HomeMy WebLinkAboutDEIS Review
Review of Draft Environmental Impact Statement
For the Heritage at Cutchogue Planned Adult Active Community
To determine whether to accept the draft EIS as adequate with respect
to its scope and content for the purpose of commencing public review.
Prepared for
Southold Town Planning Board
March, 2008
Prepared by
KPC Planning Services, Inc
108 Mill Road, #3
Westhampton Beach, NY 11978
KPC Planning Services, Inc. has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) for the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue project, prepared by Greenman-Pedersen,
Inc. dated December 2007. The purpose of this analysis is to determine if the document
is adequate for public review in terms of scope and content. The content of the DEIS has
been compared to the Final Scope, which was adopted by the Southold Town Planning
Board on September 10, 2007 and provides the specific requirements for completing the
DEIS. We have also included a detailed outline of the process to assist the Planning
Board and staff in reviewing the project within the legal timeframes required by law.
Project Location
The subject property is a vacant 46.17-acre parcel located on the northwest corner of
Griffing Street and School House Lane, 1,079 feet north of Main Road (NYS Route 25)
in Cutchogue. The property is currently zoned Hamlet Density (HD) and is identified as
Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000-102-2-33.3.
Project Description
This proposed residential site plan application is for the development of a Planned 55+
Active Adult Community consisting of 139 detached and attached dwellings, 14 of which
will be permanently affordable. The affordable units are approximately 1,135 sq. ft each.
46 units will be 2,647 sq.ft. each, 21 units will be 1,930 sq.ft. each, 36 units will be
approximately 2,700 sq. ft. each, and 20 units will be 3,110 sq.ft. each. Additional
buildings proposed are an 8,840 sq. ft. clubhouse; a 1,160 sq. ft. swimming pool; two
3,200 sq. ft. tennis courts; a 2,400 sq. ft. maintenance garage; a gazebo; a gatehouse; 322
parking spaces, of which 278 are associated with the individual dwelling units and 44 are
associated with the clubhouse and recreational facility; 197,043 sq. ft. ofmanmade ponds
to serve as natural drainage basins/irrigation systems; 1,162,022 square feet (27.676
acres) oflandscaping; and various other site improvements including road pavement,
patio and sidewalk improvements, on a vacant 46. 17-acre parcel in the Hamlet Density
(HD) Zoning District located on the n/w comer of Griffing Street and School House
Lane, approximately 1,079 feet n/o the Main Road, in Cutchogue. SCTM#1000-102-1-
33.3
1
I. Requirements Pursuant to 6NYCRR Part 617
State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR)
In order to be in compliance with the SEQR requirements for this project, it is
recommended that the Town Planning Board undertake the following process pursuant to
6NYCRR Part 617. Because the Town has already taken action on this project as it
relates to the SEQR process, we have outlined the process starting with the preparation of
the DEIS.
I. Submission and Review of the DEIS: Pursuant to Section 617.9(a)(2), once the
DEIS has been submitted in accordance with the Positive Declaration and
Adopted Final Scope, the Planning Board, as lead agency, has 45 days to
determine if the documents is adequate for public review. The Planning Board
has been granted additional time to review the DEIS from the project sponsor, to
be completed no later than by the end of the first week in March 2008. In this
case, the Planning Board has opted to hire a consultant to review the DEIS on
their behalf. If it is not deemed adequate, the Town must identify in writing the
deficiencies and provide this information to the project sponsor. Upon the
submission of a revised DEIS, the Town will have 30 days to determine whether
to accept the revised DEIS or require further revisions.
2. Notice of Completion and Public Review of DEIS: Once it has been determined
that the DEIS is adequate for public review, the Town will need to prepare, file
and publish a Notice of Completion of the DEIS in accordance with 6NYCRR
Part 617.12 and it must state that is has been prepared in accordance with Article
8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and must contain: the name and
address of the lead agency, the name, address and telephone number ofthe person
who can provide additional information; a brief description of the action; the
classification; and the location of the action. It must also identify the type of EIS
and where copies of the document can be obtained. The minimum comment
period on the DEIS is 30 days from the date of filing the Notice of Completion.
3. Public Hearing: The Planning Board will need to decide whether or not to hold a
public hearing on the DEIS. Such notice may be filed separately or included
within the Notice of Completion. The public hearing cannot start sooner than the
15th day following the Notice of Public Hearing nor more than 60 days from the
filing the Notice of Completion of the DEIS. When a SEQR hearing is held, it
should be conducted with other public hearings on the proposed action, whenever
practicable.
4. Final EIS: A final EIS must be prepared within 45 calendar days after the close
of any hearing or within 60 calendar days after the filing if the DEIS, whichever
occurs later. The last date for preparation and filing of the FEIS may be extended
if it is determined that additional time is necessary to prepare the statement
adequately or if problems with the proposed action requiring material
reconsideration or modification have been identified. When the FEIS has been
completed, the Town will need to prepare, file and publish a Notice of
Completion of the FEIS pursuant to 6NYCRR Part 617.12 and it must state that it
2
has been prepared in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental
Conservation Law and must contain: the name and address of the lead agency; the
name, address and telephone number of the person who can provide additional
information; a brief description of the proposed action; the classification; and the
location of the action. It must also identify the type of EIS and where copies of
the document can be obtained. In addition, a copy of the FEIS must be sent to the
Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Environmental Permits,
and any other agency who requests a copy.
5. Public Review of Final EIS and Statement of Findings: Prior to the Town's
decision on the action that has been the subject of the FEIS, it shall afford
agencies and the public a reasonable time period (not less than 10 calendar days)
in which to consider the FEIS before issuing its written findings statement and
decision. The Town must issue its findings (not the final decision) within 30
calendar days after the filing of the FEIS. Other involved agencies may make
their findings whenever they make their final decisions.
3
II. Review of DE IS
We have reviewed the DEIS in terms of content and accuracy as it relates to the Final
Scope that was adopted by the Planning Board for this project on September 10, 2007. It
includes an analysis of the general accuracy and/or completeness as it relates to the
information stated in the DEIS. Specifically, we found a number of general statements
that were made that are not substantiated with sufficient data, in addition to items that
simply have not been addressed as required by the Final Scope.
This report is generally structured as follows:
I. Identifies the requirements of the Final Scope and the page number where said
requirements can be found (in the Final Scope).
2. Identifies the specific items, where applicable, that have not been adequately
addressed or that have not been addressed at all (item #'s refer to the item
numbers in the Final Scope document).
3. Provides substantive comments as it relates to the information contained in the
DEIS (section numbers refer to the section numbers in the DEIS).
The following comments and recommendations are offered for the Board's consideration
at this time:
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
Final Scope Reauirement: Backflround and Historv (pafle 4)
Generally, the DEIS provides the information as required in the Final Scope. However,
additional information or clarification is needed as follows:
Section 1.1.1 Background and History
The project description is very limited and does not provide enough details that typically
would be included in an introductory section of a DEIS such as this. This section should
include a complete, concise and detailed project description similar to the one used by the
Town that includes the following information:
. The number and types of structures proposed
. Description of the accessory structures and site amenities
. The amount of landscaping and open space
. General description of the overall site design and layout
Final Scope Reauirement: Public Need and Municipalitv Obiectives (pafle 4)
The DEIS addresses the issues as it relates to public need and municipality objectives.
However, additional information is needed to support certain statements that are made as
discussed below:
Section 1.1.2 Public Need and Municipality Objectives
The DEIS indicates that "the public need for the project is related to the need for
affordable senior housing in the Town of South old. " Proposal calls for 10% of the units
to be designated as moderate income family dwelling units as required by the Town Code.
4
However, since the DEIS is referring to a specific "need" that has been identified by the
Town, the document should cite any sources used in making this determination, such as
the Town of Southold Housing Needs Assessment or any other data that may have been
available. In addition, there should be some discussion regarding the need for senior
housing in general.
The Town Code provides a number of options to satisfy the affordable housing
requirement. These options should be identified and the DEIS should specify the option
proposed by the project sponsor for this application.
Final Scope ReQnirement: Objectives of the Project Sponsor (paf!e 4)
The DEIS adequately addresses this issue as required by the Final Scope.
Final Scope Requirement: Benefits of the Project (paf!e 5)
The description of the benefits of the project contained in the DEIS is inadequate. This is
an instance where general statements have been made with no supporting information or
data, as described below:
Section 1.1.4 Benefits of the Proiect
The DEIS indicates that the project is a "fulfillment of the Town's vision for the subject
property as expressed in the Town of Southo/d Comprehensive Plan and zoning code. "
Additional information to support this statement is needed. What is the Town's vision for
the subject property? Where in the Comprehensive Plan is this property discussed, either
specifically or generally? How does this project fulfill the Town's vision?
It is stated that this project will generate substantial tax revenues for the Town. The
DEIS should provide a more detailed analysis to support this statement and provide
estimates of the amount of tax revenues that may be expected to be generated from this
project. In addition, Table 1-2 on page 4 of the DEIS indicates that tax generation data is
to be determined (TBD). This information needs to be provided in the table.
Final Scope Requirement: Location and Site Conditions (paf!e 5)
The DEIS adequately addresses this issue as required by the Final Scope.
Final Scope Requirement: Project Desif!n and Lavout (Daf!e 5)
The DEIS does not adequately address all of the following items contained in the Final
Scope as it relates to project design and layout:
. Item # 1: Include a brief description of the site and project layout; describe basis
for site yield, proposed structures, services, utilities, access points, road system,
drainage, site quantities table.
. Item #6: The adequacy of on-site parking will be discussed; required parking as
required by a breakdown of parking requirements shall be provided.
. Item #7: Dumpster locations will be identified.
. Item #9: The DEIS will include a description of water supply, irrigation well
water supply and proposed wastewater handling and corresponding use of water
supply and sanitary design flow.
5
. Item #10 Information on the type, amount and location of landscaping proposed
will be provided as well as information on maintenance requirements such as
irrigation and fertilization under operation and maintenance.
Our specific comments as they relate to the above-described inadequacies are as follows:
The Final Scope requires that the basis for the site yield be provided. While the
Description of the Proposed Action section of the DEIS provides a history of the project,
including a discussion on how the density has been reduced over time, there is no
information as it relates to the Town's requirement for determining yield.
Section 1.3 Proiect Design and Lavout
The DEIS indicates that the proposed site plan is a "hamlet design which provides
clustered housing in order to provide common areas within the community.. . and provide
a desirable and visually appealing site layout." It is unclear what is meant by a "hamlet
design." It appears the project sponsor is referring to traditional neighborhood design,
which has very clear and defined design elements that are fundamentally different that
the standard suburban street design of many similar developments. The DEIS should be
revised to clarify what is meant by "hamlet design" and include a more detailed
discussion about the key design elements for this project.
In addition, it is not clear how this proposal qualifies as "clustered housing." What are
the Town's requirements for clustering and how does this project comply with those
provisions? Generally, a cluster plan results in compact development, less infrastructure
and contiguous areas of open space. Therefore we question whether this proposal
qualifies as a cluster plan under the Town's regulations.
Section 1.3.3 Access. Road Svstem and Parking
The Final Scope requires that "the adequacy of on-site parking will be discussed;
required parking as required by a breakdown of the parking requirements shall be
provided." Parking calculations have not been provided nor is there a discussion of the
adequacy of the parking. It will be useful if a table of parking requirements is provided
in this section of the DEIS.
The proposed internal road network design and circulation warrants further discussion.
While the DEIS does discuss trip generation and traffic impacts as it relates to the
proposed development and the larger road network outside of the site, there is no
discussion on the internal roadway layout and circulation as required by the Final Scope.
A key element of this design that is being considered by the Board is the ability to
provide a safe environment with a cohesive design that promotes and protects the
pedestrian and helps form a sense of enclosure for vehicles and a sense of place for
citizens. Why was the road network designed with circular, interwoven roads, rather than
a grid layout? How is this project designed to encourage bicycling and walking for short
trips? Is the road network safe for emergency vehicles and ease of property
identification?
The DEIS indicates that the entrance road will connect to Spur Road on the west side of
the property, thereby connecting this development with the adjacent subdivision known
6
as Highland Estates. When the Highland Estates subdivision was approved by the Town,
it's clear that Spur Road and Bridle Lane were contemplated to provide access to this
property in the event it was developed. The same principle should be considered in this
case that provides cross-access with the adjacent property to the east, which is a large
undeveloped farm parcel with the potential for residential development.
Section 1.3.4 Sanitarv Disposal and Water Supplv
This project will utilize on-site septic systems, designed as gang systems (multiple unit
systems) for the treatment and disposal of sanitary waste. The Town Code requires that a
minimum land area of20,000 square feet per dwelling unit is required (2 per acre), unless
public water and public sewer is provided in which case a minimum land area of 10,000
(4 per acre) square feet per dwelling unit is permitted. Although the basis for the yield
has not been provided, it appears that this site is being developed at quarter-acre density,
thereby requiring public sewer. The Town Code defines public water and pubic sewer as
"communal sewerage disposal systems and communal water supply systems as approved
by public agencies having jurisdiction thereof" Furthermore, the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services defines a community sewerage system as follows:
Community Sewerage System - A system utilized for the collection and disposal
of sewerage, or other waste of a liquid nature, including the various devices for
the treatment of such wastes, serving more than one parcel, or a condominium
project. A community sewerage system requires acceptance by the Suffolk
County Sewer Agency. On-lot sewerage treatment systems are not community
sewerage systems.
The Health Department standards go on to say:
Community sewerage systems include a sewerage collection system, treatment
works, and a sewerage disposal system and require acceptance by the Suffolk
County Sewer Agency. Design of these systems is covered in the NYSDEC
Standards for Waste Treatment Works and the GLUMRB Recommended
Standards for Sewerage Works (Ten States Standards). Facilities shall be
capable of producing a discharge of IOmgll total nitrogen or less in the effluent
stream. Community sewerage systems may accept industrial or other wastes in
accordance with applicable permits issued by the authority having jurisdiction.
Applicants should consult the department prior to submission of designs of
community sewerage systems.
The discrepancy between the proposed sanitary design and the definitions as described
above should be addressed in the DEIS.
Section 1.3.5 Site Landscaping and Lighting
The DEIS does not include a complete landscaping plan and only includes the planting
plan for the buffer areas. A planting detail for all trees, shrubs, and ground cover used for
the entire site shall be provided. A planting, fertilization, and watering schedule for all
trees, shrubs and ground cover shall also be provided.
7
The DEIS only provides details for the proposed street lighting. A detailed lighting plan
shall be submitted which includes a description of all luminaries, including wall mounted
fixtures, lamps, poles or other supports, and shielding devices, which may be provided as
catalogue cut sheets from the manufacturer and included in the appendix. Photometric
data that may be furnished by the manufacturer, showing the angle of the light emissions
shall also be provided in addition to average illumination levels (foot candle data) that
must be shown on the plan. An analysis of the photometric data shall include the
following:
. The basic minimum level of illumination.
. The maximum average maintained foot-candles.
. A uniformity ratio between the minimum level of illumination and average
maintained foot-candles.
It is noted in the DEIS that the outdoor lighting fixtures will not exceed 14 feet in height
as required by the Town Code. However, the street light detail shows that the street
lights will be 15' in height, which does not conform to the Town's requirements. This
discrepancy should be addressed.
Final Scope Reauirement: Construction (galle 5)
While the DEIS generally addresses the issues as they relate to construction, additional
information is needed as follows:
Section 1.4 Construction and Operation
The DEIS provides a general description of the proposed construction plan for this
development. A more detailed construction plan should be provided which specifies the
general work schedule to ensure that site construction makes sense from an aesthetic,
functionality and economic standpoint. Which structures are going to be built first? Can
any of the existing vegetation be utilized to provide natural buffers during the
construction period? Will there be any model units on display and if so, where? Is there
an equipment staging/storage area that will be utilized during construction? Where will
trailers be located during construction?
Final Scope Reauirement: Ogeration (galle 5)
While the DEIS provides a brief discussion of the role of the Homeowner's Association
in terms of the general maintenance of the site, it does not provide all of the information
as required by the Final Scope. Specifically, the following information needs to be
included in the DEIS as it relates to the operation of the site as required in the Final
Scope:
· Item #1: In terms of operation, describe the management and protection of open
space; describe organization management and operation; describe road, landscape
and open space maintenance practice, describe any special conditions which may
apply.
· Item # 2: Uses expected of various locations and facilities within the site; seasons
of use, intensity of use, whether the site will be open to special events.
· Item #3: Projected number of employees required for the various uses for
weekdays, weekends and seasonal peak periods.
8
. Item #4: Truck sizes expected for deliveries and delivery routing.
. Item #5: Truck unloading areas.
. Item #6: Seasons of operation of various components of the facility.
. Item #7: Snow removal will be described as related to parking surfaces and
operation.
Since none of the above items have been addressed, we have no comments or
recommendations at this time.
Final Scope Requirement: Permits and Avvrovals Required (valle 5)
The DEIS indicates that utility hookups are necessary from various agencies (Section 1.5
Permits and Approvals). The specific agencies should be identified.
2.0 NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Final Scope Requirement: Soils (valle 6)
The DEIS does not adequately address all of the items contained in the Final Scope as it
relates to soils as follows:
. Item #1: Impact of loss of agricultural soils will be disclosed and mitigation
examined where feasible.
. Item #4: Testing of existing soils for contaminants. Methodology, results and
remediation should be provided.
Section 2.1.2 Anticipated Impacts
The DEIS does not discuss the loss of prime agricultural soils as required by the Final
Scope. The Town, in their Positive Declaration for this project, indicated that the "long
term and irreversible" loss of Prime Agricultural Soils is a potentially significant impact
that must be addressed in the DEIS.
Section 2.1.3 Proposed Mitigation
The Pesticide Report prepared by Nelson & Pope, LLP is included as an appendix to the
DEIS and recommends that a soil management plan be prepared to mitigate potential
exposure to arsenic and mercury. The proposed mitigation offered indicates that the soil
management will involve "isolation of the soils as part of the grading plan to ensure that
either non-impacted subsoils are exposed at the surface, or impacted surface soils are
covered with at least one (I) foot of clean soil." A more detailed soil management plan
is needed to mitigate the potential exposure to arsenic and mercury, particularly during
and after construction when the soils are disturbed. Once excavated or collected,
contaminated soils must be managed so that they do not constitute a new source of
contamination for the environment. The mitigation should include a detailed description
of the levels of contamination, the amount of contaminated soil to be removed,
preventive measures to protect adjacent property owners from exposure, methods for re-
use or relocation of contaminated materials and other remediation that may be necessary.
9
Final ScoDe Requirement: Water Resources (paf!e 6)
The DEIS does not adequately address impacts to water resources. The specific items in
the Final Scope that need to be addressed are as follows:
. Item # 2: The depth to groundwater in key development locations of the site will
be determined by use of on-site soil borings.
. Item # 3: The expected direction of groundwater flow based on hydrologic
interpolation will be identified.
. Item #4: Existing groundwater quality analysis from onsite test wells.
. Item #6: The location of private and public wells will be determined, with specific
reference to the SCW A Evergreen Pump Station.
. Item # 10: The change in hydrology of the site in terms of quantity of recharge
under existing and future conditions shall be established using appropriate
hydrologic analysis methods.
. Item #11 The DEIS will provide calculations of projected water consumption for
each use proposed and, in consultation with the Suffolk County Water Authority,
will evaluate the ability to meet this projected water demand.
Section 2.2.1 Existing Conditions
The Final Scope requires that the location of public and private wells be determined.
While there is information relating to the Evergreen Pump Station operated by the
SCW A, the location of private wells within the adjacent subdivision to the west have not
been provided. With soils already contaminated and the potential for additional
contamination with the application of fertilizers and pesticides in the new development,
the location of these wells need to be documented and the potential impacts to those wells
needs to be addressed. If the wells are identified on a map that is included in the DEIS, it
should be referenced.
The DEIS fails to provide the calculations of projected water consumption for each
proposed use nor does it evaluate the ability of the SCWA to meet the projected water
demand.
The expected direction of groundwater flow based on hydrologic interpolation has not
been identified and analyzed.
Although provided in a map, the depth to groundwater in key development locations on
the site need to be discussed within the text of the DEIS as required by the Final Scope.
The DEIS does not provide a groundwater quality analysis from on-site test wells as
required by the Final Scope.
10
Section 2.2.2 Anticipated Impacts
The DEIS needs to identify the change in hydrology of the site in terms of quantity of
recharge under existing and future conditions and provide details about how the proposed
development of the site will alter drainage flow patterns, particularly as it relates to the
creation of impermeable surfaces and placement offill.
The property is located adjacent to an approved subdivision that has been fully developed
with singe-family residences, all of which are utilizing private wells for water supply.
The expected impacts on adjacent properties that are on well water have not been
identified.
Section 2.2.3 Proposed Mitigation
The DEIS does not consider alternatives to the multiple septic systems proposed for the
site, particularly an on-site sewerage treatment facility. Clearly, impacts to the
groundwater due to the high number of individual septic systems may be mitigated
through alternative sewerage treatment methods.
Final Scope Requirement: Velletation and Wildlife (galle 6)
The DEIS is inadequate as it relates to the impacts on vegetation and wildlife. In general,
there is insufficient or inadequate information to make any conclusions regarding these
impacts, and therefore all of the following items required in the Final Scope have not
been adequately addressed:
. Item # 1: Existing upland habitats shall be inventoried through an inspection of
the site by a qualified biologist/ecologist to determine the vegetation, wildlife, and
general habitat character. An inventory of flora and fauna observed and expected
will be provided in this section of the DEIS.
. Item # 2: In addition, protected native plants, plant and animal species listed as
endangered, threatened, special concern (or with other protective status) and
significant habitat areas on or in the vicinity of the project site will be identified.
. Item # 3: The NY Natural Heritage Program will be contacted for site file
information concerning habitats, plant and animal species.
. Item #4 : Impact to habitats will be quantified and discussed qualitatively in terms
ecological impact to plants and animals.
. Item # 5: Cumulative aspects ofloss of habitat will be identified.
. Item # 6: Mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts will be identified and
method of implementation determined.
Section 2.3.1 Existing Conditions
An inventory of the bird and mammal species is provided in Appendix D of the DEIS.
Who prepared this list and what was the basis for determining which species are found on
site?
The DEIS indicates that "there are no federal or state listed endangered, threatened, or
special concerns species on the property." It goes on to further state that the New York
State Natural Heritage Program has been contacted for the presence of rare or endangered
plant or animal species, as indicated by the correspondence provided in appendix G.
There is no reference to the Endangered Species Program as administered by the U.S.
11
Fish and Wildlife Service and there is no indication that the NYS Natural Heritage
Program has responded to the request for information. Therefore, the determination that
there are no endangered or threatened species on the property is speculative and must be
further substantiated.
The Final Scope specifically requires that existing upland habitats shall be inventoried
through an inspection of the site by a qualified biologist/ecologist to determine the
vegetation, wildlife, and general habitat character. In addition, the site inventory taken
relative to protected native plants, plant and animal species listed as endangered,
threatened or special concern and significant habitat areas, should be conducted in the
season they are likely to occur. The DEIS must be revised to provide this information,
with the name of the individual who conducted the analysis, hislher credentials and the
time and dates the inspections occurred.
Section 2.3.3 Anticipated Impacts
It is stated that "overall, it is expected that the site's biodiversity will remain at an
equivalent or higher level than under existing conditions." There is no information to
support this statement. The site is proposed to be entirely cleared to allow for the
development, with areas to be landscaped with a variety of plant species. A copy of a
complete landscaping plan was not included in the DEIS and therefore it is not possible
to adequately assess whether this will mitigate the potential impacts to vegetation and
wildlife as put forth. However, based on the review of other information contained in the
DEIS, including the proposed site plan, it appears that much of the landscaping will be
ornamental in nature and is not intended to create a contiguous block of open space.
Since none of the proposed landscaped areas make up a larger block of open space, it is
not likely that they will provide a habitat that will support large amounts of wildlife.
Instead, the open areas of the site are interspersed throughout the development,
meandering in between buildings and structures, with no clear definition or boundaries.
Section 2.3.3 Proposed Mitigation
The DEIS should discuss alternatives, such as preserving some of the exiting vegetation,
which provide the best opportunities to protect wildlife in addition to limiting the need to
apply fertilizer or pesticides to maintain the site landscaping.
3.0 HUMAN ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Final Scope Requirement: Transportation (pages 7 and 8)
The DEIS does not identify or address the 16 specific Planning Board concerns identified
in the Final Scope, with the exception of conducting a traffic count of a similar age-
restricted residential development in the Town of Southold. Each of the items discussed
in the Final Scope need to be addressed in the DEIS. Any supplemental traffic
information that has been submitted to the Town for this project should be included and
discussed.
The requirements of the Scope are based on the Traffic Study that was prepared and
submitted prior to the preparation of the DEIS. The Planning Board identified these
items after reviewing the traffic study, which need to be addressed in the DEIS:
12
. Item # 1: The study fails to consider addressing the possibility of development
(housing) of the other Hamlet Business zoned parcels in proximity to the parcel in
question.
. Item # 2: The study fails to qualify what level of impact or substantial degradation
in Level of Service (LOS) is the LOS from an F to F at an intersection results.
. Item # 3: The study fails to qualify the seasonal adjustment factors of 1.14% and
1.19%, the groups uses and how they were established by the NYSDOT. The
study is unclear if the seasonal adjustment factors are qualified to real traffic
counts and land use representative ofthe locale.
. Item # 4: The seasonal adjustment factors differ on a monthly basis, the study
applied a 14% factor to the weekdays and a 19% factor to the weekend volumes;
the selection of the factors by the NYSDOT is unexplained. It is unclear if the
factors are representative ofthe locale.
. Item #5: The calculations could not be duplicated at the intersection of Griffing
and State Route 25 (using the traffic count data and the seasonal adjustment
factor).
. Item #6: The analysis of Table 3 indicates that "rear-end collisions may be an
indication of congested conditions or drive inattention and slippery/wet road
conditions." Although the statement is made, no mitigation is proposed, which
suggests that the congested conditions are acceptable at pre-build conditions and
acceptable after-build conditions. The statement warrants further explanation.
. Item #7: The study indicates that currently the Main Road and Depot Lane
intersection operates at a poor level of service (LOS F) during the PM and
Saturday peak hours due to heavy traffic volumes on Main Road. It can be
expected that following the build out of 139 units, the LOS would continue to
worsen. Appendix D, Capacity Analysis/Level of service Worksheet & Summary
Table indicates that the level of service decreases in the Build Analysis 2007.
The LOS at the southbound left turn currently operates at an F, following the
Build Analysis the level of service again operates at F. The decrease of the LOS
is a result of the increased vehicle trips in the area resulting from the proposed site
plan. The sigoificance of change relative to impacts from a LOS F to F is unclear
and should be further explained.
. Item # 8: Currently, Main Road and Griffing Street operate at a LOS F and E in
the PM and Saturday peak hours. Appendix A indicates that the southbound
approach operates at a LOS of F under current conditions and following Build
Conditions. Again, the significance of degradation at the intersection/impact is
unclear and requires further evaluation and/or mitigation.
. Item #9: The annual growth factor obtained from the NYSDOT is 1.8%. The
Planning Board questions if the growth factor takes into account land use and rate
of development indicative of Eastern Long Island or the Town of South old. \
13
. Item #10: The Planning Board rejects the modeling of trip generation for the
proposed action to Elderly Housing (detached) nationwide traffic modeling
criteria uses in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Elderly housing
(detached) is restricted to senior citizens and may contain special services
(medical facilities) on site. Additionally, in a December 11, 2006 letter to the
Planning Board, the response to comment #1 indicates that Land Use: 251 Senior
Adult Housing-Detached statistical data was used. The two documents conflict.
The action is proposed as an "Active Adult Community." The Planning Board is
requesting that real data from a comparable use (Active 55 and older
condominium community) located on Eastern Long Island be used to base the
study trip generation modeling.
. Item #11: Is the AM peak hour used in the ITE Land Use Code for Elderly
Housing (detached) the same time as the AM peak hour used in the actual traffic
count performed by Nelson and Pope (the same applies to PM Peak hour and
Saturday peak hour)? Would using different hours result in inaccurate data?
. Item # 12: The 2007 Site Generated Weekday Al Traffic Volumes indicate that 6
vehicles will exit to Griffing Road and the State Road 25 intersection, 3 vehicles
would exit Spur Road and 9 vehicles would exit the site via Schoolhouse Road
and continue to the County Road 48 and Depot Lane intersection. The vehicle
trips seem low and routing unrealistic. The Planning Board questions the analysis
and requests that real data be obtained and uses (where possible) to model the
vehicle trips and routing.
. Item #13: The study proposes mitigation (traffic control at Depot Road and Main
Road). Mitigation of expected traffic impacts validates that the action may result
in a potentially significant or large impact and needs to be further addressed. As
confirmed with the NYSDOT, the proposed above traffic control is not an option
to mitigate traffic impacts. Alternative mitigation of traffic impacts must be
evaluated and proposed.
. Item # 14: It is the Planning Board's position that the study fails to analyze the
impact of the vehicle trips from Highland/Crown Lane and Schoolhouse using
Spru Road (if it is opened) as a means to access downtown Cutchogue and/or pass
through to Depot Lane/CR 48 and NYS 25.
. Item # 15: The traffic impacts if Spur Road is opened/not opened have not been
adequately addressed relative to the NYS Route 25 and Griffing Avenue
intersection.
. Item # 16: Other access alternatives should be considered. Such as, access
directly from the proposed site to Depot Lane through the property to the east.
Final Scope Requirement: Land Use. Zonine and Plans (oaee 9)
The following items have not been adequately addressed in the DEIS as it relates to the
impacts to land use, zoning and plans:
14
. Item #1: The existing land use character of the site and surrounding area within 500
feet will be described and mapped.
. Item #2: The zoning which applies to the site and the area within 500 feet will be
described and mapped, and a description of zoning regulations for the project site and
surrounding area zoning shall be provided.
. Item # 3: Land use plans which pertain to the project site will be evaluated with
emphasis on those plans adopted after 1994:
o Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Report (1994)
o Seaview Trails of the North Fork (1994)
o Peconic Estuary Program (1995)
o Economic Development Plan (1997)
o Southold Township Planning Initiatives (1997)
o Community Preservation Project Plan (1998)
o County Route 48 Corridor, Land Use Study (1999)
o Farm and Farmland Preservation Program (1983-2202)
o Southold Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy (2000)
o Water Supply Management & Water Protection Strategy (2000)
o Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (2001)
o Blue Ribbon Commission for Rural Southold (2002)
o Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy and GElS (2003)
o Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (2005)
o Southold Hamlet Study (2005)
o Community Preservation Project Plan (2006 Update)
o Long Island North Shore Heritage Area
o Town Zoning Maps/Code and Comprehensive Plan.
o Town Affordable Housing Needs Assessment (2005)
o North Fork Recreational Travel Needs Assessment (2002)
. Item # 4: The compatibility of the development with the surrounding area will be
assessed.
. Item # 5: Once the above information is compiled, the DEIS will assess the impacts
of the proposed action on land use and zoning. The impact assessment will
concentrate on evaluating the consistency of the proposed action with prevailing land
use and zoning. The compatibility of the proposed action with area land use will be
assessed.
o Item # 6: The conformance of the project with land use plans will be evaluated and
discussed.
. Item # 7: Measures which may be used to mitigate potential land use, zoning or
impacts with respect to land use plans will be provided.
Section 3.2.1 Existing Conditions
The DEIS does not provide a detailed description of the existing land use character of the
site and surrounding area within 500 feet as required, which is needed in order to evaluate
the potential impacts and determine if the project is compatible with the surrounding land
uses. This information is required to be described and mapped.
The DEIS should also include a description of the zoning which applies to this property
and the area within 500 feet in addition to a description of the zoning regulations for the
15
project site and surrounding area. This information is required to be described and
mapped.
The Final Scope adopted by the Planning Board requires that a number of plans and
studies be evaluated as it pertains to the development of the subject property. It appears
that all of the studies are discussed, in some capacity, with the exception of the North
Fork Recreational Travel Needs Assessment. The DEIS must be revised to include this
report.
While the DEIS does provide a brief summary of each of the studies/adopted plans, more
detail needs to be provided as it relates to the relationship of this project to the specific
recommendations, if any, in each of the reports. The DEIS should indicate whether or
not the subject property is specifically mentioned in each of the studies identified and
whether this project conforms to any recommendations that may be pertinent.
The DEIS states that "it should be noted that the subject site is presently unused and
covered by successional field vegetation; no agricultural activity is present." Earlier in
the DEIS, it was acknowledged that the property had been farmed, likely up to the mid
1980's. This combined with the fact the property is relatively large and adjacent to active
farmland, the DEIS should specifically indicate whether or not the subject property has
been identified for farmland preservation.
Section 3.2.2 Anticipated Impacts
Since the required information was not provided, it is not possible to identify the
potential impacts that may be expected from this development as it relates to the existing
zoning and land use patterns in the area.
Revisions to the DEIS as it relates to the various land use plans and studies as previously
noted, may result in impacts that previously were not identified. This section of the DEIS
should be revised based on these changes, if applicable.
Section 3.2.3 Proposed Mitigation
The DEIS concludes that the "project's conformance to those aspects and/or
recommendations of the above-listed land use plans and studies uniformly indicate that
no impacts would occur. Therefore. no mitigation (beyond the current site design and
project components) is necessary or proposed." However, this section of the DEIS is
also required to include an analysis of the surrounding land uses and zoning, which was
not provided. As already stated, given the lack of information, anticipated impacts have
not been identified and therefore no mitigation was offered.
Final Scope Requirement: Communitv Facilities and Services (oalles 9 and 10)
The discussion relating to community services and facilities is limited and does not
conform to the requirements of Final Scope. Specifically, the DEIS must be revised to
include the following required information:
. Item #2: The impact analysis contained in the DEIS will include consultations
with service providers regarding existing demand for services and capacity such
16
that the DEIS will objectively analyze the impact of the proposed action on
community facilities and services.
. Item #3: Detailed projections of service demand with supporting documentation.
. Item #5: The existing tax revenue of the site will be established.
3.3.1 Existing Conditions
As already discussed in this report, it is stated that this project will generate substantial
tax revenues for the Town. The DEIS should provide a more detailed analysis to support
this statement and provide estimates of the amount of tax revenues that may be expected
to be generated from this project. In addition, Table 1-2 on page 4 of the DEIS indicates
that tax generation data is to be determined (TBD). This information needs to be
provided in the table.
Section 3.3.2 Anticipated Impacts
The DEIS indicates that the each of the service providers have been contacted but there
have been no responses to date, with the exception of a letter from the Suffolk County
Water Authority indicating that they would not issue a letter of water availability until
site plan approval has been issued. The analysis of the proposed impacts as it relates to
community services and facilities must therefore be revised upon receipt of the any new
information.
Section 3.3.3 Mitigation Measures
Any impacts identified upon the receipt of new information as discussed above would
require that the proposed mitigation be amended accordingly.
The DEIS indicates that the "facility will have state of the art fire facilities that will aid in
all fighting needs of the local volunteer fire departments." Specific details should be
provided. Are there any other elements of the overall site design that would mitigate the
potential impacts? Does the project include security and/or design features that would
reduce the demand for police services (e.g., security cameras, officers, lights, fencing,
gates, etc.)?
Final Scope Requirement: Aesthetic Resources, Oven Svace/Communitv Character
and Public Health (oaf!e 10)
The DEIS does not adequately address all of the issues outlined in the Final Scope as it
pertains to aesthetic resources, open space/community character and public health.
. Item #1: Existing site and community character will be identified.
. Item # 2: The project will result in a change in the aesthetic character of the site
due to removal of existing vegetation. Impacts will be disclosed and mitigation
identified where feasible.
. Item #3: The open space resources of the site and area will be identified.
. Item #4: The project will result in the loss of open space due to removal of
existing vegetation. Impacts will be disclosed and mitigation identified where
feasible.
. Item #5: The existing noise environment will be evaluated in terms of ambient
noise, sensitive receptors and community character.
17
. Item #6: Construction activities in terms of construction schedule and duration,
materials and storage/staging area, water and sewer systems connections, proper
handling of construction waste, hours of operation and truck routes will be
evaluated.
. Item #7: Describe the impacts related to construction noise, dust, erosion and
sedimentation, area receptors, applicable nuisance regulations, applicable agency
oversight and safeguards, phasing of the project, staging areas, parking areas,
operation areas, duration, hours, and related mitigation measures to reduce
construction impacts. The potential noise and dust impacts of construction related
to clearing, construction activities and traffic will be assessed.
. Item #8: Mitigation in terms of design, buffer planting and open space will be
examined.
Section 3.4.1 Existing Conditions
The DEIS does not identify the existing site and community character as required in the
Final Scope. What are the land uses surrounding the subject property? Are there areas of
open space or protected land adjacent to the subject property? Are there open space
opportunities that exist on this property that could be incorporated into the design? Does
the project conform to the character of the surrounding community and if so, how? The
character of the community shall also be described in an historical context, which
identifies key design elements already in place within the community.
The DEIS indicates that although the subject property can be considered open space, it
has not been slated for preservation by the County. This, of course, does not mean there
is no open space value for the neighboring community or the Town as a whole. If this
property is not suitable for open space, the DEIS should specify why. In addition, the
development of this site does not preclude open space from being included in the design,
particularly as it relates to the potential development of the adjacent property to the east,
whereby a contiguous block of open space could be created. The discussion about open
space should not be limited only as it relates to the subject property. The development of
this site will have an influence on and set the stage for the development of the adjacent
property to the east. This should be evaluated in the DEIS.
Although discussed briefly in section I of the DEIS, the Final Scope requires that this
section provide details relating to the construction activities in terms of construction
schedule and duration, materials and storage/staging area, water and sewer systems
connections, proper handling of construction waste, hours of operation and truck routes.
Section 3.4.2 Anticipated Impacts
The Final Scope requires that the DEIS describe the impacts related to all construction
activities, including but not limited to, noise, dust and erosion and sedimentation. In
addition, the DEIS should identify the expected visual impacts due to the clearing of the
site and the storage of construction materials, vehicles and other construction-related
machinery.
Once the existing character of the community is identified and analyzed in the DEIS, the
anticipated impacts can then be identified. The evaluation of the impacts should identify
if this project will result in the introduction of contrasting features or development into
18
aesthetically valued areas of this community, which can overpower familiar features,
eliminate context or associations with history, or create visual discord where there have
been apparent efforts to maintain or promote a thematic or consistent character.
The subject property is located adjacent to a fully developed subdivision that likely has a
number of families with school-aged children living within the development. The DEIS
should identify the potential safety hazards associated with the construction activities of
the site and specify the safeguards that will be in place to ensure that the health, safety
and welfare of the community is protected.
Overall, the DEIS lacks a discussion of the visual impacts of the proposed project. While
there are a number of color renderings provided in Appendix C, it is not clear from what
vantage points these are based. The DEIS must provide a detailed visual assessment for
this project such as viewpoint panoramas to illustrate existing and potential visual impact
from key viewpoints, a written analysis of the magnitude and significance of potential
visual impact related to change through time, appropriate mitigation to limit visual
impact and demonstration of its effectiveness by computer modeling or color renderings
and photomontage based on accurate three dimensional models to illustrate the proposed
development.
The DEIS should include a discussion of the visual impacts as it relates to the character
of the surrounding community, including the degree to which the development would
result in buildings that would detract from the existing style or image of the area due to
density, height, bulk, setbacks, signage, architectural style, massing or other physical
elements.
The DEIS should provide an internal visual assessment to get a sense of pedestrian scale
and what this project will look like from the inside. Are the proposed structures
effectively integrated into the aesthetics of the site, through appropriate design, and have
the objectives of creating a traditional streetscape been accomplished though the
proposed site design? Will this project connect to the existing community and how will
the site design promote or enhance the economic vibrancy of the Cutchogue Hamlet
Center?
Section 3.4.3 Mitigation Measures
There is little discussion about the design of the site as it relates to the mitigation of the
impacts on aesthetics, open space/community character and public health. Does the
project introduce features that positively contribute to the existing valued aesthetic
quality of the neighborhood, community, or localized area by avoiding conflicts with
important aesthetic elements or the quality of the area (such as theme, style, setbacks,
density, massing, etc.) or by being consistent with applicable design guidelines?
Final Scope Requirement: Archaeoloffical Resources (/Jaffe 10)
A Phase I Archeological Investigation was prepared for this project given the site's
location in an archeological sensitive area within the Hamlet of Cutchogue. The study
involved both a Phase IA and 1B, resulting in the excavation of 767 shovel tests.
Although isolated prehistoric and historic finds were encountered, no further assessment
was recommended given that the finds were "few in number and too disconnected to
19
warrant further assessment." We have reviewed the Archaeological Survey prepared by
Tracker Archaeological Services, Inc. dated October 2007 and find that the document is
accurate and therefore no further archaeological work is needed.
4.0 OTHER REQUIRED SECTIONS
Final Scope Reauirement: Use and Conservation of EnerflV Resources (palle 10)
The DEIS does not adequately address the potential impacts as it relates to use and
conservation of energy resources as follows:
. Item # l(page 10): Use and Conservation of Energy Resources (The project will
increase energy use which could be significant. Mitigation to reduce the impacts
to energy consumption could include building homes to Energy Star and
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards and/or
applying dark sky standards to lessen the impact of energy consumed. These
aspects of the project will be examined).
Section 4.1.1 Effects on the Use and Conservation of Energv Resources
The DEIS offers limited mitigation on the potential impacts to energy resources and does
not discuss the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards as
required by the Final Scope. LEED certification is becoming increasingly commonplace
among new developments throughout the United States.
There are a myriad of energy-efficient design guidelines that should be discussed in the
DEIS and considered for this development to mitigate impacts on energy resources,
including but not limited to, passive solar design, building orientation, daylight and sun
control, insulation and thermal mass, heating and cooling system alternatives,
landscaping and minimizing car use.
The DEIS also needs to evaluate "dark sky" standards to mitigate the potential impacts as
it relates to energy consumption and light pollution. Outdoor lighting can be bright
enough to degrade the visibility of the night sky, create glare that threatens driving safety,
and consume large amounts of energy..
Final Scope Reauirement: Cumulative Impacts (Datze 10)
It is recommended that the Town verify that there is only one additional proposal before
the Town in the vicinity of the subject property as stated in the DEIS. Assuming this to
be the case, the DEIS should at least provide an overlay map which shows the subject
property and proposed development in relation to the site that is contemplated for a
commercial subdivision.
The DEIS should specify if there are any design elements of this project that would
mitigate potential impacts in conjunction with the potential future development of the
adjacent residential property to the east or the commercially-zoned properties along
Griffing Street.
20
Final Scone Requirement: Adverse Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided (pafle 11)
The DEIS again states that "no rare, threatened or endangered flora or faunal species
have been observed, and none are anticipated because of the previous agricultural use of
the property." As previously stated in our review of this document, the project sponsor
has not contacted the Endangered Species Program administered by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and no comments have been received from the New York State Natural
Heritage Program regarding the existence of endangered species on or in proximity to the
site. In addition, the Final Scope requires that the existing upland habitats be inventoried
through an inspection of the site by a qualified biologist/ecologist to determine the
vegetation, wildlife, and general habitat character. This, too, is not provided in the DEIS.
Therefore, any conclusions relating to the impacts on vegetation and wildlife are
speculative.
The DEIS indicates that the nitrogen loading into the groundwater cannot be mitigated
given the need to provide multiple on-site septic systems. As stated previously, the Final
Scope requires that alternative sewerage treatment systems be evaluated to mitigate
potential impacts to groundwater. Such systems do provide for the denitrification of
sewerage, and therefore would provide mitigation as required.
The DEIS should identifY the potential impacts associated with individual septic systems,
a situation that is exacerbated with the installation of so many individual systems, and
should be considered in the evaluation of the potential environmental impacts.
The DEIS should also indicate that the subject property does contain a large amount of
prime agricultural soils, all of which will be lost to development. Although the site
hasn't been farmed since the 1980's, the site is suitable for farming and the loss of this
resource is an important consideration for the Town. The Positive Declaration and the
Final Scope each talk about the permanent loss of prime agricultural soils as a potentially
significant environmental impact.
Final Scone Requirement: Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
(pafle 11)
The statement that "there will be a minimal removal of vegetation from the site, as only a
small amount of vegetation exists at the site" seems to be contradictory to previous
statements made in the DEIS, which acknowledges that this property is fully vegetated.
Although not a mature forest, the site is almost entirely covered with successional old
field vegetation, all of which is proposed to be removed from the site.
Final Scone Requirement: Growth Inducinfl Aspects (pafle 11)
The DEIS indicates the potential growth resulting from this development will not have an
impact on community services and that the existing services and facilities are adequate to
support this growth. However, as already stated in our review of section 3.3 of the DEIS,
there is not sufficient information to draw these conclusions.
The fact that no improvements are planned off-site does not mean that the proposed
project will not lead to further growth or influence development on adjacent properties.
This project has to be reviewed in relation to the Hamlet as a whole. Just as preservation
21
of a property may lead to additional preservation in order to create large contiguous
blocks of open space, development of a property may influence how other properties are
developed.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Final Scope Reauirement: Alternatives to be Studied (Dalle 11)
The Final Scope adopted by the Town requires five alternatives be discussed, however
only two were included in the DEIS, and one of those only partially addressed the
alternative as described in the scope. Alternative number one was the "No Action"
alternative, and was adequately discussed. Alternative number two, an alternative design,
"including but not limited to clustering of detached and attached units to create
meaningful open space, and maximize vegetative buffers along the perimeter of the
property" was partially provided for in the DEIS, however it did not contemplate true
clustering, nor did it create meaningful open space, or change the buffer on the east and
north side of the property.
The alternatives remaining to be discussed are as follows:
Alternative 3. Reduce existing number of units (page 11, Final Scope): Reducing the
number of units included in the overall development plan is a valid alternative that needs
to be addressed in the DEIS. Consideration of alternative scale or magnitude is
reasonable if the impacts can be avoided or reduced by a change in project size, the
change in project size does not reduce the project to the point where it will no longer
serve its intended function, or the reduction in project size may decrease applicant's
objectives but does not make the project infeasible. This alternative should be discussed
in the DEIS.
Alternative 4. Partial or full preservation of the property (page 11, Final Scope): With
respect to partial or full preservation of the property, full preservation is discussed under
the No Action alternative, and a type of partial preservation, in the form of the Town
purchasing the 100 foot buffer, is discussed in the second alternative contemplated in the
DEIS. A true example of partial preservation, however, would be if the Town purchased
a portion of the actual yield - thus reducing the number of units by that method. This
alternative should be discussed in the DEIS. Please note, this alternative is not intended to
be combined with Alternative 3, and should be contemplated separately.
Alternative 5. Alternative design for wastewater treatment (page 11, Final Scope). Given
the number of individual septic systems proposed and the potential impacts to nearby
wells and groundwater quality, alternative design for wastewater treatment should be
addressed. The analysis of the potential impacts of individual septic systems should
include the limitations of such systems, maintenance considerations, effectiveness and
overall costs, particularly as it relates to the cost of installing individual systems versus a
community sewerage treatment facility. This alternative should be discussed in the
DEIS.
22
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
1. The Table of Contents should provide a list of all the maps that are provided in
the DEIS.
2. The DEIS refers to a 45.99-acre parcel, where the site plan and other maps show
the lot area to be 46.17 acres. This discrepancy should be addressed.
3. Some of the pages in the Traffic Study (Appendix B) have been slightly cut-off
and should therefore be replaced such that the entire document is legible.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on our review of the DEIS as discussed in the above analysis, we find that the
document is not ready for public review and is deficient in a number of areas. The
identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussions are of such a magnitude
that they should have full public review at a draft stage.
The Planning Board is advised to review our findings and advise the applicant of the
changes that will be required. If you have any questions concerning our comments or
wish to discuss them further, we would be pleased to meet with you at work session to
discuss.
23