OF }-F_N.TH SERVICES
COUNTY OFSUFFOLK
STE~E:LE~/
SUFFOLK COUNffY EXECUTIVE
'BRIAN L. HARPER, M.D., M.P.H.
COMMISSIONER
May 13,2002
SUFFOLK COUN2~ DEPARTMENT OF ,I:W.A:LTHSERVICES
GENERAL GUIDANCE MEMORALNDUM #17
AGRICULTURAL AND GOLF COURSE DENSITY
AUTHORITY
The Suffolk County Sanitary Code sets forth requirements for approval of water and sewage disposal
systems. The statutory authority for these guidelines can be found in Article 6 Section 760-603.
pURPOSE
Article 6 allow/for the installation of subsurface sewage disposal syst6ms in Groundwater Management
Zones (GWMZ) m, v, .and VI when.the population density.equivalent is equal to or less than that of a
malty subdivision or development of single family residences in which all parcels are at least 40,000 sq.
ft. For parcels that are-outside .of these zones and served by a community water supply, the population
density cqulvalont is based on minimum 20,000 sq. fL lots.
Article 6 further defines :a clustered malty subdivision as one which allows a substantial unimproved
p-oftio~ ~fthe tract to smmd'0peh~a~rl ~a~inhablted. Other ~s*rmetion projects that are not z~bdivisRYm
of land such as condominiums, planned retirement communities, and aparmaents must also comply with
Article 6 population density ~eqairements. These requirements are based on a suandard subdivision yield
map or calculation of the adjusted gross land area.
PROlil J*,M,,.
The process of determining population density equivalent is straightforward when the undeveloped
portionis to remain as.nnlmproved open space. Covenants and restrictions recorded againstthe property
allow only .for property mamtenmce acuvifies and passive recreational pursuits 'in the open space.
Com~p~cations ~a~'se when the,?_~devel.9' e~p_9~ion~~f°r .agricultural .u~se o.r re. crea~on, al tuff
~~-ballfiolfls). ~Beeanse A~dole 6 ~lensity~,mqUimments a~e-aes]~nea To t~]m~t~total ,n~og~
concentrations in g~oanSwater to,4 Mg/L'in GWMZ ~ ¥, rVI und.6 Mg~ in ~e remaining zones, .~t is
incumbent on the departxnent to :disallow !ot._vJel~t far,mOb uses.
Monitoring well data has shown that luff mifin~enance and ~~s~i' ~Kffifi~_m~'tro. gen to ~
~~ut~s shows an average ni~ogen concentration of.approximately 4 Mg/L
and da~ ~om~lSs shgws that :nitrate l~vels from agricultural practices exceed 6 Mg/L in
groandwater. ~
This guidance for allocating density for parcols ~vhere agriculture, or golf courses :or other recreational
tuff arc proposed orallowed supersedes all Pre~ious guid61ine~ and is as ~ollows:
In determlaiao allowable densit~ieonsider.as deVelopable only that land .Which will NOT be ased
fo_r ag~ie~ltural~__~ golf:coarse~ or other recreational ,turf.
EXA/~PLE$
If 40 acres of a 100 acre parcel may be ~-med, or used as a.golf course, then approximately :60 un]ts
(based on 1 unit.per acre) would be allowed in Zones l]I, V, and VI, and approximately 120 units
wouldbe allowed in other zones Coasefl on2 units$er acre). This assumes fallyield~ Actual yield
would likely be lower based on either a standard 20,000/40,000 sq. t~ yield map or 75% of adjusted
gross land area.
If a vineyard wishes to construct a :winery and '~ine tasting" facility, only that portion of the
· v~meyard not in crops may be used for.calculation of population density equivalent.
For condominiums or like anits ~ntermlngled with a golf 'course, the golf course portion of the
~rojevt-must (be ~parated out -of the :parcel are~ Density would be based on the .remainder of 'the
parcel.
For' .golf courses, density for .accessory uses such as clubhouse or restaurant, may be derived fram
those areas not actually used for play such as parking, area of buildings ,and area of any wooded
.Portio? of the parcel th~..t are _n~ part o_f_~olf co~se. . ......
For pre-existing developments Where .land ~as been set aside for agricultural useor recreational tuff,
the same rules apply. Hence, a;parfially d~veloped .parcel may not ,claim density credit for acreage
used for agrlCUltore or recreational tuff, xegardless of deasity allocation formulas~that were originally
used in the review and approval 'of the initial ~l~velopment proposals.
Issued by: Vito A. Minei, P~E., Director,
Division of Environmental Quality
MaY 1'3~2002
Rev..Iuly 22, 2002; ~anuary 31, 2003; Ap~il'23, 2003
C_-~ameral~ ~:i'dan~ ~/lum:g~lT, :~age 2 ,~'.~
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
ATTACHMENT F
SCDHS Design Flow Factors
All sub-surface sewage d£sposa~ systems are ~o ~e des~c~ed
accord£n~ to the o~cupan~y ra~in~ and/or the follow£n~ ~r£~eria~
Buildin~ Us~ I Design Flow
Single Family E~uivalent [ 300 gallons/day
Efficiency Apartments/Hotel/~tel] 100 gallons/day/unit plus food service
da
Planned Ret 1~
Condominiums One Bedroom [zuu allons da
~ [ 1~0 a_llons?a bedroom
Touris~ C I 60 allons da s~te
~ ~50 allons/da trailer
D~S __ I ~ allons aa armln s ace
Bowling
Tennis Courts I 100 or
service
Hoe
floor area
Public
Bars
Markets and Wet Stores
Churches
Bath House
+ food servzce
floor area
area
floor .area
floor area
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
ATTACHMENT G
Hamlet Development Model
HAMLET DEVELOPMENT MODEL TDR PROGRAM FEASIBILITY STUDY
FINAL REPORT
Mark Terry, Principal Planner
John Sepenoski, Data Processing
Leslie Weisman, Southold Hamlet Stakeholder Committee Chairperson
April 16, 2008
Background and Introduction
At a meeting on May 25, 2006 The Planning and Zoning Committee asked the authors of this
report to investigate the feasibility of a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program in Southold
Town. Using the Hamlet of Southold as a case study, the team, in collaboration with Land
Preservation Coordinator Melissa Spiro, developed a methodology based on two identified goals:
1. the creation of a TDR/planning model for Southold Hamlet that would model the transfer
of development rights from agricultural/open space within the Southold school district - the
sending zone- to Southold's Hamlet center/HALO- the receiving zone, which would also
prevent undesirable over-development and protect the hamlet's unique qualities, scale,
and historic character
2. To make the Southold TDR/planning model equitably transferable to other hamlets in
Southold Town.
The conceptual approach that the team developed and the assumptions upon which the test
model was designed are described in the last two pages of this report in a document titled
Southold Hamlet Development Model Draft 6 dated 8/24/2006. Based upon these goals and
assumptions, numbers were projected to determine the total potential number of TDR credits and
preserved acres that could be generated from the sending zones, first in the Hamlet of Southold,
then within each hamlet, and finally Town wide. The model was presented to each of the Hamlet
Stakeholder Committees (August-September 2006) to discuss its specific application to their
hamlet and to obtain their feedback. A Summary Report on a Potential TDR Program in Southold
Town (dated October 15, 2006) outlining the preliminary findings and the methodology used to
obtain them was distributed and discussed with the Town Board and the Planning Board. The
team concluded that: based upon the projected potential numbers, a Town wide TDR program
was feasible. However, they cautioned that "impacts will vary substantially from hamlet to hamlet,
and so will the method of implementation" and recommended that "these impacts on hamlet
development should be carefully considered and monitored by the Planning Department, the Town
Board and the Planning Board within the context of hamlet design standards and schematic
master plans appropriate to each different hamlet. These plans should be developed with the
expertise of planning and other design professionals in consultation with the various stakeholder
groups."
It is important to note here that the projected numerical calculations contained in the Summary
Report have been recalculated in this Final Report based on two factors that were anticipated from
the outset: First, changes in the stakeholder generated hamlet center/HALO boundary maps that
would likely occur upon review and modification, where needed, by the Planning Department,
Planning Board, and Town Board prior to formal acceptance by the Town Board. Second, changes
that were intentionally made in the methodology used to calculate the numbers based on feedback
from each of the Hamlet Stakeholder Committees while testing the Hamlet Development Model.
Finally, the Summary Report outlined four "next steps" to be taken in order to implement a TDR
program (see the last page of this report).
Based upon the team's Summary Report, the Town Board decided to proceed with the creation of
a TDR Program and hired planning consultant Charles Voorhis of Pope Nelson &Voorhis to work
with the original TDR team, including the Land Preservation Coordinator Melissa Spiro and Town
Attorney Patricia Finnegan, Esq. in the preparation of a full scale TDR Planning Report. The
resultant Town of Southold TDR Planning Report dated June 25, 2007 was presented to the Town
Board and accepted as a basis for the Town to move forward with the required SEQRA process
and to consider public and agency input in their deliberation in reaching an informed decision on
the Town's TDR program. On April 9, 2008 the TDR Work Group team, led by Charles Voorhis,
presented and discussed with members of the Town Board a Draft Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for the Town of Southold Transfer of Development Rights Program (DGEIS dated April
2008). This document is currently under consideration and review by the Town Board.
This Hamlet Development Model TDR Program Feasibility Study Final Report has been written as
a stand alone report and is included in Appendix G in the DGEIS. It includes the final projected
numbers for each hamlet that the authors generated based upon the now finalized hamlet
center/HALO boundary maps and the final methodology that emerged from meetings with the
Hamlet Stakeholder Committees.
Final Methodology**
1. Yields of the hamlet HALO areas were calculated using a standard subdivision model at 20,000
sq. ft. or .5 acre density, except for Orient which was calculated at 1 acre density due to the lack of
public water. Streamlined ERSAP requirements were applied removing unbuildable lands as
follows:
o wetlands
o community facilities
o existing protected lands
· lots less than .5 acre except for Orient which was 1 acre (nonconforming under HALO
down zoning)
· 15% of the subdividabie land for new infrastructure
2. Potential by-right new residential units were calculated under current zoning and the number of
existing residential and commercial units was determined based upon the Town Assessor's
records
3. The number of existing residential and commercial units on lots that were non-conforming
based upon the Hamlet Development Model criteria was determined
4. The number of existing residential and commercial units on non-conforming lots was subtracted
from the number of potential by-right new residential units and existing units to calculate the
number of potential TDR units at full build out
**NOTES:
o These numbers reflect existing and potential residential units, and existing commercial properties,
but do not include projections for new commercial development that might occur.
· The total potential number of by right units is assumed to be residential When commercial
development occurs in the Hamlet, the potential number of market rate housing units will diminish
o The HALO areas used in these calculations also include land in the hamlet centers
· The haft acre and one acre densities are based on SCDHS guidelines without sterilizing farmland
Based upon this methodology, the authors recommend the following:
All future applications for development within the Hamlets should be evaluated relative to
achieving the overall development and preservation goals in this Final Report and the
Southald Hamlet Development Model that appears on pages 4 and 5. Each application
should be approved, expedited, or denied based upon the Town's tracking and monitoring
the status of the caps on TDRs, open space and affordable housing units throughout the
2
Hamlets over time. Each development project can and will vary in scale and character, but
total developmentJpreservation goals for the Hamlets §hould remain the same.
When an affordable unit is created through new construction not requiring a TDR (for
example through AHD rezoning) and the 10% total target for affordable units is thereby
exceeded, then the TDR cap is reduced by the same number of units.
When open space is preserved in the HALO and density reduction results, to maintain the
target 70 percent development density, the related number of development rights
extinguished will be added to the total TDR cap.
Final Numerical Summary
Hamlet Total number of potential Total number of TDR units Total number of affordable
TDR units @ 30% cap units @10% of potential
new construction
Cutchegue 47 14 12
East Marion 73 21 11
Greenport 21 6 8
Mattituck 138 41 22
New Suffolk 57 17 9
Orient 24 7 3
Peconic 142 42 16
Southold 160 48 34
TOTALS 662 196 115
TOTAL number of potential acres preserved in sending
zones through TDR at full build out (assuming a 1=1 transfer
rate and preservation within the 2 acre zones):
TOTAL number of potential acres preserved at 30% cap:
1,218 acres
360 acres
Southold Hamlet Development Model
Proposal developed by:
Mark Terry, Acting Head, Planning Department
John Sepenoski, Data Processing
Melissa Spiro, Land Preservation Coordinator
Leslie Weisman, Southold Hamlet Stakeholder Committee Chairperson
Draft 6:8/24/2006
GOALS
1. Create a planning model for Southold Hamlet that will prevent undesirable over-
development and protect the hamlet's unique qualities, scale, and historic character.
Development includes existing residential and commercial structures, new residential and
commercial construction, new infrastructure, affordable units, green/open space, and TDR
units (transfer of development rights from agricultural/open space within the Southold
school district - the sending zone- to Southold's HALO- the receiving zone).
2. Make this planning model equitably transferable to other hamlets in Southold Town.
CONCEPT
1. High Density Subdivision Planning
This planning model calculates the TDR potential in Southold within the framework of desirable
over-all development. Southold's HALO/Hamlet Center is conceptualized as a "high density"
subdivision in which 70% development and 30% open/green space is proposed as the desirable
total build out, as defined above.
2. Growth Control (TDR Cap)
To control the growth rate of the HALO build-out the group established a proposed cap on the
number of potential TDR units available for transfer into the HALO zone linked to a set time period.
The proposed cap is 30% of the total potential TDR units within the receiving zone or 99 units over
a 25 year period (see below). The time frame is arbitrary; there is no ability to actually forecast the
pace of TDR development. An annual audit by the Town's Planning Department would maintain
growth rate by recommending modifications as needed.
3. TDR and Open Space in the HALO
When open space is preserved in the HALO and density reduction results, to maintain the target
70 percent development density, the related number of development rights extinguished wilt be
added to the total TDR cap. For example, if the Town purchases for preservation a 20 acre parcel
in the HALO zone on which 20 units could have been built by right, the TDR cap will be increased
by 20 potential development units (99 plus 20-- a new TDR cap of 119 units).
4. Affordable/VVorkforce Housing
The group recommends that a minimum 10 % of all new residential units created within the HALO
and Hamlet Center be affordable/workforce housing. These units would include rentals, new
construction, and inclusionary zoning units. Adaptive reuse/renovation of existing structures for
affordable units are encouraged, and will be considered over and above the 10 percent
recommendation for new construction. The 10% figure would only include applications submitted
after the effective start year of the Town's affordable housing legislation. Moreover, it is consistent
with Chapter A-106 Subdivision of Land inclusionary affordable housing requirements. Based
upon the figures below, 53 units of new construction would be required within the Southold HALO
zone and Hamlet Center.
ASSUMPTIONS UPON WHICH THIS PROPOSAL HAS BEEN DEVELOPED
The TDR program is one unit from sending to one unit in receiving at market rate,
assuming that a TDR program is established by the Town
The Town Board will continue to consider AHD zone changes as per existing code. AHD
zone changes will not require TDR credits but may require sanitary flow credits as per
existing code.
Any down zoning other than AHD within the Hamlet HALO zone will require TDR.
Of the 30% goal of open space preservation in the HALO, two-thirds will be for pubic use
and enjoyment (parks, ball fields, trails etc) and the remaining will consist of visually open
public and private space.
The total potential number of by right units is assumed to be residential. When commercial
development occurs in the Hamlet, the potential number of market rate housing units will
diminish.
Specific design standards will be developed to create "mini-master plans" for each of the
hamlets that incorporate the recommendations in the respective Hamlet Stakeholder
Committee Reports. The intent is to ensure that any development that does occur will be
compatible with the specific qualities, scale, character, and uniqueness of each hamlet.
PHASE I1: IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSAL:
Evaluate existing subdivision and zoning codes to determine any necessary changes/legislation
NEXT STEPS TOWARD IMPLEMENTATION
From the
Summary Report on a Potential TDR Program in Southold Town (October 15, 2006)
The Summary Report outlined four "next steps" to be taken in order to implement a TDR Program
as follows:
1. Determine what constitutes a TDR credit, e.g. I TDR credit=l unit of single family or two
family residential construction? Commercial construction? etc. Define a commercial TDR
component
2. Establish eligibility criteria for TDR credits for properties in both the sending zones and the
receiving zones
3. Create PDD (Planned Development District) legislation and connect it to a TDR program to
create a market for developers
4. Request that the Suffolk County Health Department and the Town analyze the impact of a
sewer system in the hamlets, using Southold and Mattituck Hamlets as case studies.
Note: The first three "steps" are fully discussed and evaluated in the DGEIS that is currently before
the Town Board, and the fourth "step" is currently in progress.
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generlc ElS
APPENDIX C
Positive Declaration and EAF Part I, Town Board
RESOLUTION 2007-926
ADOPTED
DOC ID: 3370
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO, 2007-926 WAS
ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON
DECEMBER 4, 21}07:
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 caused to be prepared a study of these plans in 2003, titled the
Comprehensive Implementation Strategy (CIS), tbr which a Generic Envirom~ental Impact
Statement (GELS) and Findings Statement were prepared, and
WHEREAS, the Strategy delineated a. number of recommendations that would provide needed
mechanisms to achieve the following goals:
To preserve land including open space, recreation and working landscapes.
'Fo preserve rural, cultural, historic character office hamlets and sm'rounding
countryside.
To preserve the Town's natural environment; to prevent fi~rther deterioration of
resources and to restore degraded resources back to pristine or near pristine
quality.
To preserve and promote a range of housing and business opportunities that
would support a socio-economically diverse community.
To increase transportation el'ficiency and to create attractive alternatives to
automobile travel, while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of the
Town, State, County and local roadways.
WltEREAS, the Board intends to implement the recommendations of the studies and analyzed
in the CIS GELS, to adwmce the goals of the Town, and
Resolution 2007-926 Board Meeting of December 4, 2007
WHEREAS~ the Board established a team of professionals to assist with the design of the
proposed Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program, wbich was recommended in the CIS,
and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding the far-reaching nature of the proposed action, the Board finds
that by virtue of the fact that it is intended to implement one of the recommendations that was
contained iu the CiS, 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 ibrms the Town's direction in terms of achieviog its vision, ,'md
WHEREAS, 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 the New York State
Euvironmental Quality Review Act (SEQILA) and Title 6 of the New York State Code of Rules
mrd Regulations (6 NYCRR) Part 617, and therefore is more likely to require an environmental
impact statement; mid, lastly that the action will affect property, resources and the shaping of
the Town's future, and
WHEREAS, the Board has exclusive attthority to effect zoning changes, create and/or modify
legislation, establish land use progrmns 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 cxclusive authority, the Town Board is the appropriate
entity to assume lead agency status under SEQRA, and
WHEREAS, the Board does intend to solicit inter-agency and public input on the proposed
action, and will consider its potential impacts under a public fornm provided through the
intended GElS procedure, and
WHEREAS, based oa tbe above facts and tile Part I Environmental Assessment Form (EAF)
prepared for the Board's consideratiou ill determining signilicance, tbe Board finds it prudent to
take a "hard look" at the proposed action through tile preparation of a Supplement to the GElS
U13claIed: 12/4/2007 3:30 PM by Lyoda Bohn Page 2
Resolution 2007-926 Board Meeting of December 4, 2007
that was prepared for the CIS, and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Southold
hereby classifies thc Toxvn of Southold TDR Program as a Type I action pursuant to 6 NYCRR
Part 617, and BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that, as the Town Board is tile only agency that has the authority to enact the
proposed action, the Board hereby assumes lead agency status in review of the action and for
the purpose of compliance with 6 NYCRR, Part 617, and BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Board finds that a Supplement to the GElS that was prepared lbr the CIS
is appropriate to delineate and analyze the potential impacts of the proposed action, which may
iuclude cumulative and/or generic impacts, and hereby issues the appropriate determination (via
a Positive Declaration) to require such document for the proposed action, and BE IT
FURTHER
RlgSOLVED, that the Board authorizes the Town Cleric of the Town of Sonthold to file this
Resolution, the Part I EAF, and the Positive Declaration with the following parties:
Town of Southold, Supervisor's Office
Town of Soutbold, Town Clerk
Town of Southold, Planning Board
Town of Southold, Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Soutbold, Town Trustees
Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services
Suftblk County Dept. of Public Works
Suffolk County Water Authority
Suffolk County Planning Commission
NYS Dept. of Enviromnental Conservation, Commissioner, Albany NYS
Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Regional Office, Stony Brook
NYS Dept. of Transportation
NYS Dept. of State
US Army Corps of Engineers
Parties of Interest Ot'ficially on Record with the Town Clerk (if applicable)
Elizabeth A. Neville
Southold Town Clerk
Ul.xlated: 12/4/2007 3:30 PM by l,ynda 13ohu Page 3
Resolution 2007-926 Board Meeting of December 4, 2007
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUSI
MOVER: Thomas H. Wicldmm, Councilman
SECONDER: Louisa P. Evans, Jostice
AYES: Krupski Jr., Edwards, Ross, Wickham, Evans, Russell
LJpdated: 12/4/2007 3:30 I)M by Lynda 13olin I~ag¢ 4
SEQRA POSITIVE DECLARATION
Notice of Intent to Prepm'e a Draft Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
the Town Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Determination of Significance
Lead Agency:
Town of Southold
Town Board
Contact:
Mr. Scott A. Russell,
Snpervisor
Address:
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Date: December 4, 2007
This notice is issned pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the i~nplementing regulations pertaining to
Article 8 (Stale Environmental Quality Review Act - SEQRA) of the Enviromnental Conservation
Law mad 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 enviromnent and that a Draft Supplement to the Generic Environmental hnpact
Statement (GELS) for the Town Comprehensive Implementation Strategy (CIS) will be prepared.
Title of
Action:
Town of Southold, Transfer of Development Rights
Program
SEQR Type I Action
Status:
Description of
Action:
The proposed action involves an amendment to the Sonthold Town
Code to imple~nent a voluntm'y Transfer of Development Rights
(TDR) progrmn, to permit and facilitate private transactions that
woold shift development fi'om agricultural lands in the Town to
locate new residential units in defined hamlet areas (hamlet locus,
or "HALO" zones). The program wonld not increase net density,
as i transferred credit is proposed to equal 1 receiving credit. The
proposed action would include a limit on the number of units that
can be received in the HALO zones to maintain a carefnl bahmce
of existing community character and ensure compliance with
density limitations of the Snffolk County Department of Health
Services.
The proposed action considers implemeutation of an important plmming and program
tool described and recommended in the numerous planning sludies undertaken
within the Town over the past 20 years. These studies, plans and recommendations were
recently (2002-03) reviewed in terms of cun'ent needs and Town goals, in order to
achieve the Town's vision as articulated in those plans. That review, lmown as the
Soutbold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy ("CIS"), found that many of the newer
planning docnments reiterated recommendations of prior Town plans and studies,
resulting in much consistency between stndies and the goals of the Town over the years.
As required by SEQRA, tile potential environmental impacts associated with the CIS were
determined, described and analyzed in a GELS, and a Findings Statement was prepared. The
Findings Statement discussed the potential impacts of the recommendations analyzed in the
CiS, mid established procedures to be followed when the Town Board implemented those
recommendations. These procedm'es included preparation of supplemental maalyses for
these recommendations.
It should be emphasized that the proposed action involves prim~ily legislative changes,
with no specific physical changes proposed.
Tile proposed TDR program is expected to provide the following public benefits:
Protect critical resources associated with sending parcels including rural character, farm and
agricultnral land use to promote land preservation and enviroumental protection.
Provide all increase in the amount of diverse housing stock Ibr a variety of income levels.
Reduce subur[~an sprawl and promote "smart growth" development principals including
strengthening of hamlets and businesses, walkable conmmnities, sustainable growth, mixed-
use developmeut, improvements to and use of existing infi'astructure, controlled in-fill
development, reduction in vehicle trip ends, and increase in inter-modal transpm'tation
opportunities.
Rednce infi'astructure needs as a result of encouraging controlled development in appropriate
use areas.
Prmnote beneficial design guidelines and standards within the hamlets including neo-
traditional development in appropriate areas, maintenance of natural vegetation,
minimization of fertilizer application, buffers and setbacks.
Prmnote the long-term planning goals of the Town by utilizing TDR to protect critical and
valuable resom'ces while helping to address the housing and social needs of the Town.
Facilitale land preservation without the expenditure of public funds.
In sumn'mry, the proposed TDR program is a furtherance of the Town's comprehensive planning
efforts to achieve its goals of protecting valuable environmental and cultural resources, providing
diversified housing to meet Town needs, managing limited resources, facilitating appropriate
infi'astructure in hamlet areas and promoting appropriate development consistent with good
design and plauning principles.
Determination of Significance
Town Transfer of Development Rights Program
Location:
The proposed action would apply to the Sending Areas and
Receiving Areas as designated in the proposed action.
SCTM No.:
(see attached list of tax lot numbers of the Sending Areas, and
map ol'tbe Sending & Receiving Areas)
Reasons Supporting This Determination:
The proposed project involves the implementation ora land preservatiou technique that was
recommended in nnmerons prior Town planniag studies. Therefore, it is consistent with the
Town Comprehensive Plan, which embodies the goals, legislative actions and the record of
decisions tbat forms the Town's direction in terms of' acbieving its vision. The proposed action is
not expected to canse significant adverse impacts, since it advances the goals ot' the Town.
However, the action is o f Townwide significance, aud does involve changes to natoral and
human resources. IIi additiou, since the action is a Town-wide initiative, it is determined to be a
Type I action pursuant to SEQILA Part 617, aud therefore is more likely to require an
environmental impact statement. Since the actiou will affect property, resources and the shaping
ot'tbe Town's fi~ture, it is prudent to prepare a Supplemental GELS. Finally, the Findings
Statement prepared [br the CIS GElS specified that Supplemental analyses should be prepared
when the Town Board implements recommendations of the CIS. As a result, the considerations
noted above and the following potential impacts are identified as the Reasons Supporting This
Determination:
The application has beeu reviewed pursuant to the Criteria tbr Determiuation of
Significance contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.7. Consideration has been giveu to
inlbrmation supplied by the applicant inclndiag a Part 1 Environmental Assesslnent
Form.
The proposed action may resalt in impacts to the natural and hnman resources of the
Town, individually, camalatively or synergistically. Zone changes and/or Town Code
revisions may be necessary to ilnplement recommendations.
The action may set a precedent witb regard to the grewtb and character of the Town
and/or individual commnnities.
For Further In£ormation Contact:
Patricia A. Finnegan, Esq., Towu Attorney Town Hail, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Telepbone: (631) 765-1889
Copies of this Notice Sent to:
Town of Southold, Supervisor's Office
Town of Southold, Town Clerk
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
Suflblk County Water Authority
Saflblk County Plamfing Commission
NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Commissioner, Albany
NYS Dept. of Enviromnental Conservation, Regional Office, Stony
Brook NYS Dept. of Transportation
NYS Dept. of State
US Army Corps of Engineers
Parties of Interest Officially on Record with the Towo Cleric (if applicable)
l 4~16-2 (2/87)-7c SEQR
617.21
Appendix A
State Environmental Quality Reviexv
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
P,urp, ose: Th~ full EAF. is desig¢_ ed yo help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner,
wnemer a project ur action may ? szgmficant. The question o~' whether an action may be si~,hificant s
not always easy to answer. Frequently, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or
unmeasureable. ~t is also understood that [hose who determine significance may have litt e or no farina
knowledge of the environment or may be technically exl~ert in enviromnentaI analysis. In addition,
many wino have knowledge in one partlcular 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 l~rocess has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introdnctiou of
information to ~it a project or action.
Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts.
Part 1: Provides objective data and infurmation about a ~iven project and its site. By identifying
basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that tal~es place m Parts 2 and 3.
Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur frmn aCroject or action.
It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether
it xs a r~otentially-large Lmpact. 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 unpact is actually knportant.
DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE - TYPE 1 AND UNLISTED ACTIONS
IdentiJj~ the Portions of E~4F completed for this project: X Partl Part2 Part3
Upon r~view of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts I and 2 and 3 if approp, riate), and any other
supporting inlbnnation, and considering both the magnitude and importance of each impac[, it is
reasonably determined by the lead agency that:
A. The proiect will not result in any large an~ important impact(s) and, therefore, is one wtfich
-- will no{ have a significant impact on the environment, theref6re a negative declaration will
be prepared.
B. Although the proiect could have a significant effect on the envir~mnent, there will not be a
-- significant eff6ct tbr this Unlisted Actmn 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 imrmrtant imp. acts that may have a significant
-- impact on the enviromnent, therefore a positive deefaratiou wffi be prepared.
*A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unliste~l Actions
To*on of Southold rrattsfet' of Development Rights Program Name of Action
Town Board
Name of Lead Agency
Scott A. Russell Supervisor
Print or Type/~-r, Jmne of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title or, Responsible Officer
Date
PART 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION
Prepared by Project Sponsor
N. OT.I,[CE: T~s docum, ent is .designed to assist in determining whether the actiou proposed may bare a
.sjgmncant exrect .o,~ ,the enwr, onment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A !h~ough E. Ar/swers to
these questions wm t~e consilnered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further
verifi?atio~n and~ public review. Provide any aditttional information you believe will be needed to
comp[ere Farts z and 3.
It .i,,s expe. cted, that comple.tion of the full .EAF wilI be del~endent on information currently available and
wm not mvotve new sludges, research or investigation. If information reqniring such additional work is
unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance.
NAME OF ACTION
Town of Sou[hold Transfer of Development Rights Program
LOCATION OF ACTION (include Street Address, Municipality and County)
(See attached list of Sending Areas and map of Sending and Receiving Areas)
NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR BUSINESS TELEPHONE
To,eh Board, Town of Southold (631) 765-1938
ADDRESS
Town tlall 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179
CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE
Sou[hold NY 11971
NAME OF OWNER (if different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE
ADDRESS
CITY/PO STATE ZEP CODE
DESCIUPTION OF ACTION
(See Attached)
Please Complete Each Question - Ira[[cate N.A. ii' not applicable
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
Physical setting of overall proj eot, both developed and undeveloped areas.
1. Present land use:
__Urban Industrial ConnnerciaI
__Rm-al (non-farm) X Forest
Other
X Residential (Suburban)
X Agriculture
2. Total acreage of project area: N/A acres
APPROXIMATE ACREAGE N/A PILESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION
Meadow or Brashland (Non-agricultural) acres acres
Forested acres acres
Agl-icultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) acres acres
Wetland (Freshwater or Tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) acres acres
Water Sm't:ace Area acres acres
Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) acres acres
Roads, buildings and other paved surlhoes acres acres
Other (Indicate type)~ acres acres
What is predominant soil type(s) on project site?
Rivet'head soil Associations
a. Soil drainage: N/A Well drained __% of site;
Poor drained I [YO 0 f site
Haven-Riverhead attd Carver-Plpntouth -
Moderately well draioed % ol'site;
b. 11' any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified witl]h] soil group 1
through 4 of the NYS La id Classification System? NZ4 aares. (See 1 NYCRJ~. 370).
4. Are there bedrock outcropping on project site? Yes X No
a. What is depth to bedrock? 1,0004- (in
5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: N/A 0-10% %; 10-15%
15% or ~Tfiter -- % --
6. Is project substantiall¥contig~4ous to or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the
National Registers of Historic Places~ Yes '~qo N/A
7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks?
:~es No
8. What is the depth of the water table? * (in feet) * Variable (O~954-feeO
9. Is site located re, er a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? X Yes __ No
10.Do hunting, fislfing or shell fislfing opportunities presently exist in the project area? X Yes No
I I.Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as ttu:eatened or
endangered? Yes No According to N/A
Identify each species
12.Are there any unique or mmsual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological
lbm~ations) __ Yes X No Describe
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 o%nding, Areas: Open xpace rural qualities~ historic
setting, prontinent vie vs
14.Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community?
~ Yes No (Sending Areas)
15.Streams witlfin or contiguous to project area Multiple sur{'ace waters n~thin Town a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary
16.Lakes, ponds, wetlaud 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 sttpplj, litnitations are present attd no sewer districts are present..
a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? _~X Yes __ No (SeeAbove)
b) if'Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow cozmection? X Yes No
18.Is the site located in an al,q'icultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article
25-AA, Section 303 and 2/04? . X Yes No (Sending Areas)
19.Is the site located in or substantially conti~znous to ? Critical Environmental Area desto,mated pursuant
to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCIC~ 617? Y~ Yes No (Partial)
20.Hasthesiteeverbeenusedforthedisposa ofsolidorhazardouswastes? Yes X No
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION* ACTION IS LEGISLATIVE - No physical changes are
proposed; project/site specific itnpacts may occur.
1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill ia dimensions as appropriate)
a. Total contigaous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor Entire Town.
b. Project acreage to be developed N/A acres initially; N/A acres uhimately.
c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped N/A acres.
d. Length ot'pro~ject, in miles: N/A (if appropriate)
e. lfthe project is an expansion, iadicate percent of expansion proposed /5gA . %
f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing N/A ; proposed N/A
g. Maximum vehicalar trips generated per hour N/A (t pon completion of project)?
h. If residential: Number and lype of housing units: N/A
One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium
hfitially
Ultimately
i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure: N/A heigbt; .N/,4 width; N/,4 .length.
j. Linear feet of froutage 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 tmm/cubic yards.
3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? __ Yes __ No X N/A
a. If yes, tbr wlmt intended purpose is the site being reclaimed?
b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? __ Yes No
c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled fur reclamation? __ Yes No
4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? N/A acres.
5. Will ,~a~n,?y mature fbrest (over 100 years old) or other locally-im~0ortant vegetation be removed by this
proj eot. _ Yes X No Possiblefi~ture prajectl~h.l,sica£alteration.
6. If single phaseproject: Anticipated period ofconstmctian .N/A months, (including demolition).
7. If multi-phased: N/A
a. Total number of phases anticipated (nmnber).
b. Anticipated date of cornmencement phase 1 __ month __ year (including demolition).
c. Approximate completion date of final phase __ month __ year.
d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequeat phases? Yes No
8. Will blasting occur during construction? __ Yes X No
9. Number ofjobs generated: during construction N/,4 ; after projeat is complete N/A .
10.Numberofjobseliminatedbythisproject N/A .
11 .Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities?
If yes, explain:
Yes X No
12.Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? Yes X No Project specific; notpart of
a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount legislative changes.
b. Name of water body into which eflluent will be discharged
13.Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? __ Yes X No Type: Sanital3, wastewater
14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? Yes ~ No
If yes, explain:
15.Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plahi? X Yes __ No (Partial)
16.Will the project generate solid waste? X Yes __ No
a. If yes, what is the amount per monlh N/vi tons l
b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facilib, be used? X Yes No
c. If yes, give name Town facilitl~ location Cutchogue
d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfilI? X Yes
e. If yes, explain llec~clable portion of waste stream.
17.Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? Yes X No
a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month.
b. If yes, what is the m~ticipated site life? years.
18.WiI1 project use herbicides or pesticides? Yes X No
19.Will proj act routinely produce odors (inure than one bout per day)? Yes
20.Will project produce operathig ooise exceeding the local ambient noise levels?
21.Will project resul1 in ail increase in energy use? X Yes No If yes, indicate type(s) Proiect Speci[~c
fi'No
__ Yes X._j_~ No
No
22. if water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity N/A gallons/minute.
23.Total anticipated water usage per day N/A gallons/day~ (,gee also Narrative Request, Section D).
24.Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? Yes X No
If yes, explain
25.Approvals Required: The Town Board is the only agency that can implenlent the TDR Program.;
t:fowever; other related project specific approvals, are as J3~llows:
Type Submittal
Town Board .~X Yes __ No
Town Planning Board X Yes __ No
Town Zoning Board .~X Yes __ No
County Health Department 3; Yes __ No
Other Local Agencies X Yes __ No
State Agencies X Yes __No
Other Regional Agencies __ Yes X No
Federal Agencies Yes X No
Rezoaing, Legislation
Site ~Plan, Subdivision
Variances
[Vater Supply, Sanitary System
Roadwork
Roada,ork, Wetlands
Date
C. ZONING AND PLANNING INFORMATION
1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? X Yes No
If yes, indicate decision required:
X zoning amendment X zonh~g variance ..X special use permit ~ subdivision X site plan
__ new/revision of master plan ..3,'. resource ma mgement plan X other L[VRP Consistencl~
2. What is the zoning classification(s) of the site? Maltiple residential~ contntercial attd special
t#strlcts.
3. What is the maximum potentiaI developmefii'6t' the s~te ~i: rlevelopecl as pernutte0 I~y the pres'ent
zoning?
N/A
What is the proposed zoning of the site? Possible changes to result ['rom planning efforts,
What is the maximmn l~otential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed
zoning? N/A
6. Is,the proposed action consistent with the recorrmaended uses in adopted local land use plans?
.3/ Yes No
7. What are the l~redominant Im~d use(s) and zoning classifications within a I/4 mile radius of proposed
action?. Multiple ~ottittg attd la~td uses; 'Town-wide
8. Is lh~qvoroposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a 1/4 mile? X Yes
9. Iffl~e proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? N/A
a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? N/A.
l 0.Will proposed action require an,/authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts9
Yes X No
I 1 .Will the proposed action create a den]crud for any community provided services (recreation, edacation,
police, fire protection)? __ Yes ~ No Potential specific needs }rill be addressed,
a. ff yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? __ Yes No
12.Will the proposed action result in the generation of mfffic sig~fificantly above present levels?
__ Yes X No Planning ~f. forts expected to reduce buildout tra.[.'fic.
a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to bandle the additioual traffic? _._ Yes __ No
D. INFORMATIONAL DETAILS AND WATER SUPPLY NARIL~TIVE REQUEST
Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any
adverse ifi~pacts associated with ,/our proposal, please discuss sucli inipacts and the measures which
you propose to mitigate or avoid ~em.
E. VERIFICATION
I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge.
Applicant/Sponsor Name Sea,fA. Russell Date ( ~ - q ~ ~)'-]~
Signature ~z~~ Title Town Supervisor
If the action 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 J.~Voorhis, CEff, AICP; NP& V
Signature ~~~
Title M;anaging Parmer
6
Town or Southold
Transl'er o1' Develop~nent Rights Program
EAF Part 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed action involves an amendment to tbe Southold Towu code to implement a voluntary
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program~ to permit and facilitate private transactions that would
shift development from agricultural lauds in the Town to locate new residential units in defined hamlet
areas (hamlet locus, or "ItALO" zones). Tbe program would not increase net density, as 1 transferred
credit is proposed to equal I receiving credit. The proposed action would include a ~'cap" on the number
of units that can be received ill the HALO zoues to maintain a careful balance of existing cmnmunity
character and eosure compliance with density limitations of the Suffolk County Department of Health
Services.
Tile proposed action considers implementation of an important planning and program tool described aud
recommended iu Ire ilunlerous planning studies undertakea within the Town over the past 20 years.
These studies, plans and recommendations were recently (2002-03) reviewed in terms of current needs
and Town goals, in order to achieve tbe Town's vision as articulated in those plans. Tbat review, known
as tile Southold Comprehensive hnplementatiou Strategy (CIS), found that many of the newer planniug
docnmeuts reiterated recommendations of prior Town plans and studies, resulting iu much consistency
between studies and tide goals of' the Town over the years.
As required by SEQRA, the potential environmental impacts associated with the CIS were determined,
described and analyzed in a GELS, and a Findings Statement was prepared. The Findings Statement
discussed tide potential impacts of the recommendations analyzed in the CIS, and established procedures
to be followed when the Town Board implemented tbuse recommendations. These procedures included
preparation of supplemeutal analyses for these recommendations.
It should be emphasized that the proposed action involves primarily legislative changes, witb no specific
physical changes proposed.
Tile proposed TDR program is expected to provide tile following public benefits:
Protect critical resources associated with Sending Areas including ruraI character, farm aud
agricultural land use Io promote land preservation and environmental protection.
Provide an increase in the amount of diverse housiag stock for a variety of income levels.
Reduce suburban sprawl and promote "smart growth" development principals including
su'engthening o1' hamlets and businesses, walkable communities, sustainable growth, raixed-use
development, improvements to and use of existing infrastructure, controlled in-fill development,
reduction in vehicle trip ends, and increase in inter-modal transportation opportunities.
Reduce infrastructure needs as a result of eucouraging controlled development iu appropriate use
areas.
Promote beneficial design guidelines and standards within tbe hamlets including neo4raditional
development iu appropriate areas, maintenance of natural vegetation, minimization of fertilizer
application, buffers and setbacks.
Promote the long-term planning goals of tile Town by utilizing TDR to protect critical and valuable
resources while helping to address the housing and social needs of the Town.
lu sumraary, tile preposed TDR l>rogram is a furtherance of the Towo's conDprehensive planning efforts to
achieve its goals of pmtecling wduable environmental and cnllural resources, providing diversified
hoLtsing to meet Town oeeds, managing limited resonrces, filcilitating apprupriate infrastructure in hamlet
areas and promoliug appropriate development consistent with good design and planning principles.
I'age I
TDRSendList
Listing of parcels within proposed TDR sending area as of 7/11/07
District Tax Map Number District Tax Map Number
1000 13.-2-8,2 1000 85,-1-9
1000 17,-8~14,2 1000 85.-1-10
1000 18.-3-30,3 1000 85.-2-7
1000 18.-4-7.1 1000 85.-2-9.2
1000 18.-6-4.1 1000 85,-2-14
1000 18.-6-5 1000 85.-2-15
1000 18.-6-17.3 1000 85,-2-16
1000 18.-6-19.3 1000 85.-3-8
1000 19,-1-8.4 1000 86.-1-10.9
1000 20.-3-4.1 1000 86,-1~15
1000 27.-1-2 1000 94,-3-2
1000 27.-1-3 1000 94.-3-4.1
1000 50.-5-1 1000 95.-1-1.1
1000 51.-6-3.8 1000 95.-1-2
1000 52.-5-60,2 1000 95.-1-3,1
1000 54.-3-24,1 1000 95,-1-7.2
1000 54.-7-21.1 1000 95,~1-8,3
1000 55.-1-5.1 1000 95.-4-3,1
1000 55,-1-9 1000 95.-4.-1I
1000 55.-2-10.1 1000 96.-2-7
1000 55.-3-6.1 1000 96.-3-7,3
1000 50,-5-1.3 1000 96.-3:9
1000 59,-3-27 I000 96.~4-4.3
1000 59.-3-28.5 I000 97.-1-1
1000 59.-10-1 1000 97,-2-23
1000 68,-4-18 I000 97.-5-2.1
1000 69.-4-11 1000 100.-2-3,2
1000 74.-1-38 1000 100,-2-4
1000 74.-1.42.7 1000 100.-3-12
1000 74.-4-3.2 1000 100,-4.4
1000 75,-2-8 1000 101.-1-4,1
1000 75.-6-6.1 1000 101.-1.4.3
1000 75.-6-11 1000 101.-1-5.2
1000 75.-7-2 1000 101,-1-8.2
1000 83.~%32.3 1000 101.-1-14.7
1000 83.-2-16 1000 101.-2-3.1
1000 84.~1-11 1000 101.-2-5
1000 84.-1-13 1000 101.-2-6
1000 84.-1-25,2 1000 102.-1-5.2
1000 84.-2-3.3 1000 102.-2-16
1000 85.-1-3 1000 102..4-6.2
District Tax Map Number
1000 102.-6-20.2
1000 103,-1-19.3
1000 103.-1-19,12
1000 106,-9-2.3
1000 107.-10-10.1
1000 108.-2-7.1
1000 108.-3-1
1000 108.-3-6.2
1000 108.-4-1.1
1000 109.-1-8.7
1000 109,-1-10.1
1000 109.-1-11
1000 113,-7-2.5
1000 113~-7-2.6
1000 115,-4~8,6
1000 115.-7-13.2
1000 115.-9-4
1000 115.-10-1
1000 116,-1-10
1000 120.-1-3
1000 120.-1-4
1000 120.-3-2
1000 120,-3-11.8
1000 ']20,~3-11.9
1000 120,-3~11,10
1000 120.-3-11.11
1000 121.-3-7.4
1000 122,-7-8.8
1000 125.-2-2.2
1000 125.-3-11
1000 127.-1-1
1000 127.-2-2.1
1000 127.-3-7
1000 127.-3-11
1000 127.-3-12
1000 129.-1-1
Page 1
TDRSendList
Listing of parcels within proposed TDR sending area as of 7/11/07
District Tax Map Number District Tax Map
1000 13,-2-8.2 1000 85.-%9
1000 17.-6-14.2 1000 85.-1-10
1000 18.-3-30.3 1000 85.-2-7
1000 18.-4-7,1 1000 85.-2-9.2
1000 18.-6-4.1 1000 85.-2-14
1000 18.-6-5 1000 85.-2-15
1000 18.-6-17.3 1000 85.-2-16
1000 18.-6~19.3 1000 85.-3-8
1000 19.-1-8.4 1000 86.-1-10.9
1000 20.-3-4.1 1000 86,-1-15
1000 27.-1-2 1000 94.-3-2
1000 27.-1-3 1000 94.-3-4.1
1000 50.-5-1 1000 95,-1-1.1
1000 51 .-6-3.8 1000 95.-1-2
1000 52.-5-60.2 1000 95,-1-3.1
1000 54.-3-24.1 1000 95.-1-7.2
1000 54.-7-21.1 1000 95.~1-8.3
1000 55.~1-5.1 1000 95.-4-3.1
1000 55.-1-9 1000 95.-4-11
1000 55.-2-10.1 1000 96.-2-7
1000 55.-3-6,1 1000 96.-3-7.3
1000 56.-5-1.3 1000 96.-3-9
1000 59.-3-27 1000 96.~4-4.3
1000 59.-3-28.5 1000 97.-1-1
1000 59.-10-1 1000 97.-2-23
1000 68.-4-18 1000 97.-5-2.1
1000 69.-4-11 1000 100.-2-3.2
1000 74.-1-38 1000 100.-2-4
1000 74.-1-42.7 1000 100.-8-12
1000 74.-4-3.2 1000 100.-4-4
1000 75.-2-8 1000 101.-1~.1
1000 75.-6-6.1 1000 101.-1-4.3
1000 75.-6-11 1000 101.-1-5.2
1000 75.-7-2 1000 101 ,-1-8.2
1000 83.-1-32.3 1000 101.~1-14.7
1000 83.-2-16 1000 101 .-2-3.1
1000 84.-1-11 1000 101.-2-5
1000 84.-%13 1000 101.-2-6
1000 84.-1-25.2 1000 102.-1-5.2
1000 84.-2-3.3 1000 102.-2-10
1000 85.-%3 1000 102.-4-6.2
Number
pistrict Tax Map Number
1000 102.-6-20.2
1000 103.-1-19.3
1000 103.-1-19,12
I000 106,-9-2.3
1000 107.-10-10.1
1000 108.-2~7.1
1000 108.-3-1
1000 108.-3-6.2
1000 I08.-4-1.1
1000 109,-1-8.7
1000 109.~1~10.1
1000 109.-1-11
1000 113.-7-2.5
1000 113.-7-2.6
1000 115.-4-8.6
1000 115.-7-13.2
1000 115.-9-4
1000 115.-10-1
1000 116.-1-10
1000 120.-1-3
1000 120.-1-4
1000 120.-8-2
1000 120.-3-11,8
1000 120.-3-1t,9
1000 120.-3-11.10
1000 120.-3-11.11
1000 121.-3-7.4
1000 122.~7-8.8
1000 125.-2-2.2
1000 125.-3-11
1000 127.-%1
1000 127.-2-2.1
1000 127.-3-7
1000 127.-3-11
1000 127.-3-12
1000 129.-1-1
Page 1