HomeMy WebLinkAboutTDR Planning report to Town Board Contract #C059933TOWN OF SOUTIIOLD
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM
PLANNING REPORT TO THE TOWN BOARD
JUNE 25, 2007
1.0
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
Town of Southold
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM
Planning Report to the Town Board
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
2.0 PROGRAM FOUNDATION
PAGE
5
2.1 Components of a Successful TDR Program
2.2 Public Need
2.3 Town Objectives
2.4 Background and History of Town TDR and Related Programs
3.0 PROGRAM OVERVIEW AND GENERAL PARAMETERS
7
7
10
10
11
4.0 PROGRAM ELEMENTS
13
5.0
4.1 Sending Zones
4.2 Receiving Zones
4.3 Interrelationship of Land Preservation Programs and Tools
4.4 Density Limitations in the Receiving Zones
4.5 Program Mechanics Summary
14
14
18
21
23
28
CONCLUSION
31
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
Town of Southold
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM
Planning Report to the Town Board
Draft 6-25-07
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 ElS 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
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.
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
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 HALO'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, RO,
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 HALO's. The form that
increased density could take includes the following:
· Single Family Homes
· Two-Family Homes
· Multiple Family Dwellings
· Detached Accessory Dwelling Units, and
· Mixed use or flexible zoning developments under potential future Planned 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 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. 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 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. For the purpose of this study, and
consistent with the Hamlet Development Model meetings that were conducted in 2006, it is
~l~ Page 2
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
recormmended 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, parking 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:
· Infrastructure such as roads, utilities and water supply currently exist.
· Residential density proximate to the hamlets strengthens the business environment.
Page 3
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
· Residential density in the HALO's provides opportunity for alternative transportation such as
walking and bicycle travel.
· Use of TDR's in the HALO's may promote beneficial investment and redevelopment.
· Use of TDR's in the HALO's will provide alternative forms of housing to single family 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 Title Land Purchase
· Purchase of Development Rights
· Conservation Subdivision
· Standard 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
GELS. 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
Draft 6-25-07
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Town of Southold is seeking 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 Planner and Project Manager
John Sepenoski, Town Data Processing
Patricia Finnegan, Esq., Town Attorney
Melissa Spiro, Town Land Preservation Coordinator
Leslie Weisman, Member Southold Town ZBA & Chair of Southold Hamlet Stakeholder
Committee
Charles Voorhis, CEP, AICP, Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, 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 during the course of this study.
Other Town staff and resources of Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC (NP&V), consultant to the
Town, were used in the preparation of this study. This report constitutes the study's findings and
team recommendations resulting from these efforts.
I ~- Page 5
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
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 I O-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.
~l~l~s 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 C1S 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. I! 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 transferred from 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
~ ~l~l~o~~ Page7
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Repor!
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 programs encourage TDR sales by reducing the development potential of the sending
sites through zoning incentives, favorable alternatives to development, restrictions, environmental
regulations, farmland protection measures, and ordinances that require adequate public facilities
before development can occur.
Just as sending site owners need to be encouraged to sell their development tights, receiving site
developers must be motivated to buy TDRs. Developers will only buy TDRs if they can make a
greater 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 community to consider designating village or hamlet areas where more
concentrated development will be encouraged. TDRs can then be used to obtain the higher densities
that are possible in these select areas.
3. Facilitating Use qf TDRs
After appropriate stakeholder involvement and adoption of appropriate legislation subject to public
disclosure, hearings and review processes, most communities approve TDRs administratively,
without public heatings or discretionary decisions. This approach can increase the use of TDRs since
it gives developers greater certainty over the cost, timing, and approval of their projects.
Many communities also facilitate transfers by treating TDRs as a commodity, available for sale to
anyone at any time. In addition, some programs feature a "TDR bank" which serves as a buyer and
seller of TDRs when private transactions become too time consuming. Finally, the most successful
TDR programs provide ongoing information to the general public, as well as staff support and
instructional materials to assist TDR buyers and sellers.
4. Building Public Support
A successful TDR program will mean more intense development at receiving sites. The community
as a whole needs to understand and accept that this will occur. Community-wide, comprehensive
planning efforts are important in developing TDR programs. In the context of a 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 programs are in communities that specifically designed
their comprehensive plans to be implemented through TDR.
An effective TDR program can add optimism to the planning process by offering a way for
compensation to be provided to property owners without the use of tax dollars. This optimism can
encourage the public to establish stronger land 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 substantially decreased development with as much preservation of existing farm use as can be
achieved in the rural areas of the Town outside of the hamlets, thus identifying both sending and
receiving sites.
· The Town Board conducted prior studies and incorporated TDR into the planning documents
(including the Town-wide CIS) as a desirable tool, thus incorporating the concept into its
comprehensive plan.
· The Town has built community support by assembling stakeholders and conducting the 2005
Hamlet Study to determine the desires and concerns of local residents and identify hamlet centers
and surrounding HALO boundaries (receiving sites), resulting in direction on a community-by-
community basis to build community support.
· The Town and the Suffolk County Water Authority have sought to manage limited groundwater
resources, in a manner 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 mral areas, in order to maintain a balance of growth potential due to
limited water resources, aquifer management and public health safety in coordination. Initiatives
include the Water Supply Management & Water Protection Strategy, and adoption of an official
Water Map (of water supply extension areas) in 2000 and amended in 2007.
~l~[ ~- Page O
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
The challenges that lie ahead include the following:
· Defining sending and receiving sites, particularly in view of the myriad of preservation programs
currently in use, and the desire to continue a policy of density reduction through purchase of
development fights.
· Determining the land use mechanisms for redemption of credits and realization of transferred
development in the HALO's.
· Providing adequate economic incentives to facilitate transfers, and ensuring a proper balance of
supply and demand.
· Ensuring a margin of program success in consideration of the Suffolk County Department 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 environmental 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 and other rural lands are a significant resoume in
the Town, in terms of both economics and aesthetics and provides for an important sector of the
Town's economic base, while maintaining the open, rural atmosphere.
· As a result of the Town's efforts, a number of mechanisms are being used, that provide
opportunities and alternatives to land development 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 associated with sending parcels including rural character, farm and
agricultural land use to promote land preservation and environmental protection.
· Provide an increase in the amount of diverse housing stock for a variety of income levels.
· Reduce suburban sprawl and promote "smart growth" development principals including
strengthening of hamlets and businesses, walkable communities, sustainable growth, mixed-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 encouraging controlled development in appropriate use
areas.
· Promote 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.
· Promote the long-term planning 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.
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 SCDHS sanitary
density restrictions and ensuring 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 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 Generic ElS 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
I~ Page 11
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
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:
As set forth in numerous comprehensive planning documents, the Town's goals include the
preservation of open space, agricultural lands and recreational landscapes; preservation of the rural,
cultural and historic character of the hamlets and surrounding countryside; preservation of the
natural environment and prevention of further deterioration qf resources; preservation and
promotion of a broad range of housing and business opportunities to support a socioeconomically
diverse community; and increased transportation efficiency. To achieve these goals, it is the intent
and purpose of this chapter to provide for the transfer of sanimry flow credits, and thereby transfer
development potential from areas designated ,for preservation to areas designated as more
appropriate for higher-density residential development. Unless expressly permitted herein, the
transfer of development potential may not occur in the Town of Southold.
The basic purpose of Chapter 117 is to preserve land through Town purchase of development
rights, 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 development rights 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 a 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 pan 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
Page 12?
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
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 Cutcho~ue
New Suffolk Common 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 and East Marion; Greenport (9-12)
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
Page 13
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
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 program 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 an incentive will be explored as an
alternative under the SEQRA process for the TDR program.
· The TDR program contemplates redemption of credits for residential units, but will examine the
potential for commercial 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 can 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 and private space.
At this time, the Town has formally adopted the HALO boundaries for Mattituck, Cutchogue,
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 I 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:
· Land in hamlet and HALO areas
· Business zoned land not subdividable (single and separate lots of less than the minimum zoning
acreage) and residential zoned land of twice the minimum zoning 1o! size requirement)
· Unbuildable land (wetlands, dune, beach, surface water)
· Existing community facilities (lands in public ownership, used for public purpose and certain
non-public lands (churches, utilities, etc.)
· Land currently protected through prior PDR, acquisition or conservation subdivision
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 G1S 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. In addition, at the time of preparation of this TDR Planning Study, the Town
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
is also considering an Agricultural PDD (AgPDD). If the AgPDD were created in a form similar
to it's current draft, 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 which meet all of the
following criteria:
· Land not in a designated HALO or hamlet;
· Land recorded in Town GIS as being greater than 7 acres in size;
· Land not in Town GIS database as community facility lands;
· Land not in Town GIS database as including wetlands (greater than 90 percent), dune, beach
and/or surface water;
· Land not in Town GIS database as having a protected status through prior PDR, acquisition or
conservation easement; and
· Land in the Town GIS database as having an Agricultural District or Individual Commitment
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 1036
New Suffolk Common School District (CSD) 0 0
Southold Union Free School District (UFSD) 825 448
Greenport Union Free School District 8 4
Oysterponds Union Free School District 235 112
Notes: Mattituck UFSD includes Mattituck and Cutchogae HALO's.
Southold UFSD includes Peconic and Southold H^LO's.
Oysterponds UFSD includes East Marion and Orienl 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 forraula 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, Cutchogue,
New Suffolk, Peconic, Southold, East Marion and Orient (Greenport is pending). 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-limited business
· RO-residence office
· AHD-affordable housing district
· HD-hamlet density
· R40 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
~rl ~,~ 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 L1
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 andA-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 program 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 an understandable and effective program.
· 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
· Two-Family Homes
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
· Multiple Family Dwellings
· Detached Accessory Dwelling Units, and
· Mixed use or flexible zoning developments under potential future Planned Development District
The following provisions are recommended to facilitate the redemption of TDR's:
Single Family 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.
a 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-Family 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 Family 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 pamels 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 for under NYS Town Law dealing with incentive zoning. A
PDD is a change of zone, typically to a more intense use than permitted by the under(ving
zoning; however, any increase in density must be offset by public benefits which would be
provided to the community. Projects may include mixed uses, and project sites typically require
larger size for appropriate setbacks, land use compatibility and potential location of sewage
treatment facilities. Redemption of TDR credits wouM 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 HALO's through change of zone review at the discretion of the
Town Board.
· Larger Jots 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 off-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 HALO'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 Land Purchase
· Purchase of Development Rights
· Conservation Subdivision
· Standard Subdivision
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 County Department of Health Services Density 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
I~ll ~.,,,~ Page 23
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
General Guidance Memorandum 4417 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 lots 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 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 beating waste) and therefore density limitations
Page 24
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
are based on the nitrogen-bearing component of the flow. The Suffolk County design fiow
factors are contained in Attachment F.
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 whm 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 model for Southold
Hamlet that will prevent undesirable over-development and protect the hamlet's unique
qualities, scale and historic 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 TownBoard.
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
School District Total Potential
TDR Can~dits
Mattituck UFSD 185
New Suffolk CSD 57
Southold UFSD 302
Greenpon UFSD 0
Oysterponds UFSD 98
Notes: Mattituck UFSD includes Mattituck and Cutchogue HALO's.
Southold UFSD includes Peconic and Southold HALO's,
Oysterponds UFSD includes East Marion and Orient HAL()'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 1036 185 56
New Suffolk CSD 0 57 17
Southold UFSD 448 302 91
Greenport UFSD 4 0 0
Oysterponds UFSD 112 98 29
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- I 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,
Page 26
Town of Southnid
TDR Program Planning Report
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 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, parking 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 m
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.
I~l ~,~ Page 27
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
· Residential density proximate to the hamlets strengthens the business environment.
· Residential density in the HALOes provides opportunity for alternative transportation such as
walking and bicycle travel.
· Use of TDR's in the HALO's may promote beneficial investment and redevelopment.
· Use of TDR's in the HALO's will provide alternative forms of housing to single family 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.
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 for controlled growth requires creative planning and foresight. Transfer of development
rights is just one tool used in the battle to contain sprawl. TDR is the exchange of zoning privileges
from areas with low population needs, such as farmland, to areas of high population needs, such as
the Hamlet Centers. These transfers allow for the preservation of 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.
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 them 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, developers and investors benefit from an additional mechanism to facilitate
compatible and planned development projects that provide retum on investment. HALO
communities benefit from investment 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.
5. ls the program voluntary or mandatory?
~l~J~ Page 29
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
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 adjustments 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.
7. How do I participate if I 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.
8. How do I participate if I 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 the Receiving Area Properties?
TDR's can be used on receiving area properties for the pu~ose 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-I 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-I of this
report.
I~l~ 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.
~ll~ Page 31
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
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 County Department of Health Services
(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 us 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. 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 hamlet centers;
· Lack of environmental sensitivity;
· Suitable road access;
· Availablepublic 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 same school district,
· Transfers must occur within the same Groundwater Management Zone as defined by the
SCDHS,
· Density must be determined based on underlying single family residential zoning (by
accepted yield factors), with the intent that a formula for providing additional density for
less-intensive units (multiple family and senior citizen units) will be established as an
incentive to shifting and creating appropriate development in receiving locations,
· Sending parcels must be appropriately encumbered through dedication to a public or
recognized non-profit entity or covenants restricting future 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 twice the density allowed under the Suffolk County
Sanitary Code (SCSC) unless an appropriate form of sewage treatment is available,
Receiving parcels should be subject to fertilized area restrictions, clearing restrictions and
site plan or subdivision review,
Receiving parcels should be subject to further design standards and/or special exception
criteria as may be determined through further review and analysis; such standards may
include design parameters, development guidelines, buffering, clearing restrictions, fertilized
area restrictions, setbacks, inj~astructure installation and measures to improve community
compatibility.
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 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 from a sound TDR program in a number of ways, noted as follows:
· Preservation of open space and watershed recharge areas associated with sending sites.
· Ability to redirect growth to areas suitable from such growth considering environmental
resources and infrastructure.
· Ability to transfer density credits from outside to inside hamlet centers in a manner that
promotes creation of affordable housing.
· Ability to promote mixed use, multifamily residential use and diverse housing opportunities
including affordable housing through density incentives and transfer.
· Reduction in the number of development rights and~or fee title purchases that would need to
be made to achieve the Towns open space preservation goals.
These measures are discussed and are analyzed in more detail below to provide the
framework for 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 open space is protected in a sending area, and controlled increase in density is
permitted at a receiving site and should therefore be incorporated into a Town TDR
program.
In general, TDR is an appropriate tool for preservation and open space (and to a lesser
extent farmland, due to SCDHS TDR requirements) that envisions shifting density to
appropriate areas, thereby providing a means for land protection without the resulting cost
of purchasing the development rights. [It 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 density increases in subdivisions located 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 local 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 transferred development
rights.
A sound TDR program depends on adequate incentives to ensure program 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 3 planned
retirement community units at the receiving location. This is logical since, multiple family
units are generally smaller, and therefore have less sewage flow (within certain size
limitations), 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 for 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 forrn of the TDR program wouM be designed to work with
incentive zoning provisions through a PDD. In addition, transferred units remove density
from those districts where preservation is desired, to those areas where infrastructure is
present. As a result, density increases would be expected where bus routes and public
transportation opportunities are enhanced, and in hamlet center areas where wa&ability and
local services are provided.
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 HALO zones.
An additional potentially beneficial aspect of the TDR program is the ability of the Town to
use acquired parcelsfor redirection of growth to appropriate locations or for appropriate
programs which would specifically include providing diverse and affordable housing. NYS
Town Law 261-(a) requires that "the town shall evaluate the impact of transfer 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 any negative impact upon the availability or potential development of low or
moderate income housing caused by the transfer 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
SouthoM 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 locations 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. 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.
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, for transfer of development
credits for affordable housing. This would involve selling a development credit for each acre
of land preserved, to a private development company and/or home~land owner that uses that
credit to create a unit or an accessory apartment available for affordable housing in
perpetuity. The credits would sell at a reduced rate (perhaps 75% of the average of
development rights purchased under PDR) for those projects that conform to the program by
providing permanent affordable housing opportunities in appropriate locations. This
program has the added benefit of supplementing funding for open space acquisition. As
envisioned, this program would work in tandem with the PDD or could be used for accessory
apartments or addition of affordable housing to other existing Town zones where density
credits are needed and would conform to the SCDHS TDR sanitary flow restrictions.
I'Vith regard to TDR, it is noted that wastewater impacts are not expected to be significant, as
the predicted concentration of nitrogen in recharge for each zoning district at full build-out
indicates 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 locations 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.
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
fi.om the CIS for the purpose of background and potential further consideration by the Southold
Town Board:
Planned Development District (PDD)
The Town could implement a PDD Local Law consistent with Incentive Zoning as provided
for under NYS Town Law Section 261-b so that, for those hamlet-area properties which are
to be developed, a single use or a combination of complementa~ 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
regulations and standards for setbacks, building heights, etc. specifically designated for this
zone. The PDD concept includes a requirement for "special 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, provision of affordable housing,
community facilities, community infrastructure, or other creative incentives. In this way,
development would occur on a well-planned basis with minimal opportunity for adverse
impacts on infrastructure and services, as public benefits would be accrued to the community
and all infrastructure 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 otherwise be achieved. The PDD would be available to private applicants to pursue
more creaa've 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 for a PDD, which could only
occur under the program that establishes standards for locations, .types of uses, and public
benefits in connection with such a program. Each proposal would be subject to site/use
specific NYS Environmental Quality 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 6/13/07
District Tax Map Number District Tax MaN Number
1000 13.-2-8.2 1000 85.-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 t000 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
t000 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.-8-2
1000 113.-7-2.5
1000 113.-7-2.6
1000 115.-4-6.6
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 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
Peconic HALO Map
Community Facilities
Protected Land
~ HALO
~t Hamlet Center
HALO Parcels Larger than
5 Builders Acres
Mattituck HALO Map
Community Facilities
Protected Land
~ HALO
Hamlet Cent~
HALO Parcels Larger than
Southold HALO Map
Community Facilities
Protected Land
~ HALO
Hamlet Center
HALO Parcels Larger than
5 Builder's Acres
Cutchogue HALO Map
Community Facilities
Protected Land
~ HALO
Hamlet Center
HALO Parcels Larger than
5 Builder's Acre~
East Marion HALO Map
~ Community Facilities
~ Protected Land
~ HALO
Hamlet Center
HALO Parcels Larger than
~ Builder's Acres
New Suffolk HALO Map
_= Community Facilities
I~ Prote~ed Land
~ HALO
~1 Hamlet Center
HALO Parcels Larger than
s Su~de~ Ac~as
Orient HALO Map
Community Facilities
Protected Land
~ HALO
~ Hamlet Center
HALO Parcels Larger than
{5 Builder's Acres
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
ATTACHMENT C
Sample R-20 Local Law
Town o f Southampton
§ 330-1 I, Residence Districts Table of Dimensional Regulatlons9
[Amended ~13-1986 by L.L No. 7-1986; ! 0~24-1989 by L.L. No. 22-1989; 1-10-1995 by L.L No. 3.1992; 3.13-2003 by LL No. 41-2003; 6-10-2003 by L.L. No. 47-2003; 10-26-2004 by LL. No. 33-2004; 6-28-2005 by L.L No. 28-2005]
Lot m'ea2
NOTES:
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
ATTACHMENT D
Land Preservation Flow Chart
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
ATTACHMENT E
SCDHS General Guidance
Memorandum #17
DEPARTMENT OF ~I-~_ALTH SERWCES
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
STEVE:LEvY
SUFFOEK COUNTY:EXECUTIVE
'BRU~ L. H~RPER, M.D., M.P.H.
COMMISSIONER
May 13,2002
SUFFO~ COUNTY D~,PARTlVIF2~ OF ~q'~TH SERVICES
GEN'~RAL GUID~qCEMEMOI~ll}UM #1r/
AGRICULTURAL AND GOI.~ COURSI~. DF_~SITY
AUTBORITY
The Suffolk County Sa~ii~y Code sets forth.re4uimments for approval of watex and sewage disposal
systems. The statutory authority for these guidelines can be found in Article 6 Section 760,603.
PURi~SE
A.tticle -6 allows for th~ installation of subsurface sewage :disposal .Systa~ms in :Groundwater Manag~nent
Zones (GWMZ) ~I, V, ~nd VI when.the :population density .equivalent is ~ to or less than Ihat of a
realty subdivision or development of single ~mi!y residences in which all parcels are.at least ~0,000 sq.
i~.. For parcels that ars.outsi~ .of these zones and served by a community wamr supply, the population
density equivalent is based Oll'mlnlmllm 20,000 Sq. X°L lOts.
Article 6 further defines :a clustered realty subdivision as one which allows a substantial unimproved
p-oiMoii of the'trot to ~tld'0p~:anrt ~tn-h~03tt~l: ' -Other :exlngtruetfola ~'oj~'~'t:h~t m:e nol subdivisiolls
of 1and such as condominiums, planned retirement communities, and apartments must also comply with
Article 6 population dmsity requirements. These requirements ar= .based on a standard subdivision)field
map or calculation ofth¢ adjusted gross land area.
PROBLEM
The process of determining population density equivalent is straightforward when the undeveloped
portionis to remain as,rmlmpmved'open space. Covenants and restrictions recorded against.thepropcny
allow only ,for property m.int~an~ activities and passive .recreational ~pursuits in the open space.
Com ,U o= ena aop=d ponio is p o ea
~,. gotf..c~ars~s,-ballfielcls). ~e~ause :A.~'fi~le ~6 ~lensi~. ~qm~m~is-am ~leangaml to ttm~t-totai-mu'og
=onc~a'agons in:grouad~am'~o4 Mg/L in GWMZ I~ V, ...Vt and.:6 Iv!g/Lin:th= ,~u~alning ,zones, it is
'incuml~nt on thc dcparuncm to :disallow lot .vi'cid for.~ch uses.
Monitoring well data has shown that ~. ~RLvfm~c~ and ~l~culture caq,:adCl s~rnjiS~_an'~ nitrogen to t]!C
~s shows an average nitmg~ gon¢cnmlfion of approximately 4 Mg/L
and dam bom farm t~elds shows that :ni~'me levels from agricultural .practices exceed 6 Mg/L in
GUID~CE
~ g,..lidnncc for ~llocating .d~nsity for laar~¢ls wh~r~ :~griomltorc, or :g01f courses or oth~r rooreafional
turf arcproposod or'allowed supersedes all,Previous gui&line~sud is as follows:
In ~_,::_~, ~,:a~no allowable de,,~i-/~',eo,,~der:as :developable only that:land ·which will NOT be ~sed
fo~r ~ieultu~_.~)golf:eourse~r,:other ~-mcremfional .tur~
· If 40 acres.of a 100 acre parcel may be farmed,,or used as a :golf course, ~cn approximately :60 miRs
(based,on 1 unit !ocr *acre) would bc :,allowed in Zones HI, ¥, and VI, and approximately 120 units
would.be.allowocl lin other zones (base. Cl.:om 2units/gra~ro). This assumes full yicl& Actual yield
Would likely be lower bassw:l on cith~r.a:stazxlard 20,000/40,000'sq. ~ .yictd maP or 75% of adjus~
gross land area.
· If a vineyard wishes ~o consWuct a 'Winory and "wine tasting" facili~, only that portion et thc
,vineyard not in crops may be used for.calculation of population density equivalent.
* For condnmlni~m~ or l~c ~nits in'r~:i~ingled ~ith z goff :course, thc :golf cours~ portion of the
]~ojemt -must :bo saporamd-out ~of ~c '~ar~!~asea. DtmSirf would bo 'bss~d on'~c .romaini:~r of -thc
· ~parcel.
, For golf courses, clonsity for a~essory uses such as clubbousc or rcstauraut, maybe dorive~l from
those areas nut acva~lly used for play .such as.parking, area of buildings and area of any wooded
, For pre-mdsting d~Vclopmen~s Wh~re land ~ms b~m s~t aside for agricultural usc or recreational turf,
the same rules.apply. H~nco, ~.;pa_v~ially.dev¢lop~d_pasc~l may not.claim rl~ns'_Ry credit for a~ag¢
used for~agdmfltor~ .or roor~afional mrf~.r~gardless of&~asity.allo~on formulas tha~ w~re originally
used in thc reView and approval of thc .ini~ dev¢lopm~mt proposals.
Issued by: Vim A. Minci, P~E., Dimmer,
Division of Environmental Quality
May 13,2002 -
~v. July 22, 2002; ~anuary 31, 2003;
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
ATTACHMENT F
SCDHS Design Flow Factors
5-051 ~ ~ ])~ZGN ~
~1~ eu~-surfa~e sev~ge dJ.s~oeal sys~'.ez~ a~e ~o ~)e c~es:Lgnec~
Bu£1din~ User I Design Flow
Sinvle Family Equivalent ~ 300 ~allons/da~
EffLciency Apar~nen=e/Hotel/Motell 100 gallons/day/unit plus food service
da
a
I 10'0
Theate~.5 ..allona. da o.ccu nt
Bowl s ace
Tennis Courts 100 or
servLce
Of¸
floor area
Ntl~
Public
Bars
Markets and Wet Stores
Ba~h House
floor area
area
floor .area
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 $outhold 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 dghts from agricultural/open space within the Southold school district - the
sending zone- to $outhold's Hamlet center/HALO- the receiving zone, which would also
prevent undesirable over-development and protect the hamlet's unique qualities, scale,
and histodc 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 vadous 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 cented 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 Odent which was calculated at I acre density due to the lack of
public water. Streamlined ERSAP requirements were applied removing unbuildable lands as
follows:
· wetlands
· community facilities
· existing protected lands
· lots less than .5 acre except for Orient which was 1 acre (nonconforming under HALO
down zoning)
· 15% of the subdividable 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: · 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
· The HALO areas used in these calculations also include land in the hamlet centers
· The half 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
Southold 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 should 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
Cutcho~lue 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 Precessing
Melissa Spiro, Land Preservation Coordinator
Leslie Weisman, Southold Hamlet Stakeholder Committee Chairperson
Dreff 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 fremework of desireble
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 preposed as the desireble
total build out, as defined above.
2. Growth Control (TDR Cap)
To control the growth rete 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 preposed cap is 30% of the total potential TDR units within the receiving zone or 99 units over
a 25 year pedod (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 will 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 dght, the TDR cap will be increased
by 20 potential development units (99 plus 20= a new TDR cap of 119 units).
4. Affordable/Workforce 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 pdvate 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 spedfic 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. 1 TDR credit=l unit of single family or two
family residential construction? Commemial 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.
5
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
Town of Southold
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM
Planning Report to the Town Board
1.0
2.0
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
PROGRAM FOUNDATION
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
3.0 PROGRAM OVERVIEW AND GENERAL PARAMETERS
4.0
PROGRAM ELEMENTS
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
5.0 CONCLUSION
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A
Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Background
Page i
Attachment B List of Sending Zone Parcels
Attachment C Land Preservation Flow Chart
Attachment D SCDHS Ge~eral~l'D~ ~'~l~cy~ Guidance
M cmo ran du m~e~m~e~ #17
Attachment E SCDHS Design Flow Factors
Attachment F Hamlet Development Model
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
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 Are:~ Credits rs, Rccc~vin~ ('rcd~s~
Figure 4-1
Figure 4-2
Figure 4-3
Sending Zone Parcels
Receiving Zone Parcels
Potential PDD Parcels
Figures
Town of Southold
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM
Planning Report to the Town Board
Draft 6-13-07
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To be completed
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
Town of Southold
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM
Planning Report to the Town Board
Draft i .-07
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Town of Southold is seeking to implement a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
Program for the purpose of enhancing the range of tools available for land ~reservation~lL}CWll a~
ha !~tct:.~. 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.
t~:~s~e*~v~¢~~3v~I~', t~i'~i~i**~-~ll~,2~k~lLt.he-?~%~m 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 Planner and Project Manager
John Sepenoski, Town Data Processing
Patricia Finnegan, Esq., Town Attorney
Melissa Spiro, Town Land Preservation Coordinator
Leslie Weisman, Member Southold Town ZBA & Chair of Southold Hamlet Stakeholder
Committee
Charles Voorhis, CEP, AICP, Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, 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 during the course of this study.
Other Town staff and resources of Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC (NP&V), consultant to the
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
Town, were used in the preparation of this study. This report ~nstitutes the study's findings and
team recommendations resulting from these efforts, o,~5;d,r.x~'
The purpose of this ~eportl[LKW31 is to define the }ff~rhents of a Town of Southold TDR Program.
It should be noted ~hat, through the TDR Prc/gram, the Town seeks to provide an additional
mechanism for the preservation of open spacest, without expenditure of public funds. At present,
the Town has successful fa._r?_!and-a~ Crpc,. aVa'CC preservation programs underway through the
Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program and fee title acquisition of land. ~t
a~,~'e Conservation Subdivision program provides a means to reduce density and
maximize open space preservation,~nd Tev:n P!a.mnin~, ;taft ~nd
~ ' . The Town seek~ ~ntinue these prpgrms, but seeks to provide
a meas to expand programs which ~rovide f~ ~ad prese~ation in those areas of the Town
which waxant such prese~ation, and to lev~ funds t~ough alternative prese~ation tools
that do not require public expendit~es. The proposed TDR program is viewed as a me~s 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 1 O-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.
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 Locus (HALO) 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 an 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 transferred from 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 4
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
for a TDR program to work, the To~vn 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 recommendationsm which will
be reviewed in the next section of this report:
1. Encouraging TDR Sales
Successful TDR programs encourage TDR sales by reducing the development potential of the sending
sites through zoning incentives, favorable alternatives to development, restrictions, environmental
regulations, farmland protection measures, and ordinances that require adequate public facilities
before development can 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
greater 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. ~lecting Receiving Site~ ~/~\ ~ ""')
One approach is for the community to consider designating village or hamlet areas where more
concentrated development will be encouraged. TDRs can then be used to obtain the higher densities
that are possible in these select areas.
3. Facilitating Use of TDRs
After appropriate stakeholder involvement and adoption of appropriate legislation subject to public
disclosure, hearings and review processes, most communities approve TDRs administratively,
without public hearings or discretionary decisions. This approach can increase the use of TDRs since
it gives developers greater certainty over the cost, timing, and approval of their projects.
Many communities also facilitate transfers by treating TDRs as a commodity, available for sale to
anyone at any time. In addition, some programs feature a "TDR bank" which serves as a buyer and
seller of TDRs when private transactions become too time consuming. Finally, the most successful
TDR programs provide ongoing information to the general public, as well as staff support and
instructional materials to assist TDR buyers and sellers.
4. Building Public Support
A successful TDR program will mean more intense development at receiving sites. The community
as a whole needs to understand and accept that this will occur. Community-wide, comprehensive
planning efforts are important in developing TDR programs. In the context of a comprehensive plan,
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 programs are in communities that specifically designed
their comprehensive plans to be implemented through TDR.
An effective TDR program can add optimism to the planning process by offering a way for
compensation to be provided to property owners without the use of tax dollars. This optimism can
encourage the public to establish stronger land 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 rn!~sl bc
t~>pmea~in aeas where infrastructure ~d the l~d use patem is capable of accommodaing
gro~h. In Mdition, the unit types realized in a receiving zone may be smaller ~d have less
impact ~ if the s~e ~it were developed in the sending area. Finally, it is co--on for only a
small number of credits to be locaed at a p~icular receiving site, as there ~e other physical ~d
enviro~eaal factors such as p~ng ~d sanitaU capacity to be considered. This is a ~ique
consideration in the Town of Southold, ~d it is possible ~a, given water resource limitaions,~
receiving ~ea constraints ad a unique real esta~t~_!.~_i:~j~!~jlk!x~_~gx~j._k{~j_L~tmK~..!~!t~:f4"~
clediis to rccc*~ ing ~rc~ c~cdits3 ~mt~s~[L~ws~ave a high probability of success~This)
~;; i~'~S repo~ and the Sdpplemental GElS for the To~ of SoutholdY
TDR progr~.
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 substantially decreased development with as much preservation of existing farm use as can be
achieved in the rural areas of the Town outside of the hamlets, thus identifying both sending and
receiving sites.
· The Town Board conducted prior studies and incorporated TDR into the planning documents
(including the Town-wide CIS) as a desirable tool, thus incorporating the concept into its
comprehensive plan.
· The Town has built community support by assembling stakeholders and conducting the 2005
Hamlet Study to determine the desires and concerns oflocai residents and identify hamlet centers
and surrounding HALO boundaries (receiving sites), resulting in direction on a community-by-
community basis to build community support.
· The Town has reduced expansion of utilities primarily involving water supply expansion to rural
areas, in order to maintain a balance of growth potential due to limited water resources, aquifer
management and public health safety in coordination with the Suffolk County Water Authority
and several prior initiatives including the Water Supply Management & Water Protection
Page 6
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
Strategy, and adoption of an official Water Map (of water supply extension areas) in 2000 and
2007.
The challenges that lie ahead include the following:
Defining sending and receiving sites, particularly in view of the myriad of preservation programs
currently in use, and the desire to continue a policy of density reduction through pumhase of
development rights.
Determining the land use mechanisms for redemption of credits and realization of transferred
development in the HALO's.
Providing adequate economic incentives to facilitate transfers, and ensuring a proper balance of
supply and demand.
Ensuring a margin of program success in consideration of the Suffolk County Department 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 environmental 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 ~levelopmen~lLKW61.
2.3 Town Objectives
The overall program is intended to ~[*rr~[s;9~
di~e~&'!i:ni~mapp~3~ia{e<~[~:m~e~l~,~m~r~-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 and other rural lands are a significant resource in
the Town, in terms of both economics and aesthetics and provides for an important sector of the
Town's economic base, while maintaining the open, rural atmosphere.
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
As a result of the Town's efforts, a number of mechanisms are being used, that provide
opportunities and alternatives to land development that are intended to provide an increased level
of land preservation.
The proposed TDR program is expected to provide the following public benefits:
· Protect critical resources associated with sending parcels including rural character, farm and
agricultural land use to promote land preservation and environmental protection.
· Provide an increase in the amount of diverse housing stock for a variety of income levels ~
· Reduce suburban sprawl and promote "smart growth" development principals including
strengthening of hamlets and businesses, walkable communities, sustainable growth, mixed-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 encouraging controlled development in appropriate use
areas.
· Promote 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.
· Promote the long-term planning 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.
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, and promotin~ appropriate development consistent w/th
good design and planning principles. ,o~ v~x~
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 plarming. 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 SCDHS sanitary
density restrictions and ensuring 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 of Southold's unique environmental constraints, a TDR program wouM have to
discourage/eliminate inappropriate development on sensitive and important lands and promote
appropriate development on parcels where such development can be sustained.
Page 8
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
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.
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:
As set forth in numerous comprehensive planning documents, the Town's goals include the
preservation of open space, agricultural lands and recreational landscapes; preservation of the rural,
cultural and historic character of the hamlet*' and surrounding countryside; preservation of the
natural environment and prevention of further deterioration of resources; preservation and
promotion ora broad range of housing and business opportunities to support a socioeconomically
diverse community; and increased transportation efficiency. To achieve these goals, it is the intent
and purpose of this chapter to provide for the transfer of sanitary flow credits, and thereby transfer
development potential from areas designated for preservation to areas designated as more
appropriale for higher-density residential development. Unless expressly permitted herein, the
transfer of development potential may not occur in the Town of Southold
The basic purpose of Chapter 117 is to preserve land through Town purchase of development
rights, 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 development rights 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
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
are deposited into a 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 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.
Dverall!rL}CWTl, 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
Sch°Ol DiStrict Hamlet
Mattituck-Cutchogue Union Free School District Mattituck and Cutchogue
New Suffolk Common 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 and East Marion; Greenport (9-12)
Page 10
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
ILKW8]
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 program 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 an incentive will be explored as an
alternative under the SEQRA process for the TDR program.
· The TDR program contemplates redemption of credits for residential units, but will examine the
potential for commercial 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 ca~onsidered on a case-by-case basis.
· Each hamlet will retain open space, ~ goal~ 30 percent within hamlets, devoted to both
public use and visually open public at~/l~rivate spac~
/
At this time, the Town has formally adopte e~Mh~O boundaries for Mattituck, Cutchogue,
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 ~lementsl[LKw91
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
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
parcels in conformance with Town Comprehensive Plan goals, with a resultant density shift to
receiving sites that are also consistent with comprehensive planning goals.
The general concept is to specify areas where new residential development is to be discouraged_
d~tc ~ ag~,i~tdmmt use~ rm,~d~,pa~tom~ ~ha~:ter~ env~mm~emal.s~ms~vi~y and~:o~..lack c,f
~dCasmmmve 4o--s~*~:~ de~e3~[~w~-m,---For Sou~old Town, ~eas outside of the hmlets ~e
being tmgeted for prese~ation t~ough PDR. The Town has ~ aggressive and successful
progrm ~d is working in conce~ with Suffolk Co~ty gove~ent to actively purchase
development rights of f~ p~cels. The progrm is volunt~y ~d has been used by m~y f~
hmilies to receive value for their l~d, which allows them to continue from businesses ~d retain
ownership of the underlying l~d. This involves expenditure of public hnds, ~d thus f~
Southold has been successful in using l~d transfer tax monies and bonds for this p~ose.
Additional preservation tools ~e needed to leverage public hnds with private investment, which
would ~:~7¢~5s~ ~'h[e~4[~e-same result +~f-l~d preservation in the sending ~eas, with m~aged
density increases in the receiving ~eas. The Town ~d Co~ty also use outright purchase of fee
title l~ds, ~d has fo~d ~is to be most success~l for open space non-f~ed l~d that does not
have ~derlying crop or agricult~al value. It is expected that the Town will continue to pursue
PDR from f~ p~cels ~d fee title acquisition of woodl~d open space ~d other
enviromentally sensitive lands. This ~derstanding helps to t~get the application of a TDR
program ~d 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 Iown ~m~m~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 fbi]owing; .;m,,4~pc:; that did
m~{ ~equirc
· Land in hamlet and HALO areas
Page 12
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
· Business zoned land not subdividable (single and separate lots of less than the minimum zoning
acreage) and residential zoned land of twice the minimum zoning lot size requirement)
· Unbuildable land (wetlands, dune, beach, surface water)
· Existing community facilities (lands in public ownership, used for public purpose and 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-commtmity
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
d~ ~ no[ cons[ltUtc an
inventory observed to be actively farmed has been created. ]'his ho
ot!ficial LB~i2 and iiwolvcs su~gctive determination
alK{ cormnitmcnt staltlS.
Il*is hwentorv x~as tk)u,~d to ah'eadv have co ~tro s ~ p zee lo ol2jecdvelx determine dlcthet a
p~rce[ is activclZ ire'med.
inventory
is in GIS and is maintained in an up-to-date fashion to ensue that p~cels in ~is district ~e
recognized. As a result, ~e Town Agricultural Dis~ict p~cel inventory and l~ds which are the
subject of an individual commitment were believed to be the most appropriate method of
designating f~ status !}~[ sending parcels.
such desicnafion. As a result, thc sending area vdll be updated ~cdodicallv as parcels are
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
Iov, n may '.,.~ u,h Il:* consldcl adopting ,t re', Is~:d ~,cndmg area
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 concluded that for the initial program partial transfer would not be recommended;
however, if in the future an Agricultural PDD (AgPDD) were created, 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 Sendin~ 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 which meet all of the
following criteria:
· Land not in a designated HALO or hamlet;
· Land recorded in Town GIS as being greater than 7 acres in size;
· Land not in Town GIS database as community facility lands;
· Land not in Town GIS database as including wetlands (greater than 90 percent), dune, beach
and/or surface water;
· Land not in Town GIS database as having a protected status through prior PDR, acquisition or
conservation easement; and
· Land in the Town G1S database as having an Agricultural District or Individual Commitment
status.
It should be noted that these criteria result in ail 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 c×ac~ 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
School District
Page 14
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
Mattituck-Cutchogue Union Free School District 1,972 1071
New Suffolk Common School District (CSD) 0 0
Southold Union Free School District (UFSD) 843 458
Greenport Union Free School District 13 7
Oysterponds Union Free School District 252 122
Notes: Mattituck-Cutchogue 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.
Sending zone parcels are mapped in Figure 4-1 [note: all figures are included in a separate
section immediately following the text of this report.] A list of parcels designating the proposed
sending zone is included in Attachment B; 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, Cutchogue,
New Suffolk, Peconic, Southold, East Marion and Orient (Greenport is pending). 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:
Page 15
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
· LI-light industrial
· B-business
· HB-hamlet business
· LB-limited business
· RO-residence office
· AHD-affordable housing district
· HD-hamlet density
· R-40 residential
· R-80 residential
· A-C agriculture-conservation
· R-200 residential
For the purpose of this program, it was determined that a simple and easy to implement thc initial
program would involve only redemption of credits for the purpose of creating residential
dwelling units, not for increase in commercial density. As a result, use of credits in the LI
district would not be possible. Each of the other districts including B, HB, LB, RO, AHD, HD,
R-40, R-80, A-C and R-200, 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 lzmds within the IIAI,O zo~cd B, LB, RO, HD, R-40, R-80, A-C and R-200
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 program 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 an understandable and effective program.
· This option could be adopted as a separate TDR local law that would complement existing code
provisions.
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
Recommended Receiving Zones which are coincident with the HALO boundaries are mapped in
Figure 4-2.
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 HALe's. The form that
increased density could take included the following:
· Single Family Homes
· Two-Family Homes
· Multiple Family Dwellings
· Detached Accessory Dwelling Units, and
· Mixed use or flexible zoning developments under potential future Planned Development District
The following provisions are recommended to facilitate the redemption of TDR's:
Single Family Homes the' ' 's ~ ,~ '
lntt nt i. t( pc }}It trat:sl:k'l of credits to dcvdop sin,dc fhmilv homes
be o~' h05v [his~caj~ occur
· Existi~t~. zones which arc t..c(mmend~d ibr or
.... ~ permit
in~}~d~ ~[~SLAppty ~o B, HB, RO, R-40, R-80, A-C, R-200 zones.
· Addh~(~[ml 5~[~:g~C I~unil5 rcs d~¢~5~.:~[ [~r~5 ~ould bq 4}}~?y~)~.Alk~w-in ~}~e zoning dis~ict
~ough fu~her subdivision under t,u~del~ncs noted
· J_~_U~' TDR code to pe~it such development by s~(~]~S!j)~p~Lapplication
to the Plying Bo~d.
· t'he recommended mMinimum permitted lot size v, ould ~o-be 20,000 SF m ensure
· The Town m ~ cgonsider creation of 4:~(.m20 ?on5 to) establish dimensional
20,000 ~ lot size which does not ~
Two-Family Homes .- 1'!3'4 i!~!~.m: i~ ~0 permit
ap.p(:~2[}rt ttc dreas, b~ thc mvthods m ted bek ~.
· Existir:?, zones xd~ich s~re recomrnetadcd fbi or permit t,ao-ikm~ilx homes include the
App¢-4~-R-40, R-80, A-C zones.
· in these zonil~jj?JXic~tA_j2)_?,jj.o~!,jjlg.*M-Ic~v¥-4n
structure per lot.
· t'he a be alloyccd .~->~=-in [})~.zoning
dis~ict t~ough f~ther subdivision under the ~2uldclm~s m igd herein.
· .L~!.~ Use TDR code 5S~!4 ke%~4ag~.to pe~it such development by
application to the Pla~ing Board.
I'he recommended mMinimum pe~i~ed lot size would {o be 20,000 SF in the R-40 ~d
40,000 SF in the R-80 and A-C zones to ct~surc ctmsistvnc~ vith
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
{ o~s ~::19~ cc tLE. b~.~&:~n o:~!:1~ r '~g qDimensional requirements pursuit to 1.25
~" ~ l~dg~: lot to acc~ mlnodatc the
times ~e ~derlying zone ~lLpr~ ~dc a ~ ' ~
Multiple Family Dwellings ;YJ.!!!iit2k ~!l:!f4 122 cg!}strti~li~d.it¢ :~ppropria!,9 a!'c35
~vzsi&mdM ~onit:~g distric[ ~ough of zone to HD or HB for
qualifying lots based on sold plying principles ~d merits of proposal.
l't~e Town Board would determine the ap~).~riateness and localion of sucl~ uses tecaies
usc based on change of zone r~Ticw which would require use of TDR's.
cxistin~ HD/HB zol~es
Detached Accessory Dwelling Units:Al3exx pr~vi!4i~ ti s ',:c( m ~c[ ~1-c4!. 5~!lid) would
curreutl~ provided lbr in Fox~n Code. Recommcndatiol~s are included
· Not cu:etid.y..p~evido~ i ,~de~.'ti!!i~?ee~m~mev~d new form of dwelling ~t ~
lot consldctat~t/~ in Lhe R-40, R-80, A-C ~d R-200 zones,
r~:ctln ucnded ' ' ' ' ~
t~ough EZoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) special pe~it.
· 2!7!~ rcco(ll!!!EY3fJX([ mMinimm pe~itted lot size 3}52u. ld ~obe 40,000 SF.
Planned Development District PDD i.~ r~ /.OTj)o:tcm/ met thai ~*'a.~ :ecoli,izcd
" : :3.i~. ! [)_!~_15 t!mi!~s~ }!.[~4~:_~t;ncourage: [ !q adoption of a PDD local law.
· .!.i.[i!:_.!2!2!.)~5?ti[!!..~/kpply to HALO's through change of zone Iqsi~;>5; at i.J~e )i3_p~
Town Bo~d dise~etie~
* '¢ ! y p ica ~ ~ 2..:~ [ci ~pp top' ~,t~ m d c~t ~,~5 ~k-lots o f 5 acres
~ 3~ ) idcnfil}: poiential PDD a~c~didate :,ires,s,
and greater sh ~tfld { c Z ~rk imcd to ...
, sSeek mixed use development with public benefits.
A x~Major public benefit 0~be~x, ishb~g-TDRs and
providing sewage treatment f2cilifies xqfich could acct mmodatc addk[~m d flow Ik)m
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.
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
4.3 Interrelationship of Land Preservation Programs
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 an~! .[~q!5..listed as
follows:
· Fee Title Land Purchase
· Purchase of Development Rights
· Conservation Subdivision
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 [S,!gi~!r! i~
~..t¢~sit~~ ]_ [~5~Z~!!!!~¥~...i~! ~.[:~spl'~_~e 80
rcductiot~. .:::-::~ pe~ee~[.~e~s[~v pe~een~ ~:ihe. land;.. This in
effect is a creative land use tec~ique that involves a combination of clustering ~d yield
reduction t~ough volunt~y yield loss, PDR or other creative t~ incentive ~d omer benefit
progrms t~ough the assist~ce of Peconic L~d Trust (PLT) ~d/or other land preservation
groups. ?k.~ta.!~.4~'d sc~bd.5~tL[511~ [}}5 r~s&t}~5..j~.(:lusle~h'~g Fesutts-i~ no yield reduction, but
~![45~ ear,retain perccm ~m~,,~eve [mm--h~d~:4~)-J~4 ~}a}s oI~ oF a prope~y in open
In designing~the TDR program, strong ~nsideration was given to the inte~elationship of these
progrms. There is a desire to not compete with successful progrms that acheve Tom goals.
There is ~ aw~eness that agricultural l~d has residual value in faming, a~er the purchase or
~sfer of development rights, whereas woodl~d ~d non-agricultural ~eas do not have
residential value, except as open space. The To~ has prim~ily directed the PDR program
toward agricult~ lands, and utilized fee title land purchase more for open space prese~ation.
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 ch~acter of
open space which is achieved in farml~d preservation where the land continues in agricultural
production. These factors compelled the team to consider agricult~al lands as t~get locations
for the use of TDR to supplement the Town PDR progrm. This allows public funds to be
leveraged in a ma~er that private p~chase of development rights frees up funds for continu~ce
of the PDR progrm to prese~e fa~land 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 ~vhich 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
Page 19
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
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.
Page 20
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
A flow chart has been prepared in order to understand the interrelationship of these land
preservation programs. The chart, included as Attachment C, 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.
4.4 Density Limitations in the Receiving Zones
Suffolk County Department of Health Services Density 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 nmnber 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.
Page 21
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
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
General G~idance Mernorandu~v~ i~17 which pertains to
;md golf cmlrse densit3.. :[:~a'~e~.~¢IOe~.etol~-me~ t~[gh~s (Attachment D).
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 lots 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 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.
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
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. The Suffolk County design flow
factors are contained in Attachment E.
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 model for Southold
Hamlet that will prevent undesirable over-development and protect the hamlet's unique
qualities, scale and historic 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 mode~/results and to obtain feedback from these communities. The results were
presented to the Tow~B'oard.
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 F. 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
Page 23
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
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.
TABLE 4-2
POTENTIAL RECEIVING ~REDITS[[LKWl0]
SchoOl DiStrict T0f~l P0tential
TDR CreditS
Mattituck-Cutchogue UFSD
New Suffolk CSD
Southold UFSD ~i
Greenport UFSD
Oysterponds UFSD ~0~
Notes: Mattituck-Cutchogue 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.
The Hamlet Development Model considers several additional factors related to potential over-
~levelopmen~[LKWl~l. 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 ~]]REDIT~[LKW12]
Sch061 Distiiet Sending z6n~ ReCeiving z0ne Receiving Zone
~R~s ~i~ i~tal
Mattituck-Cutchogue UFSD 1071 1150
New Suffolk CSD 0 ~
Southold UFSD 458 ~
Greenpo~ ~SD 7 0
Oysterponds UFSD 122 ::~0~ 31
Notes: Mattituck-Cutchogue 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.
Page 24
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
Review of Table 4-3 provides a basis for several conclusions. It is apparent that there are mom
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 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 mariner that would not
adversely impact the character of these areas. This must be balanced with SCSC Article 6
compliance, parking 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 m
system which can treat up to 1.5,000 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 Figure 4-3.
~____ _Parcels_.:ol'5 ........... acres zlnd ~m'eater in size czre more suitable i'or Planned t)eveto >ment/ Districts
gGiven the ability to buffer such development to ,.provide compatible single or mixed-use
~a~s--~,:----wastewater ~eatment.) 3~3Y I)I~[) ',xt~d }!~x~. ~p..pr~k:~s: :---~vilh-result~t public
benefits, such prQects could potentiall_& be considered for TDR credit redemption an6.'or other
public benefits of value to the tlAi,O and community. The Board could also have the option of
[o~¢li!!g.pDD's ouiside of the [!Aj O.'~s !~)f'or TDI~.._qrc~!.i!
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
provided.
The Hamlet Development Model provides residents with the assurance that reasonable density
limits will be established in their corrLmunities. 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.
· Residential density in the HALO's provides opportunity for alternative transportation such as
walking and bicycle travel.
· Use of TDR's in the HALO's may promote beneficial investment and redevelopment.
· Use of TDR's in the HALO's will provide alternative forms of housing to single family 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.
4.5 Program Mechanics Summary
Quality Communities Grant
This TDR Program Planning Report has been prepared with funding tbxough 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 for controlled growth requires creative planning and foresight. Transfer of development
rights is just one tool used in the battle to contain sprawl. TDR is the exchange of zoning privileges
from areas with low population needs, such as farmland, to areas of high population needs, such as
the Hamlet Centers. These transfers allow for the preservation of 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.
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
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.
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, developers and investors benefit from an additional mechanism to facilitate
compatible and planned development projects that provide return on investment. HALO
communities benefit from investment 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.
Page 27
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
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.
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 adjustments 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 if I 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 the Receiving Area Properties?
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
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 Figure 4-1 of this report.
11. Where are the Receiving Areas located?
Receiving areas are outlined in detail in Section 4.2 and mapped in Figure 4-2 of this report.
5.0 CONCLUSION
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.
To be completed
Page 29
Tmon of Southoltl
TDR Program Planning Report
Town of Southold
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM
Planning Report to the Town Board
1.0
2.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
PROGRAM FOUNDATION
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
CONTENTS
Components of a Successful TDR Program
Public Need
Town Objectives
Background and History of Town TDR and Related Programs
3.0 PROGRAM OVERVIEW AND GENERAL PARAMETERS
4.0
PROGRAM ELEMENTS
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
Sending Zones
Receiving Zones
Interrelationship of Land Preservation Programs
Density Limitations in the Receiving Zones
Program Mechanics Summary
5.0 CONCLUSION
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A
Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Background
Page i
Town of Southold
TDR Program PLanning Report
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
Attachment E
Attachment F
List of Sending Zone Parcels
Land Preservation Flow Chart
SCDHS TDR Policy, Guidance Document #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 Area Credits by School District
Figure 4-1
Figure 4-2
Figure 4-3
Sending Zone Parcels
Receiving Zone Parcels
Potential PDD Parcels
Figures
Page ii
Town of Southold
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM
Planning Report to the Town Board
Draft 5-264)7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To be completed
Tmon of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
Town of Southold
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM
Planning Report to the Town Board
Dralt 5-26-07
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Town of Southold is seeking to implement a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
Program for the purpose of enhancing the range of tools available for land preservation. 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 ofa 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 pr/or 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.
It is recognized that there are varying opinions on elements of 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 Ten-y, Town Principal Planner and Project Manager
John Sepenoski, Town Data Processing
· Patricia Finnegan, Esq., Town Attorney
Melissa Spiro, Town Land Preservation Coordinator
Leslie Weisman, Member Southold Town ZBA & Chair of Southold Hamlet Stakeholder
Committee
· Charles Voorhis, CEP, AICP, Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, 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 during the course of this study.
Other Town staff and resources of Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC CNP&V), consultant to the
Town, were used in the preparation of this study. This report constitutes the study's findings and
team recommendations resulting from these efforts.
~ Page 2
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
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 open spaces, 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. Absent
acquisition, the Conservation Subdivision program provides a means to reduce density and
maximize open space preservation, and Town Planning staff and the Planning Board have used
this tool for successful preservation of open space and to ensure alignment of contiguous open
space through project review. The Town seeks to continue these programs, but seeks to provide
a means to expand programs which provide for total 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 heating 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 ora 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 3
'lown 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 Locus (HALO) 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 an 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 transferred from 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 were 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 lando~vners' 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 4
To~n 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 recommendationsm which will
be reviewed in the next section of this report:
1. Encouraging TDR Sales
Successful TDR programs encourage TDR sales by reducing the development potential of the sending
sites through zoning incentives, favorable alternatives to development, restrictions, environmental
regulations, farmland protection measures, and ordinances that require adequate public facilities
before development can 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
greater 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 community to consider designating village or hamlet areas where more
concentrated development will be encouraged. TDRs can then be used to obtain the higher densities
that are possible in these select areas.
3. Facilitating Use of TDRs
After appropriate stakeholder involvement and adoption of appropriate legislation subject to public
disclosure, hearings and review processes, most communities approve TDRs administratively,
without public hearings or discretionary decisions. This approach can increase the use of TDRs since
it gives developers greater certainty over the cost, timing, and approval of their projects.
Many communities also facilitate transfers by treating TDRs as a commodity, available for sale to
anyone at any time. In addition, some programs feature a "TDR bank" which serves as a buyer and
seller of TDRs when private transactions become too time consuming. Finally, the most successful
TDR programs provide ongoing information to the general public, as well as staff support and
instructional materials to assist TDR buyers and sellers.
4. Building Public Support
A successful TDR program will mean more intense development at receiving sites. The community
as a whole needs to understand and accept that this will occur. Community-wide, comprehensive
planning efforts are important in developing TDR programs. In the context ora comprehensive plan,
~ Page 5
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 programs are in communities that specifically designed
their comprehensive plans to be implemented through TDR.
An effective TDR program can add optimism to the planning process by offering a way for
compensation to be provided to property owners without the use of tax dollars. This optimism can
encourage the public to establish stronger land 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 should
not excessively concern local government, as the intent of TDR is to locate 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, equal density will 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 substantially decreased development with as much preservation of existing farm use as can be
achieved in the rural areas of the Town outside of the hamlets, thus identifying both sending and
receiving sites.
· The Town Board conducted prior studies and incorporated TDR into the planning documents
(including the Town-wide CIS) as a desirable tool, thus incorporating the concept into its
comprehensive plan.
· The Town has built community support by assembling stakeholders and conducting the 2005
Hamlet Study to determine the desires and concerns of local residents and identify hamlet centers
and surrounding HALO boundaries (receiving sites), resulting in direction on a community-by-
community basis to build community support.
· The Town has reduced expansion of utilities primarily involving water supply expansion to rural
areas, in order to maintain a balance of ~owth potential due to limited water resources, aquifer
management and public health safety in coordination with the Suffolk Cotmty Water Authority
and several prior initiatives including the Water Supply Management & Water Protection
Strategy, and adoption of an official Water Map (of water supply extension areas) in 2000 and
2007.
The challenges that lie ahead include the following:
Page 6
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
· Defining sending and receiving sites, particularly in view of the myriad of preservation programs
currently in use, and the desire to continue a policy of density reduction through purchase of
development rights.
· Determining the land use mechanisms for redemption of credits and realization of transferred
development in the HALO's.
· Providing adequate economic incentives to facilitate transfers, and ensuring a proper balance of
supply and demand.
· Ensuring a margin of program success in consideration of the Suffolk County Department 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 environmental 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 discourage/eliminate inappropriate development on important
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 and other rural lands are a significant resource in
the Town, in terms of both economics and aesthetics and provides for an important sector of the
Town's economic base, while maintaining the open, rural atmosphere.
· As a result of the Town's efforts, a number of mechanisms are being used, that provide
opportunities and alternatives to land development that are intended to provide an increased level
of land preservation.
The proposed TDR program is expected to provide the following public benefits:
Page 7
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
· Protect critical resources associated with sending parcels including rural character, farm and
agricultural land use to promote land preservation and environmental protection.
· Provide an increase in the amount of diverse housing stock for a variety of income levels,
including affordable housing.
· Reduce suburban sprawl and promote "smart growth" development principals including
strengthening of hamlets and businesses, walkable communities, sustainable growth, mixed-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 encouraging controlled development in appropriate use
areas.
· Promote beneficial design guidelines and standards within the hamlets including nco-traditional
development in appropriate areas, maintenance of natural vegetation, minimization of fertilizer
application, buffers and setbacks.
· Promote the long-term planning 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.
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, 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 SCDHS sanitary
density restrictions and ensuring 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 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 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
Page 8
Town of Southohl
TDR Program Planning Report
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:
As set forth in numerous comprehensive planning documents, the Town's goals include the
preservation of open space, agricultural lands and recreational landscapes; preservation of the rural,
cultural and historic character of the hamlets and surrounding countryside; preservation of the
natural environment and prevention of further deterioration of resources; preservation and
promotion of a broad range of housing and business opportunities to support a socioeconomically
diverse community; and increased transportation efficiency. To achieve these goals, it is the intent
and purpose of this chapter to provide for the transfer of sanitary flow credits, and thereby transfer
development potential from areas designated for preservation to areas designated as more
appropriate for higher-density residential development. Unless expressly permitted herein, the
transfer of development potential may not occur in the Town of Southold.
The basic purpose of Chapter 117 is to preserve land through Town purchase of development
fights, 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 development rights 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 a 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
~ Page 9
To'~'vrl] Of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
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-Cutchogue Union Free School District Mattituck and Cutchogue
New Suffolk Common School District New Suffolk (K-7); Southold (8-12)
Southo!d Union Free School District Southold and. eco..ic; ..... q,,¢c,.lv re 1 '~,'~
Greenport Union Free School District Greenport; Oysterponds (9-12)
Oysterponds Union Free School District Orient and East Marion; Greenport (9-12)
Page 10
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 program 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 an incentive will be explored as an
alternative under the SEQRA process for the TDR program.
· The TDR program contemplates redemption of credits for residential units, but will examine the
potential for commercial 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 can 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 and 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 11
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
The general concept is to specify areas where new residential development is to be discouraged
due to agricultural use, rural/pastoral character, environmental sensitivity and/or lack of
infrastructure to support development. 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 achieve the same result of 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 preservation 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 land types that did not require
preservation; these included:
acreage) and residential zoned land of twice the minimum zoning lot size requirement)
· Unbuildable land (wetlands, dune, beach, surface water)
Land in hamlet and HALO areas
Business zoned land not subdividable (single and separate lots of less than the minimum zoning
Page 12
¢2;;
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
· Existing community facilities (lands in public ownership, used for public purpose and 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-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 pamels 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. In reviewing this inventory, it was
soon evident that there was too much room to debate whether parcels were actively farmed,
fallow, how long they were fallow and if they could potentially be returned to farm use. It was
also evident that maintaining an updated inventory for the purpose of designation of specific
sending parcels was logistically unfeasible. An alternative means of designation of farmland was
sought. The Town has an Agricultural District designation, which is a recorded parcel status for
the purpose of tax relief. Active farms seeking tax relief are designated through Agricultural
District status. 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 sending parcels.
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 concluded that for the initial program partial transfer would not be recommended;
however, if in the future an Agricultural PDD (AgPDD) were created, 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
~' Page 13
'l'n~ n of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
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 which meet all of the
following criteria:
· Land not in a designated HALO or hamlet;
· Land recorded in Town GIS as being greater than 7 acres in size;
· Land not in Town GIS database as community facility lands;
· Land not in Town GIS database as including wetlands (greater than 90 percent), dune, beach
and/or surface water;
· Land not in Town GIS database as having a protected status through prior PDR, acquisition or
conservation easement; and
· Land in the Town GIS database as having an Agricultural District or Individual Commitment
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 exact 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-Cutchogue Union Free School District 1,972 107 I
New Suffolk Common School District (CSD) 0 0
Southold Union Free School District (UFSD) 843 458
Greenport Union Free School District 13 7
Oysterponds Union Free School District 252 122
Notes: Mattituck-Cutchogue 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 ~rade 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 Towa for yield of conservation
subdivisions.
Page 14
To','*II of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
Sending zone parcels are mapped in Figure 4-1 [note: all figures are included in a separate
section immediately following the text of this report.] A list of parcels designating the proposed
sending zone is included in Attachment B; this Iist 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, Cutchogue,
New Suffolk, Peconic, Southold, East Marion and Orient (Greenport is pending). 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:
· LI-light industrial
· B-business
· HB-hamlet business
· LB-limited business
· RO-residence office
· AHD-affordable housing district
· HD-hamlet density
· R-40 residential
· R-80 residential
· A-C agriculture-conservation
· R-200 residential
Page 15
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
For the purpose of this program, it was determined that a simple and easy to implement initial
program would involve only redemption of credits for the purpose of creating residential
dwelling units, not for increase in commercial density. As a result, use of credits in the LI
district would not be possible. Each of the other districts including B, HB, LB, RO, AHD, HD,
R-40, R-80, A~C and R-200, 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 ~vith
pumhase 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 B, LB, RO, HD, R-40, R-80, A-C and R-200 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 program 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 an understandable and effective program.
· 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
Figure 4-2.
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
· Two-Family Homes
· Multiple Family Dwellings
· Detached Accessory Dwelling Units, and
Page 16
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
· Mixed use or flexible zoning developments under potential future Planned Development District
The following provisions are recommended to facilitate the redemption of TDR's:
Single Family Homes · Apply to B, HB, RO, R-40, R-80, A-C, R-200 zones.
· Allow in zoning district through further subdivision.
· Use TDR code to permit such development by application to the Planning Board.
· Minimum permitted lot size to be 20,000 SF.
· Consider creation of R-20 zone to establish dimensional requirements for 20,000 SF lot
size which does not currently exist.
Two-Family Homes · Apply to R-40, R-80, A-C zones.
· Allow in zoning district through creation of one structure per lot.
· Allow in zoning district through further subdivision.
· Use TDR code to permit such development by application to the Planning Board.
· Minimum permitted lot size to be 20,000 SF in the R-40 and 40,000 SF in the R-80 and
A-C zones.
· Dimensional requirements pursuant to 1.25 times the underlying zone except area which
is specified above.
Multiple Family Dwellings
· Allow in residential zoning district through change of zone to HD or HB for qualifying
lots based on sound planning principles and merits of proposal.
· Town Board locates use based on change of zone which would require use of TDR's.
· Dimensional requirements pursuant to HD/HB
Detached Accessory Dwelling Units
· Not currently provided for in Town Code; recommend new form of dwelling unit to be
allowed in R-40, R-80, A-C and R-200 zones through Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA)
special permit.
· Minimum permitted lot size to be 40,000 SF.
Planned Development District · Encourage adoption of PDD local law.
· Apply to HALO's through change of zone at Town Board discretion.
· Identify lots 5 acres and greater as candidates.
· Seek mixed use development with public benefits.
· Major public benefit is extinguishing TDRs and providing sewage treatment.
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.
~,~:,~ ~.~ ~ ,o:*~ ~L= Page 17
To~u of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
4.3 Interrelationship of Land Preservation Programs
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 listed as follows:
· Fee Title Land Purchase
· Purchase of Development Rights
· Conservation Subdivision
· Clustering
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 percent density reduction and preservation of percent of the
land. 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. Clustering results in no yield reduction, but can retain anywhere from half
to two-thirds of a property in open space, depending on the final clustered lot size.
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 fights, 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 fights 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.
Page 18
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
A flow chart has been prepared in order to understand the interrelationship of these land
preservation programs. The chart, included as Attachment C, 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.
4.4 Density Limitations in the Receiving Zones
Suffolk County Department of Health Services Density 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 A~ic!e 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.
Page 19
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
There are several additional aspects of SCDHS implementation of this program which are
important to understand. Suflblk 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
~d~ce do~ (#I7) which pertains to Transfer of Development Rights (Attachment D).
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 lots 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 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
~vould 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
~ Page 20
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
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. The Suffolk County design flow
factors are contained in Attachment E.
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 ama 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 model for Southold
Hamlet that will prevent undesirable over-development and protect the hamlet's unique
qualities, scale and historic 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 TownBoard.
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 F. Ln summapz', 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
Page 21
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
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.
TABLE 4-2
POTENTIAL RECEIVING CREDITS
Mattituck-Cutchogue UFSD i~
New Suffolk CSD ~
Southold UFSD 5~i
Greenport UFSD 0
Oysterponds UFSD ~04
Notes: Mattituck-Cutchogue 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.
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 pement 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 pementage 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-Cutchogue UFSD 1071 1-50 ~
New Suffolk CSD 0 ~ ~
Southold UFSD 458 ~ 162
Greenport UFSD 7 ~ 0
Oysterponds UFSD 122 :i04 31
Notes: Mattii-ack-Cutchogue UFSD includas 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.
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,
~ Page 22
To;', n of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
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 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, parking 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 TM
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 Figure 4-3.
Given the ability to buffer such development, provide compatible single or mixed-use projects
and provide a means for wastewater treatment, with resultant public benefits, such projects could
potential be considered for TDR credit redemption in addition to the HALO area credit cap.
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
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
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.
· Residential density in the HALO's provides opportunity for alternative transportation such as
walking and bicycle travel.
· Use of TDR's in the HALO's may promote beneficial investment and redevelopment.
· Use of TDR's in the HALO's will provide alternative forms of housing to single family 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.
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 for controlled growth requires creative planning and foresight. Transfer of development
rights is just one tool used in the battle to contain sprawl. TDR is the exchange of zoning privileges
from areas with low population needs, such as farmland, to areas of high population needs, such as
the Hamlet Centers. These transfers allow for the preservation of 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
~ Page 24
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
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.
Examination of Grant Tasks
1. How will the TDR Program work?
The program involves designation of sending zones which primarily include larger farm
pamels 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, developers and investors benefit from an additional mechanism to facilitate
compatible and planned development projects that provide return on investment. HALO
communities benefit from investment 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?
Page 25
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
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.
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 To~vn 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 adjustments 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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 Figure 4-1 of this report.
~l~ Page 26
'l'm~ n of Southohl
TDR Program Planning Report
11. Where are the Receiving Areas located?
Receiving areas are outlined in detail in Section 4.2 and mapped in Figure 4-2 of this report.
5.0 CONCLUSION
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 thc Town's TDR program.
To he completed
Page 27
Town of $outhold
TDR Program Planning Report
Town of Southold
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM
Planning Report to the Town Board
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 PROGRAM FOUNDATION
2.1 Components of a Successful TDR Program
2.2 Public Need
2.3 Town Objectives
2.4 Background and History of Town TDR and Related Programs
3.0 PROGRAM OVERVIEW AND GENERAL PARAMETERS
4.0 PROGRAM ELEMENTS
4.1 Sending Zones
4.2 Receiving Zones
4.3 Interrelationship of Land Preservation Programs
4.4 Density Limitations in the Receiving Zones
4.5 Program Mechanics Summary
5.0 CONCLUSION
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A
Land Preservation Flow Chart
Page i
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
Table 3-1
Table 4-1
Table 4-2
Table 4-3
SCDHS TDR Policy
SCDHS Design Flow Factors
Hamlet Development Model
Tables
School Districts and Hamlets
Sending Area Credits by School District
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
Deleted: ....... Page Break-
Figure 4-1
Figure 4-2
Sending Area Parcels
Receiving Area Parcels
Figures
Town of Southold
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM
Planning Report to the Town Board
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To be completed
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
Town of Southold
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM
Planning Report to the Town Board
Draft 5-184)7
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Town of Southold is seeking to implement a Transfer of Developm?~nt Rights (TDR)
Program for the purpose of enhancing the range of tools ava able for land ~0~. 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 finn to coordinate efforts with a
team of Town representatives to define the planning parameters for a Southold TDR Program.
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 (GEIS) for the
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy (CIS)] and to facilitate drafting of a proposed
Local Law to implement the Program.
~~S on elements o e pro The program
contained herein provides recommendations only, based on the judgment of the team members~
The team was designed to include Town representatives that recognize the inter-relationships
among~9~d preservation programs, data managements, smart growth planning princ!ples, and the.
planning and legal process, and would be expected to continue, in a capacity that wi!! assist in
implementing the program once some form of legislation is adopted. The rationale associated
with various recommendations is discussed relative ,to y~rious 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 outhning and implementing program elements as
directed by the Board.
Team participants are listed as follows:
Mark Terry, Principal Planner and Project Manager
John Sepenoski, Data Processing
Patricia Finnegan, Esq., Town Attorney
Melissa Spiro, Land Preservation Coordinator
Leslie Weisman, Member Town ZBA & Chair of Southold Hamlet Stakeholder Committee
Charles Voorhis, CEP, AICP, Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, 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 during the course of this study.
Other Town staff and resources of Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC (NP&V), consultant to the
Page 2
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.
shou be noted that, through the TDR Program, the Town seeks to provide an additi0hal
mechanism for the preservation of open spaces, without expenditure of public funds. At present,
the Town has successful farmland and woodland open space preservation programs underway
through the Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program and fee title acquisition of land.
~,',~e Conservation Subdivision program provides a means to reduce density
and maximize open space preservation, and Town Planning staff and the Planning Board have
used this tool for successful preservation of open space and to ensure alignment of contiguous
open space through project review. The Town seeks to continue these programs, but seeks to
provide a means to expand programs which provide for total 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 fights which result in the permanent ex6nguishment of development fights 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 of 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.
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 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 Locus (HALO) Study of 2005. Additional insight regarding
the existing Town TDR law and the prior findings of the Town CIS are contained
of Section 2.0. It is noteworthy that the Town CIS included TDR as an
mechanism number 12, and the CIS was the subject of a Generic Environmental
Statement. The Findings of the CIS recognized TDR as a valuable land
relocation mechanism subject to further definition of the program. This TDR Program
Report and any subsequent SEQRA review builds upon the prior Town CIS 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
sites in established rural areas of the Town ("sending areas"),
parcels within the respective hamlet HALO zones where appropriate
potential, reuse potential, public services and/or lack of environmental c
("receiving areas").
infill
present
The following sections present additional information ~
such a program, the Town-wide objectives of preservation, and the h
to preserve land through TDR.
the Town's need for
of the Town's efforts
2.1 Components of Successful TDR Programs
Transfer of Development Rights is defined in the New York
by which development rights are transferred from one lot,
district to another lot, parcel, or area of land in
tool is used to protect land were development is not
appropriate areas.
s "...theprocess
or area of land in a sending
districts. ' This planning
by ,shiftin~g density to more
TDR is a well-established, progressive land
preserve one or more si
entire community, while at the same time
enabling the development potential of that land to 1
location more appropriate for development.
has been utilized nationwide in order to
the value of landowners' property by
realized elsewhere in the community, in a
A TDR program permits the transfer of density,
land. Transferred development credits can
measures to facilitate the program. The Town
or density may be used. For instance,
units in hamlet areas where density and planm
would retain landowners' equity in their
n determine in advance how transferred credits
credits can be targeted for use as residential
is appropriate and sustainable. In order
Page 4
Deleted: and
Town of Soulhold
TDR Program Planning Repor~
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 recommendationsm which will
be reviewed in the next section of this repiner:
1. Encouraging TDR Sales ~
/
Successful TDR programs encourage TDR sales by reducing the development potential of the sending/
sites through zoning incentives, favorable alternatives to development, restrictions, environmen~l
regulations, farmland protection measures, and ordinances that require adequate public faci/~es
before development can occur. ~
Just as sending site owners need to be encouraged to sell their development rights, receivt/ng site
developers must be motivated to buy TDRs. Developers will only buy TDRs if they ca~ make a
greater profit from a project that uses TDRs. A most important concept is that ther~ 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 community to consider designating village or hamlet areal/where more
concentrated development will be encouraged. TDRs can then be used to obtain the I~gher densities
that are possible in these select areas.
3. Facilitating Use ofTDRs
After appropriate stakeholder involvement and adoption of appropriate legislation subject to public
disclosure, hearings and review processes, most corarnunities approve TDRs administratively,
without public hearings or discretionary decisions. This approach can increase the use of TDRs since
it gives developers greater certainty over the cost, timing, and approval of their projects.
Many communities also facilitate transfers by treating TDRs as a commodity, available for sale to
anyone at any time. In addition, some programs feature a "TDR bank" which serves as a buyer and
seller of TDRs when private transactions become too time consuming. Finally, the most successful
TDR programs provide ongoing information to the general public, as well as staff support and
instructional materials to assist TDR buyers and sellers.
4. Building Public Support
A successful TDR program will mean more intense development at receiving sites. The community
as a whole needs to understand and accept that this will occur. Community-wide, comprehensive
planning efforts are important in developing TDR programs. In the context ora comprehensive plan,
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 programs are in communities that specifically designed
their comprehensive plans to be implemented through TDR.
An effective TDR program can add optimism to the planning process by offering a way for
compensation to be provided to property owners without the use of tax dollars. This optimism can
encourage the public to establish stronger land 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 should
not excessively concern local g~, as the intent of TDR is to locate 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
limitations 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, ~laal ~i~ will have a high Pmbabi!itY of success-
This will be examined further in this report and the Supplemental GEIS for the Town of
Southold TDR program, xx .x
It is noted that the Town of Southold has made great pYl~ress in considering the key elements of
a successful TDR program. The following steps have b~en 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 substantially decreased development with as much preservation of existing farm use as can be
achieved in the raml areas of the Town outside of the hamlets, thus identifying both sending and
receiving sites.
· The Town Board conducted prior studies and incorporated TDR into the planning documents
(including the Town-wide CIS) as a desirable tool, thus incorporating the concept into its
comprehensive plan.
· The Town has built con~nunity support by assembling stakeholders and conducting the 2005 /
Hamlet Study,t0 de[e~ne the dfs!rq5 and c0ncerns of'!ocal residents and identify hamlet centers { I>el~nl'~ALO ~may
end surrounding HALO boundaries (receiving sites), resulting in direction on a community-by-
community basis to build community support. /
· The Town has reduced expansion of utilities primarily involving water supply expansion to rural
areas, in order to maintain a balance of growth potential due to limited water resources, aquifer
management and public health safety in coordination with the Suffolk County Water Authority
and several prior initiatives including the Water Supply Management & Water Protection
Sirategy, and adoption of an official Water Map (of water supply extension areas ~ in 2000 and l
2007.
Town of $outhold
· TDR Program Planning Report
The challenges that lie ahead include the following:
· Defining sending and receiving sites, particularly in view of the myriad of preservation programs
currently in use, and the desire to continue a policy of density reduction through pumhase of
development rights.
· Determining the land use mechanisms for redemption of credits and realization of transferred
development in the HALO's.
· Providing adequate economic incentives to facilitate transfers, and ensuring a proper balance of
supply and demand.
· Ensuring a margin of program success in consideration of SCDHS policy on density transfer.
The remainder of this document will focus on addressing these issues and providing a base
framework for environmental 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 hction 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
I Board's ability to preserve land, while promoting sustainable hamlet a~!~~.
2.3 Town Objectives
The overall program is intended to discourage/eliminate inappropriate development on important
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 and other rural lands are a significant resource in
the Town, in terms of both economics and aesthetics and provides for an important sector of the
Town's economic base, while maintaining the open, mral atmosphere.
· As a result of the Town's efforts, a number of mechanisms are being used, that provide
opportunities and alternatives to land development that are intended to provide an increased level
of land preservation.
The proposed TDR program is expected to provide the following public benefits:
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
· Protect critical resources associated with sending parcels including rural character, farm and
a~-icultural land use to promote Iand preservation and environmental protection.
· Provide an increase in the amount, of,diversg, housing stock for a variety of income levels, '~
including affordable housing. -. i Deleted: a~d
Reduce suburban sprawl and promote "smart growth" development principals including · i~elete~:
strengthening of hamlets and businesses, walkable communities, sustainable growth, mixed-use i~yofavailablc
development, improvements to and use of existing infrastmctare, controlled in-fill development,
reduction in vehicle trip ends, and increase in inter-modal transportation opportunities.
· Reduce infrastructure needs as a result of encouraging controlled development in appropriate use
· Promote 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.
· Promote the long-term planning 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.
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, 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 rote 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 Hamlet Locus (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
Suffolk County Depamnent of Health Services (SCDHS) sanitary density restrictions and
ensuring 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 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 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
I~ Page 8
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
the tools identified in that report have been accomplished, including a number of provisions to
expand affordable housing programs in the Town of Southold.
Appendix 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 end 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 Appendix 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:
As set forth in numerous comprehensive planning documents, the Town's goals include the
preservation of open space, agricultural lands and recreational landscapes; preservation of the rural,
cultural and historic character of the hamlets and surrounding countryside; preservation of the
natural environment and prevention of further deterioration of resources; preservation and
promotion of a broad range of housing and business opportunities to support a socioeconomically
diverse community; and increased transportation efficiency. To achieve these goals, it is the intent
and purpose of this chapter to provide for the transfer of sanitary flow credits, and thereby transfer
development potential from areas designated for preservation to areas designated as more
appropriate for higher-density residential development. Unless expressly permitted herein, the
transfer of development potential may not occur in the Town of Southold.
The basic purpose of Chapter 117 is to preserve land through Town purchase of development
rights, capture the 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 end re-development in hamlet
areas.
For background, Chapter 117 defines a "senitary flow credit" as the equivalent to a right to
develop a single-family residential parcel with en individual on-site sewerage system, or its
nonresidential wastewater flow equivalent. The ordinance created a Town TDR Bank, through
which development rights 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 a Town Community Preservation Fund, for the purchase of additional lends or
development rights, in accordence with the Town land preservation goals noted above. It is
important to note that, as part of this legislation, the Town Board designated all lends 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
~ Page 9
Town of $outhold
TDR Program Planning Repori
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.
Delet~l: ...... Page Break .....
,Ove~, the program involves establishing "sending areas" which wou d enab e a andowner to
obtain TDR credits for land to be preserved through,denslt7 transfer. Recewmg zones would be
established in~,designated, H~!et HALO areas; these would represent locations where TDR
c ed ts ould be redeemed at a density.that would not otherwise b erm~tted w~thout the credit
redemption. It is contemplated that sending and recelwng areas would be w~thra the same school
d~stnct 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 conthbute 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-Cutchogue Union Free School District Mattituck and Cutchogue
New Suffolk Common School District New Suffolk (K-7); Southold (8-12)
Southold Union Free School District Southold and Peconic; New Suffolk (8-12)
Greenport Union Free SchooI District Greenport; Oysterponds (9-12)
Oysterponds Union Free School District Orient and East Marion; Greenpmt (9-12)
~6' th~ TP~iS ~!~ning mid CP~i~g C0mmi,U. ee appointed a TDR Work Gr0Up~ whose [ ~.,.t~: o~i,s ~
members also belon~ to this TDR Team, ~e group S t~ w~ i~ ~[~ ~ hami~{ De~$i;pm~{ ~ Dele~: ~e s~ md fall of j
( Dele~: Town develop~
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
Model designed to study the feasibility of establishing a Town wide TDR program that would
provide the *gown with another land use tool for desirable famfland preservation without creating
undesirable over development within the hamlets. The work group held meetings during August
through September of 2006 with each of the hamlet stakeholder committees to explain the
model~ review the potential impacts on preservation and development in their respective hamlets~
and obtain feedback. Based upon proiected Town wide numbers~ the work egoup's study
coacluded that a TDR pro,ram 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 boondaries, 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 program 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 an incentive will be explored as an
alternative under the SEQRA process for the TDR program.
· The TDR program contemplates redemption of credits for residential units, but will examine the
potential for commercial 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 can 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
pubic use and visually open public and private space.
At this time, the Town has formally adopted the HALO boundaries for Mattituck, Cutchogue,
New Suffolk, Peconic, Southold, East Marion and Orient (Greenport is pending). The
designation of the Hamlet Locus 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. l 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.
Break ......
Page
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
The general concept is to specify areas where new residential development is to be discouraged
due to aghcultural use, rural/pastoral character, environmental sensitivity and/or lack of
infrastructure to support development. 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 end 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 for this purpose. Additional
preservation tools are needed to leverage public funds with private investment, which would
achieve the same result of lend preservation in the sending areas, with managed density increases
in the receiving areas. The Town also uses 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 lends. This
understanding helps to target the application of a TDR program end identification of sending
areas.
Definition of Sending Areas ~'
Sending areas are typically identified by a mapped geographic area end/or by designation of
individual parcels of lend 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 end
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 pro~m t~g~ts prime areas of ~ Delete: ~o~mS
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 preservation 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 actively farmed. 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 begen by eliminating land types that did not require
preservation; these included:
· Lend in hamlet end HALO areas
· Land not subdividable (single and separate lots of less than the minimum zoning acreage)
· Unbuildable land (wetlends, dune, beach, surface water, excessively steep slopes)
· Existing community facilities (lands in pubic ownership, used for public purpose)
· Land carrenfly protected through prior PDR, acquisition or conservation subdivision
Town of $oulhold
TDR Program Planning Report
,Thc remaining land area included all bui!dable, subdividab!e~ unprotected, non-community (Oeleted:1
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.
TDR off Farmland and Open Space'?
,Several discussions about ,including farmland, non-farmland, or both as sending:
placev Given the targeting of non-farmland for total preservation, and
income potential from non-farmland, it was felt that PDR would be most
continued fee title acquisition of non-farmland. As a result, a
appropriate for designation as sending areas under the TDR program,
criteria would be met in the receiving zones. This can be accomplished, and i
detail in Section 4.4.
took ( Deleted: Discussion
,ua! .....
felt to be
t in more
An additional discussion centered
areas. The Town has ,various farmland strategies
~ observed to be actively farmed has been created.
which a
and GIS
Deleted: There arc
sought.
An
The inventory is in GIS and is maintained
parcels in this district are recognized. As a result,
inventory was believed to be the most appropriate
parcels. ·
Transfering Partial Development Rights
Extensive discussion was held regarding
a given parcel was appropriate. A major concern was
would provide revenue that
preservation goals. In addition, the logistics
transferred from and the record keeping of these
result, it concluded that for the initial program [
however, if in the future an Agricultural (AgPDD)
legislation to allow TDR as a means of selling all
AgPDD since full protection is guaranteed
development rights over time.
Recommended Criteria for Sending Areas
was
A District parcel
farm status sending
part of the development rights
balance of the contrary to
rights were
: were believed to be onerous. As a
transfer would not be recommended;
possible to amend this
credits of a parcel enrolled in the
the Town is unable to
Deleted: not
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
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 which meet all of the
following criteria:
· Land not in a designated HALO or hamlet;
· Land recorded in Town GIS as being greater than 7 acres in size;
· Land not in Town GIS database as community facility lands;
· Land not in Town GIS database as including wetlands and excessively steep slope areas (greater
than 90 percent), dune, beach and/or surface water;
· Land not in Town GIS database as having a protected status through prior PDR, acquisition or
conservation easement; and
· Land in the Town GIS database as having an Agricultural District or Individual Commitment
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, idenfifiable 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 exact 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-Cutchogue Union Free School District 1,972 1071
New Suffolk Common School District (CSD) 0 0
Southold Union Free School District (UFSD) 843 458
Greenport Union Free School District 13 7
Oysterponds Union Free School Dislrict 252 122
Notes: Mattituck-Cutehogue UFSD includes Mathtuck and Cutchogae 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 considers loss due to need for roads and recharge facilities and is consistent with
other Town program yield calculations and the 208 study demographic siudy of yield based on
zoning.
Sanding zone parcels are mapped in Figure 4-1 [note: all figures are included in a separate
section immediately following the text of this report. A list of parcels designating the proposed
sending zone is included in Attachment A; this list includes parcel tax number, zoning and size.
4.2 Receiving Zones
Page 14
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
Receiving Zone Designation
The Town Board has taken the initiative to designate HALO areas for Mattituck, Cutchogue,
New Suffolk, Peconic, Southold, East Marion and Orient (Greenport is pending). In all cases
except for Orient, the hamlet was within the HALO zone. The unique configuration and
historical or/gin 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 Ohent. 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 end 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 lend 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-limited business
· RO-residence office
· LMight industrial
· AHD-affordable housing district
· HD-hamlet density
· R-40 residential
· R-80 residential
· A-C agriculture-conservation
· R-200 residential
· - Oeleted: ...... Page Break
pro,ram would involve only redemption of credits for the purpose of creating residential
dwelling units, not for increase in commercial density. As a result, use of credits in the LI
district would not be possible. Each of the other districts including B, LB, RO, AHD, HD, R-40,
R-80, A-C and R-200, 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
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
purchase of credits which could potentially increase building costs and cost of units thereby
defeating 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, end it is recommended that
the Town Board consider chenges of zoning to AHD where appropriate based on affordable
housing needs and the merits of placing this zoning on a given parcel of lend based on sound
planning principles and community needs. This leaves B, LB, RO, HD, R-40, R-80, A-C and R-
200 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 tmderlying 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 program 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 an understandable and effective program.
· 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
Figure 4-2.
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
· Two-Family Homes
· Multiple Family Dwellings
· Detached Accessory,Dwelling Units, and { nelet~: Residential
· Mixed use or flexible zoningdevelopments under potential futura Planned Development District
following provisions are recommended to facilitate the redemption of TDR's:
Single Family Homes
· Apply to B, HB, RO, R-40, R-80, A-C, R-200 zones.
ow in zoning district through further subdivision.
Pagel6
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
· Use TDR code to permit such development by application to the Planning Board.
· Minimum permitted lot size to be 20,000 SF.
· Consider creation of R-20 zone to establish dimensional requirements for 20,000 SF lot
size which does not currently exist.
Two-Family Homes · Apply to R-40, R-80, A-C zones.
· Allow in zoning district through creation of one structure per lot.
· Allow in zoning district through further subdivision.
· Use TDR code to permit such development by application to the Planning Board.
· Minimum permitted lot size to be 20,000 SF in the R-40 and 40,000 in the R-80 and A-C
· Dimensional requirements pursuant to 1.25 times the underlying zone except area which
is specified above.
Multiple Family Dwellings
· Allow in residential zoning district through change of zone to HD or HB for qualifying
lots based on sound planning principles and merits of proposal.
· Town Board locates use based on change of zone which would require use of TDR's.
· Dimensional requirements pursuant to HD/HB
Detached Accessory,Dwelling Units
· Not currently provided for in Town Code; recommend new form of dwelling unit to be
allowed in R-40, R-80, A-C and R-200 zones through Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA)
special permit.
· Minimum permitted lot size to be 40,000 SF.
Planned Development District · Encourage adoption of PDD local law.
· Apply to HALO's through change ofzone~Town Board discretion.
· Identify lots 5 acres and greater as candidates.
· Seek mixed use development with public benefits.
· Major public benefit is extinguishing TDRs and providing sewage treatment.
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.
4.3 Interrelationship of Land Preservation Programs
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 listed as follows:
Fee Title Land Purchase
Pagel7
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
· Purchase of Development Rights
· Conservation Subdivision
Fee title land purchase and PDR are both methods which involve total density reduction of the
parcel based on it's potential yield. Conservation subdivision is a partial density reduction
technique which results in ~::>; percent density reduction and preservation of percent of the
land. 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
in no yield reduction{but can retain anywhere from half(a,~'
preservation
C7,1~ffi~results
groups.
to two-thirds of a property in open space, d~pendi~m~the final ele~2;:'~ ]?+ ?i?~
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 fanning, aRer 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 to purchase part of an agricultural
parcel could provide 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 implemantable program. These factors lead
to the identification of land types and target preservation programs as related to Town lands
outside of the HALO areas.
Town of Southold
, TDR Program Planning Report
A flow chart has been prepared in order to understand the interrelationship of these land
preservation programs. The chart, included as Attachment A, 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 goals of the Town through various land preservation programs as related to
parcel size, location, existing use and special district designations.
4.4 Density Limitations in the Receiving Zones
Suffolk County Department of Health Services Density 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 Suffolk County Department of Health Services (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 due 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 1V allows a 20,000 square foot (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 and as a result, 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 the lot. Lots that are already built upon
that exceed the allowable flow would not be eligible for additional density tmless permitted
under the Town Code Accessory apartment provisions and in conformance with the Article 6
exemption which involves no new sanitmy 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 occuning after I981 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
ns and site plans.
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
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 seek 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
~1:7~ whmh pertains to Transfer of Development Rtghts (Attachment 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. Further, the guidance document establishes a
limit for parcels receiving transferred density of two-times the density allowed under Article 6.
As a result, the HALO areas can not exceed an equivalent of 20,000 SF lots 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 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 previsions 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 go to 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.
Page 20
Town of Southola
TDR Program Planning Report
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 beating waste) and therefore density limitations
are based on the nitrogen-beating component of the flow. The Suffolk County design flow
factors are contained in Attachment C.
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
State Environmental Quality Review Act (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, itis not possible
to determine the actual number of credits that will be used and by what means they will become
established in a receiving ama. 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, $t the request of the TowWs Plannine and Zoning Committee* Town staff, a!! of whom
are also .members of this TDR program team, prepared a Southo!d Ham!et Development Mode!
to explore the feasibility of a TDR program and it's potential impact on hamlets,.,using Southold
as a pilot case study~ The goa! of the model wa~ "To qreate a planning model for Southold
Hamlet that will prevent undesirable over-development and protect the hamlet's unique
qualities, scale and historic character". The model was ,discusse~ with the Southold Hamlet
Stakeholders, refined, and then applied to~a!! of S0utho!d 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 t~otential number of residential units within each hamlet. ,HALO (rece!v!ng
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
Deleted:
presented to the TownBoard.
' ..,'( Deleted: ring area credits.
The concept and methodology of the Hamlet Development Model is recommended as a basis ~
establishin~g 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 flnaliy adopted by the T0wn B0ard, and the boundary pendthg for Greenport as of the ,
date of this report. The Goals, Concept and Methodology associated with the model are ' iDe~et~:
contained in Attachment D. 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
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
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.
TABLE 4-2
POTENTIAL RECEIVING ~REDiTS ]
Mattituck-Cutcho~ue UFSD ~6~
New Suffolk CSD
Southold UFSD 5~
Greenport UFSD ~
Oysterponds UFSD ~
Notes: Mattituck*Cutchogue UFSD includes Mailituck and Cutchogue HALO's.
Southold UFSD includes Peconic and Southold HALO's.
Oysterponds UFSD includes East Marion and Ohent HALO's
See Table 3-1 for grade level transfers between school districts.
The Hamlet Development Model considers several additional factors related to potential over-
: Each ha~!etwas conceptua!ized as includ!ng both ~evelopm~pt.qn~ 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
I 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
Mattituck-Cutcho~ue UFSD 1071
New Suffolk CSD 0 ~ .~,
Southold UFSD 458 Mi
Greenport UFSD 7
Oysterponds UFSD 122 ~ ~
Notes: Mattituck-Cutch¢ ueUFSDincludesMattituckandCutchogueHALO's.
Southold UFSD includes Peconic and Southold HALO's.
Oysterponds UFSD includes East Marion and Orient HALO's
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
Review of Table 4-3 provides a basis for several conclusions. It is apparent that there are mom
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 the there is a continuing place
for PDR as well as Conservation Subdivision. 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 ca,t/ and the total [_~e~et~:½_ ................................... j
potential receiving zone credits. An annual audit by the Town's Planning Department would
maintain ,~;rowth rate by recommending rn~cl~fic~ti0p~ ~S needed. {~let~l: ~owt~er
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 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,
parking requirements and design guidelines.
Thc use of Planned Development Districts 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
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
Chromoglass m 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 Planned Development Districts; a map of these
parcels is provided as Figure 4-2. Given the ability to buffer such development, provide
compatible single or mixed-use projects and provide a means for wastewater treatment, with
resultant public benefits, such projects could potential be considered for TDR credit redemption
in addition to the HALO area credit cap.
The Hamlet Development Model provides communities with the assurance that reasonable
density limits will be established in their respective communities. From a land use perspective,
the ovemding benefit of TDR is the preservation of land where development is inappropriate
Town of Southold
· TDR Program Planning Report
(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.
· Residential density in the HALO's pmvides opportunity for alternative transportation such as
walking and bicycle travel
· Use of TDR's in the HALO's may promote beneficial investment and redevelopment.
· Use of TDR's in the HALO's will provide alternative forms of housing to single family 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 ~tobe
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 desi~m~ 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 fialfilled. The language included in the work program of the grant is useful in
understanding the intent of the Town TDR program:
The quest for controlled growth requires creative planning and foresight. Transfer of development
rights is just one tool used in the battle to contain sprawl. TDR is the exchange of zoning privileges
from areas with low population needs, such as farmland, to areas of high population needs, such as
the Hamlet Centers. These transfers allow for the preservation of 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
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
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.
Examination of Grant Tasks
1. How will the TDR Program work?
The program involves designation of sending zones which primarily involve 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 parcel size and potential
development yield based on zoning. Applicants would file for recognition of credits
associated with a given parcel, and the assigned credits would be a salable commodity.
Receiving zones associated with the HALO boundaries associated with 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 SouthoM 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 fights.
Landowners, developers and investors benefit from an additional mechanism to facilitate
compatible and planned development projects that provide return on investment. HALO
communities benefit from investment 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.
Town of Southold
~ TDR Program Planning Report
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.
5. 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 from are recognized as having no residual
development rights. The Town will monitor the program and make adjustments as necessary
to facilitate program 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.
7. How do I pa[ticipate 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.
8. How do I participate ifI own land in a Receiving Area?
A sending 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 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?
Deleted:
Town of $outhold
4 TDR Program Planning Report
Sending areas are outlined in detail in Section 4.1 and mapped in Figure 4-1 of this report.
11. Where are the Receiving Areas located?
Receiving areas are outlined in detail in Section 4.2 and mapped in Figure 4-2 of this report.
CONCLUSION
q3fis 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.
To be completed
Town of Southold
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM
Planning Report to the Town Board
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 PROGRAM FOUNDATION
2.1 Components of a Successful TDR Program
2.2 Public Need
2.3 Town Objectives
2.4 Background and History of Town TDR and Related Programs
3.0 PROGRAM OVERVIEW AND GENERAL PARAMETERS
4.0 PROGRAM ELEMENTS
4.1 Sending Zones
4.2 Receiving Zones
4.3 Other Program Components
5.0 PROCESS CONSIDERATIONS
6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
APPENDICES
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
Table 3-1
Table 4-1
Tables
School Districts and Hamlets
Sending Area Credits by School District
Figure 4-1
Figures
Page iii
Town of Southold
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM
Planning Report to the Town Board
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Town of Southold is seeking to implement a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
Program for the purpose of enhancing the range of tools available for land preservation. ~
Town Board of the Town of Southold is pro-actively involved in advancing this initiative. Asa
means of defimng 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 to define the planning parameters for a Southold TDR Program.
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 (GELS) for the
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy (CIS)] and to facilitate drafting of a proposed
Local Law to implement the Program.
It is recognized that there are varying opinions on elements of the program. The program
contained herein provides recommendations only, based on the judgment of the participants.
The team was designed to include Town representatives that recognize the inter-relationships
between land preservation programs, data management and the planning and legal process, and
would be expected to remain 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 as related 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, Project Manager
John Sepenoski, Data Processing
Patricia Finnegan, Esq., Town Attorney
Melissa Spiro, Land Preservation Coordinator
Leslie Weisman, Member Town ZBA & Chair of Southold Hamlet Stakeholder Committee
Charles Voorhis, CEP, AICP, Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, Consultant
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
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
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 open spaces, without expenditure of public funds. At present,
the Town has successful farmland and Woti:!!a~l open space preservation programs underway
through the Purcha,~of Development Rights (PDR) program and fee title acquisition of land.
~-~l~ acqui~iti~, lhe Conservation Subdivision program provides a means to reduce density
and maximize open space preservation, and Town Planning staff and the Planning Board have
used this tool for successful preservation of open space and to ensure alignment of contiguous
open space through project review. The Town seeks to continue these programs, but seeks to
provide a means to expand programs which provide for total 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 of 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.
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
I sound land use planning. Since early 2005, the Town Board has had a limited ~ ordinance
(Chapter 117) to use as an additional tool in achieving affordable housing goals in tandem with
end preservation efforts The TDR mechanism was recommended for widespread use in the
Town CIS of 2003 and the Town Hamlet Locus (HALO) Study of 2005. Additional
regarding the existing Town TDR law and the prior findings of the Town CIS are
subsections of Section 2.0. It is noteworth)
mechanism number 12, and the CIS was the subject of a Generic
Statement. The Findings of the CIS recognized TDR as a valuable land
relocation mechanism subject to further definition of the program. This TDR ] Planning
Report and any subsequent SEQRA review builds upon the prior Town of the
environmental and social value of TDR in the Town of Southold.
In this proposed TDR Program, the Town seeks to make use
sites in established rural areas of the Town ("sending areas"),
parcels where appropriate infrastructure, infill potential, reuse
lack of environmental constraints are'
mechenism whereby
services and/or
The following sections present additional information on t
such a program, the Town-wide objectives
to preserve land through TDR.
TDR concept, the Town's need for
and the history of the Town's efforts
2.1 Components
Transfer of Development Rights is defined in t York State Town Law as "... the process
by which development rights are one lot, ~ or area of land in a sending
district to another lot, parcel, or area ~ districts." This plenning
] tool is used to protect lend were end shift density to more appropriate areas:
TDR is a well-established, progressive
preserve one or more significant
entire community, while at the
enabling
location more ~
t use tool that has been utilized nationwide in order to
time protecting the value of lendowners' property by
land to be realized elsewhere in the community, in a
A TDR program permits the
land.
measures to facilitate the
or density may be used.
units in hamlet areas
for a TDR
which would retain landowners' equity in their
credits can be marketed privately or through municipal support
The Town can determine in advance how transferred credits
instance, trensferred credits can be targeted for use as residential
and planned growth is appropriate and sustainable. In order
the Town must identify sending and receiving areas for reduction
: in development.
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
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 end other stakeholdem. 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:
l. Encouraging TDR Sales
Successful TDR programs encourage TDR sales by reducing the development potentiaI of the sending
sites through zoning incentives, favorable alternatives to development, restrictions, environmental
regulations, farmland protection measures, and ordinances that require adequate public facilities
before development can occur.
Just as sending site owners need to be encouraged to sell their development rights, receivin
developers must be motivated to buy TDRs. Developers will only buy TDRs if they can
greater profit from a project that uses TDRs. A most important concept is that there
sufficient incentive to encourage a seller to sell, and a buyer must be encouraged to buy.
a
2. Selecting Receiving Sites
One approach is for the community to consider designating village or
concentrated development will be encouraged.
that are possible in these select areas.
where more
3. Facilitating Use ofTDRs
After appropriate stakeholder involvement and adoption
disclosure, hearings and review processes, most
without public hearings or discretionary decisions. This al
it gives developers greater certainty over the cost, timing, and:
Many communities also facilitate transfers by
anyone at any time. In addition, some programs feature
seller of TDRs when private transactions become too
TDR programs provide ongoing infomaation to the
legislation subject to public
TI)Rs
fTDRs since
projects.
a commodity, available for sale to
ank" which serves as a buyer and
Finally, the most successful
public, as well as staff support and
4. Building Public Support
A successful TDR
as a whole needs to understand and accept
planning efforts are important in developing
the receiving areas)
sites. The community
Community-wide, comprehensive
rograms. In the context of a comprehensive plan,
tppropriate (i.e.,
reserved (i.e., the sending areas).
Town of Soulhold
TDR Program Planning Report
Not surprisingly, the most successful TDR programs are in communities that specifically designed
their comprehensive plans to be implemented through TDK
An effective TDR program can add optimism to the planning process by offering a way for
compensation to be provided to property owners without the use of tax dollars. This optimism can
encourage the public to establish stronger land 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 retum on investment. ~u¢~ an increase in development potential should
not excessively concem local government, as the intent of TDR is to locate 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
limitations 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, equal density will have a high probability of success.]
This will be examined further in this report and the Supplemental GElS for the Town o[
Southold TDR program. 1
/
It is noted that the Town of Southold has made great progress in considering the key elements o~
a successful TDR program. The following steps have been t~kan to date, that will facilitate aX.
successful program in the Town of $outhold:
· The Town Board has long envisioned the concept of increased development density in hamlets
and substantially decreased development with as much preservation of existing farm use as can be
achieved in the rural areas of the Town outside of the hamlets, thus identifying both sending and
receiving sites.
· The Town Board conducted prior studies and incorporated TDR into the planning documents
(including the Town-wide CIS) as a desirable tool, thus incorporating the concept into its
comprehensive plan.
· The Town has built community support by assembling stakeholders and conducting the HALO
study to determine the &sims and concerns of local residents and identify hamlet centers and
surrounding HALO boundaries (receiving sites), resulting in direction on a community~by-
community basis to build community support.
· The Town has reduced expansion of utilities primarily involving water supply expansion to rural
areas, in order to lnaintain a balance of growth potential due to limited water resources, aquifer
management and public health safety in coordination with the Suffolk County Water Authority
and several prior initiatives including the Water Supply Management & Water Protection
Strategy, and adoption of an official Water Map (of water supply extension areas) in 2000 and
2007.
The challenges that lie ahead include the following:
Town of $outhold
TDR Program Planning Report
· Defining sending and receiving sites, particularly in view of the myriad of preservation programs
currently in use, and the desire to continue a policy of density reduction through purchase of
development rights.
· Determining the land use mechanisms for redemption of credits and realization of transferred
development in the HALO's.
· Providing adequate economic incentives to facilitate transfers, and ensuring a proper balance of
supply and demand.
· Ensuring a margin of program success in consideration of SCDHS policy on density transfer.
The rcnnainder of this document will focus on addressing these issues and providing a base
framework for environmental 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.
2.3 Town Objectives
The overall program is intended to ~ ~/eliminate inappropriate development on important
lands with rural qualities that add to the Town's character, historic context and economic base,
and promote appropriate development on parcels where suc. h, dfvelopment 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 and other rural lands are a significant resource in
the Town, in terms of both economics and aesthetics and provides for an important sector of the
Town's economic base, while maintaining the open, rural atmosphere.
· As a result of the Town's efforts, a number of mechanisms are being used, that provide
opportunities and alternatives to land development that are intended to provide an increased level
of land preservation.
The proposed TDR program is expected to provide the following public benefits:
· Protect critical resources associated with sending parcels including rural character, farm and
agricultural land use to promote land preservation and environmental protection.
~/ Page 6
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
· Provide an increase in the amounts of and diversity of available housing stock for a variety of
income levels~including affo~ h0Ps!ng.
· Reduce suburban sprawl and promote "smart growth" development principals including
strengthening of hamlets and businesses, walkable communities, sustainable growth, mixed-use
development, 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 encouraging controlled development in appropriate use
· Promote beneficial design guidelines including nco-traditional development in appropriate areas,
maintenance of natural vegetation, minimization of fertilizer application, buffers and setbacks.
· Promote the long-term planning 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.
In summary, the proposed TDR program is a furtherance offue Town's comprehensive planning
efforts to achieve its goals of protecting valuable environmental and cultural resources, providing
divemified housing to meet Town needs, 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 pattem 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 Hamlet Locus (HALO) areas, strengthening of hamlet centers and preservation of
mml areas of the Town. The Town CIS TDR component recognized a need to comply with
Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) sanitary density restrictions and
ensuring 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 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 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. ~l~ne 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.
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
Appendix 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 Appendix 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:
As set forth in numerous comprehensive planning documents, the Town's goals include the
preservation of open space, agricultural lands and recreational landscapes; preservation of the rural,
cultural and historic character of the hamlets and surrounding countryside; preservation of the
natural environment and prevention of further deterioration of resources; preservation and
promotion of a broad range of housing and business opportunities to support a socioeconomically
diverse community; and increased transportation efficiency. To achieve these goals, it is the intent
and purpose of this chapter to provide for the transfer of sanitary flow credits, and thereby transfer
development potential from areas designated for preservation to areas designated as more
appropriate for higher-density residential development. Unless expressly permitted herein, the
transfer of development potential may not occur in the Town of Southold.
The basic purpose of Chapter 117 is to preserve land through Town purchase of development
rights, capture the 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 evelopment rights 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 a 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).
I~ Page 8
Town of Southold
TDR Progrnm Planning Report
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).
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
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.
The TDR program is viewed as an important tool to assist with preservation efforts of land
outside of the HALO areas, which would shift a limited number of development rights to each of
the hamlets in the Town of Southold. Overall, the program involves establishing "sending areas"
which would enable a landowner to obtain TDR credits for land to be preserved through the
density transfer. Receiving zones would be established through the designation of HALO areas;
these would represent locations where TDR credits would be redeemed to allow additional
development in the HALO that would not otherwise have been permitted absent the credit
redemption. It is contemplated that sending and receiving areas would be within the same school
district and that the program would provide an additional preservation tool (with resultant
density shift) under a voluntary program.
The Town HALO study of 2005 provided a basis for defining the hamlets. The Study involved
participation of stakeholders from each hamlet and allowed residents and business owners to
identify and promote features that contribute to the unique identity of their communities.
Through the Town Planning Office, follow up meetings were conducted with stakeholders of
each individual hamlet to introduce the planning rationale for a Town-wide TDR program.
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
Mattitack-Cutchogue Union Free School District Mattituck and Cutchogue
New Suffolk Common 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 and East Marion; Greeport (9-12)
During the summer and fall of 2006, the Town developed a Hamlet Development Model for each
hamlet to explore the density that would occur under certain assumptions. The Model served the
purpose of establishing parameters for increased density of the hamlets. The intent was to allow
communities to better understand the implications of density transfer and provide input to be
considered in establishing open space targets and determining a "cap" on the maximum number
of additional development rights and resultant residential units that would be acceptable within
I~ Page 10
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
the hamlets. The potential density was determined by applying 20,000 square foot (SF) lot yield
to the total HALO acreage after removing unbuildable lands (wetlands, community
facility/infrastructure lands, existing protected lands), lots of less than ~A acre in size and a factor
of 15 percent for loss due to roads and recharge. Meetings were held during August through
September of 2006 with the hamlet stakeholder committees to review the results and obtain
feedback. The program was found to be feasible and stakeholders recognized the benefits that
would accrue to the Town through the transfer of density. Stakeholders expressed concern over
ensuring a cap that is appropriate for each hamlet, and the form that development would take
within the hamlets. This lead to a cap, which was a percentage of the total potential TDR units.
The form of development was intended to be addressed through further study of the specific
design standards to address qualities of scale and character unique to each hamlet. The ohginal
Model was based on earlier geography of the HALO boundaries.
Based on the Tovm 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 program 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 an incentive will be explored as an
altemative under the SEQRA process for the TDR program.
· The TDR program contemplates redemption of credits for residential mits, but will examine the
potential for commercial 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 can be considered on a case-by-case basis.
· Each hamlet will retain open space, with a goal of 30 pement within hamlets, devoted to both
pubic use and visually open public and private space.
At this time, the Town has formally adopted the HALO boundaries for Mattituck, Cutchogue,
New Suffolk, Peconic, Southold, East Marion and Orient (Greenport is pending). The
designation of the Hamlet Locus areas and the program components noted above provides a basis
for fu~her efforts to define the specific sending and receiving zone areas and establishing the
mechanics of the TDR program.
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
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.
The general concept is to specify areas where new [e~id~tia1 d~xe!0pmen? !~ [0 he dis?~ged
due to agricultural use,
ifi~Stimeture ~ mpp~ ~a,qelo~, For S09th~!d Town, areas 09tsicl~ ?f th~ ham!ets ar~
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
I Southold has been successful in using land transfer tax monies and bonds for this propose.
Additional preservation tools are needed to leverage public funds with private investment, which
would achieve the ~am~ result of land preservation in the sanding areas, with managed dansity
I increases in the receivin~ areas/ Th~ T~wn and C~t~nt,/~ls~ us~s 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.
Sending areas are typically identified by a mapped geographic area and/or by designation of
individual parcels of land in one or more zoning disthcts. 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-Conservatiun (A-C) and is in farm use or has bean 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 around ensuring that the program targets prime
areas of concern for preservation, while balancing the need to establish a sufficiant 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 In~X~a,a~fi~ ~o~!~ 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 actively farmed. In order to ansure
compliance, the density limit established by SCDHS for groundwater protection in areas with
public water (minimum 20,000 SF lots unless sewage treatmant is provided) must be observed.
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Reporl
The sending area identification process began by eliminating land ' i ! i i
· Land in hamlet and HALO areas
· Land not subdividable (single and separate lots of less than the minimum zoning acreage)
· Unbuildable land (wetlands, dune, beach, surface water, excessively steep slopes)
· Existing community facilities (lands in pubic ownership, used for public purpose)
· Land currently protected through prior PDR, acquisition or conservation subdivision
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.
Discussion regarding including farmland, non-farmland, or both as sending zones were
conducted. Given the targeting of non-farmland for, fee title preservation, and the lack of
residual income potential fi.om non-farmland, it was felt that£e~ ti~!~ ac0u~sitipn:w~u[d h_e.m9~ ~
appropriate for continued,acquisition of non-farmland. As a result, agricultural land was felt to
be appropriate for designation as S~dihg hreas 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 4.2.
An additional discussion centered around how to designate farmland for the purpose of sending
areas. There are various farmland strategies of the Town and these have resulted in a listing of
parcels and GIS inventory observed to be actively farmed. In reviewing this inventory, it was
soon evident that there was too much room to debate whether parcels were actively farmed,
fallow, how long they were fallow and if they could potentially be retumed to farm use. It was
also evident that maintaining an updated inventory for the purpose of designation of specific
sending parcels was logistically not possible. An alternative means of designation of farmland
was sought. The Town has a Agricultural District designation, which is a recorded parcel status
for the purpose of tax relief. Active farms seeking tax relief are designated through Agricultural
District status. 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 Aghcultural District parcel
inventory was believed to be the most appropriate method of designating farm status sending
parcels..
Extensive discussion was held regarding whether transfer of part of the development rights fi.om
a given parcel was appropriate. A major concem 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 rights were
transferred from and the record keeping of these transactions were believed to be onerous. As a
result, it concluded that for the initial program partial transfer would not be recommended;
Town of $outhold
TDR Program Planning Report
however, if in the future an Agricultural (AgPDD) were created, it may be possible to amend this
legislation to allow TDR as a means of selling all or part of the credits of a parcel enrolled in the
AgPDD since full protection is guaranteed unless the Town is unable to purchase the
development rights over time.
As a result, the following definition of sending areas is recommended as part of this TDR
Program Planning Report. Sending areas are proposed to include parcels which meet all of the
following criteria:
· Land not in a designated HALO or hamlet; y
· Land recorded in Town GIS as being greater than 7 acres in size; ~
· Land not in Town GIS database as community facility lands; f _ _
· Land not in Town GIS database as including wetlands and ~esSi~?'~p/$~ areas ~greater
than 90 percent), dune, beach and/or surface water; [ .....
· Land not in Town GIS database as having a protected status through prior PDR, acquisition or
conservation easement; and
· Land in the Town GIS database as having an Agricultural District or Individual Commitment
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 y/eld). 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 ~.~xact 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
Mathtuck-Cutchogue Union Free School District 1071 1071
New Suffolk Common School District 0 0
Southold Union Free School District 458 458
Greenport Union Free School District 7 7
Oysterponds Union Free School District 122 ~
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 considers
loss due to need for roads and recharge facilities and is
consistent with other Town program yield calculations and the
208 study demographic study of yield based on zoning.
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
Sending zone parcels are mapped in Figure 4-1 [note: all figures are included in a separate
section immediately following the text of this report. A list of parcels designating the proposed
sending zone is included in Attachment A; 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, East Marion and Orient (Cn'eenport is pending). In all cases
except for Orient, the hamlet was within the HALO zone. The unique configuration and
historical origin of 0rient 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 beating 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 disthcts in the hamlets that could
potentially receive credits. These include:
· B-business
· HB-hamlet business
· LB-limited business
· RO-residence office
· Ll-light industrial
· AHD-affordable housing district
· HD-hamiet d~nsity
· R40 residential
· R-80 residential
· A-C agricultare-conservation
Page 15
R-200 residential
Town of $outhold
TDR Program Planning Report
For the purpose of this program, it was determined that a simple and implementable initial
program would involve only redemption of credits for the purpose of creating residential
dwelling units, not for increase in commercial density. As a result, use of credits in the LI
district would not be possible. Each of the other districts including B, LB, RO, AHD, HD, R40,
R-80, A-C and R-200, alt 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 which could potentially increase building costs and cost of units thereby
defeating 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 consider changes of zoning to AHD where appropriate based on affordable
housing needs and the merits of placing this zoning on a given parcel of land based on sound
planning principles and community needs. This leaves B, LB, RO, HD, R-40, R-80, A-C and R-
200 as potential receiving zones, plus potential future use of a PDD local law.
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 program 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 an understandable and effective program.
· This option could be adopted as a separate TDR local law that would complement existing code
provisions.
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
· Two-Family Homes
· Multiple Family Dwellings
· Detached Accessory Residential Dwelling Units, and
· Mixed use or flexible zoning developments under potential future Planned Development District
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
The following provisions are recommended to facilitate the redemption of TDR's:
Single Family Homes · Apply to B, HB, RO, R-40, R-80, A-C, R-200 zones.
· Allow in zoning district through further subdivision.
· Use TDR code to permit such development by application to the Planning Board.
· Minimum permitted lot size to be 20,000 SF.
· Consider creation of R-20 zone to establish dimensional requirements for 20,000 SF lot
size which does not currently exist.
Two-Family Homes · Apply to R-40, R-80, A-C zones.
· Allow in zoning district through creation of one structure per lot.
· Allow in zoning district through fuflher subdivision.
· Use TDR code to permit such development by application to the Planning Board.
· Minimum permitted lot size to be 20,000 SF in the R40 and 40,000 in the R-80 and A-C
zones.
· Dimensional requirements pursuant to 1.25 times the underlying zone except area which
is specified above.
Multiple Family Dwellings
· Allow in residential zoning district through change of zone to HD or HB for qualifying
lots based on sound planning principles and merits of proposal.
· Town Board locates use based on change of zone which would require use of TDR's.
· Dimensional requirements pursuant to HD/HB
Detached Accessory Residential Dwelling Unit
· Not currently provided for in Town Code; recommend new form of dwelling unit to be
allowed in R-40, R-80, A-C and R-200 zones through Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA)
special permit.
· Minimum permitted lot size to be 40,000 SF.
Planned Development District
· Encourage adoption of PDD local law.
· Apply to HALO's through change of zone, therefore Town Board discretion.
· ldentify lots 5 acres and greater as candidates.
· Seek mixed use development with public benefits.
· Major public benefit is extinguisl~mg TDRs and providing sewage treatment.
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.
~RT~
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TRANSFF~R OF DI~VF~OPMRNT
RIGllTS PROGRAM
AS A SUPPLEMENT TO THE GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE
SOUTHOLD COMREHENSIVE IMPLKMENTATION STRATEGY
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SUFFOLK, NEW YORK
APRIL 2008
DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAIJ IMPACT STATEMENT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TRANSFER OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM
as a
SUPPLEMENT
to the
GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
for the
SOUTItOLD 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 Albe~t J. Krupski, 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
Pagei
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Sdpplemental Generic EIS
TABLE OFCONTENTS
COVER SHEET
Page
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii
SUMMARY
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
1.1 Purpose, Need and Benefits of the 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 the Proposed Action
1.3 Description of the 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 Land Use
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
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
Ecological Resources
Transportation Resources
Land Use, Zoning and Plans
Community Services
Community Character
Socio-Economic Conditions
Cumulative Development
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
3-9
3-10
3-12
3-13
3-14
3-15
3-16
4.0
MITIGATION MEASURES
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
4-1
4-2
4-2
4-2
4-4
4-4
4-5
4-5
4-6
4-6
5.0 ADVERSE IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED
5-1
6.0 GROWTH-INDUCING ASPECTS
6-1
7.0
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 Use 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
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
TABLES
1-1
3-1
4-1
7-1
Sending Area Credits by School District
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Summary of Mitigation Measures
Commercial Credit Equivalency Schedule
1-12
3-4
4-3
7-9
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
APPENDICES:
A
B
C
D
Findings Statement, CIS, Town Board, date
Planning Report to the Town Board, TDR Program, updated 3-26-08for DSG£1S
EAF Part 1, Town Board, date
Positive Declaration, Town Board, date
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
TDR PROGRAM PLANNING REPORT AND
SGE1S 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 I transferred credit is proposed to equal 1
receiving credit. 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 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 resoumes back to their
previous quality.
· To preserve and promote a range of housing and business opportunities that supports 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.
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
exchange for increased utilization of parcels in accordance with guidelines established for
individual zoning districts within the HALO's.
~ Summary
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
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 furore 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 part of both landowners that choose to sell development
rights from sending parcels and 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 program 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 ElS that identified this program 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 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
Sanitary Code.
4. Hamlet growth will be monitored through program implementation to ensure that open space
remains in hamlet areas, and development occurs in a manner that is consistent with design goals
of the Town.
~ Summary
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
Development will take 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 limited density increases of new subdivisions;
· Two-Family 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 Planned Development
District
Purchase of development rights and outright land purchase programs will continue, thus
continuing to reduce density and potential impacts of land development primarily outside of
hamlet areas.
A summary of potential adverse and beneficial impacts is included in Table 1 at the end of this
sununary. 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 smnmary 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
table of additional mitigation measures is included in Table 2 at the end of this summary
document.
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
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 are 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 - assumes that development credits can be redeemed for non-
residential use.
5. TDR Bank - 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-making 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, biking, car
pooling, public transportation).
~ Summary
m,~o~. ~,~. ~,_~,~ Page 4
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
Table 1
SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
Reqource ,, Beneficial Impacts Potential Adverse Impacts
· Would preserve existing farmland on Sending sites, and eliminate development · Would result in clearing and grading in
Geological Resources potential from these 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 withdrawals in rural areas, areas and not in sending area locations.
Water Resources · 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
Ecological Resources · Would enable preservation of existing agricultural land in large contiguous blocks, acreages in HALO areas for those parcels
with less fragmentation 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
Transportation · Would place additional density in areas where road systems and infrastructure reduced traffic generation in sending areas;
Resources 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 Use, Zoning & otherwise not be possible.
· No adverse impacts expected.
Plans * Would establish conditions to address affordable housing needs.
· 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 community services
Community Services in impacts to rural services, and infrastructure in HALO areas, with
· 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 of the hamlet areas. · Would result in more development in HALO
Community Character · Would strengthen consumer base for business interests in hamlets, adding to areas, with 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.
Socio-Economics · 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.
Town of
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
Table 2
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
Resource Potential Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures
Geological Resources * Would result in clearing and grading in HALO · No significant unique features exist; clearing and grading will be localized to specific
areas for development resultin~ from density shift, project sites; site plan and subdivision review wil~ 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.
Water Resources I · 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,
I with reduced load in sendin~ areas. Article 6 limitations based on 20,000 SF lots.
· HALO areas generally are suitable for development due to the current land use pa~ern;
· Would decrease natural vegetation and habitat current activity levels preclude the presence of unique or sensitive wildlife species; impacts
Ecological Resources acreages in HALO areas for those parcels which 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;
Transportation reduced traffic generation in sending areas; development in hamlets is encouraged for walkabi]ity shared parking and trips and use of
Resources HALOs are more walkable and promote use et' 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.
· The proposal would implement the Towns intended land use pattern through zoning law
Land Use, Zoning & · No adverse impacts expected, measures in conformance with past land use plans and studies; land use can be monitored
Plans 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
Community Services infrastructure in HALO areas, with reduced community needs; it is noted that the TDR program anticipates equal density between
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.
· Would result in more development in HALO * Communities participated in planning during the hamlet study and in the fall of 2006 when
areas, with resultant reduction of development in the Hamlet Density Model was discussed; a limit on development that will be monitored
will be used to control density and assist in addressing community character; community
Community Character 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 throu~a equal density transfer.
· The program anticipates equal density with no increase in what is permitted under f~ll build
out Townwide; the TDR program is voluntary which is a mitigation in itself; the program
Socio-Economics · Would necessitate costs to provide services to the
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.
Summary
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
This document is a Draft Supplemental Genetic 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 Cotmty 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). [A useful summary of
anticipated impacts is 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 infi'astmcture, infill potential, reuse
potential, public services and/or lack of environmental 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
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
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.I.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 SOpplemental Generic ElS
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 Planner and Project Manager)
· John Sepenoski (Town Data Processing)
· Patricia Finnegan, Esq. (Town Attorney)
· Melissa Spiro (Town Land Preservation Coordinator)
· Leslie Weisman (Member, Southold Town ZBA & Chair of Southold Hamlet Stakeholder
Committee)
· Charles 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
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS'
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") fi.om 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, farm and agricultural land use associated with
sending parcels, to promote land preservation and environmental protection.
· Provide an increase in the mount of diverse housing stock for a variety of income levels.
· Reduce suburban sprawl and promote "smart growth" development principals including
strengthening of hamlets and businesses, walkable communities, sustainable growth, mixed-use
development, improvements to and use of existing infi'astmcture, controlled in-fill development,
reduction in vehicle trip ends, and increase hi inter-modal transportation oppommities.
· Reduce infrastructure needs as a result of encouraging controlled development in appropriate use
areas.
· Promote 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.
· Promote the long-term planning goals of the Town by utilizing TDR to protec! critical and
valuable resources while helping to address the housing and social needs of the Town.
· Facilitate land 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
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 of protection, subject
to further review. The following quote from the Town CIS provides a general sense of the
program concept.
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 Generic ElS 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 ElS, 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 ElS
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:
As set forth in numerous comprehensive planning documents, the Town's goals include the
preservation of open space, agricultural lands and recreational landscapes; preservation of the
rural, cultural and historic character of the hamlets and surrounding countryside; preservation of
the natural environment and prevention of further deterioration of resources; preservation and
promotion of a broad range of housing and business opportunities to support a socioeconomically
diverse community; and increased transportation efficiency. To achieve these goals, it is the intent
and purpose of this chapter to provide for the transfer of sanituryflow credits, and thereby transfer
development potential from areas designated for preservation to areas designated as more
appropriate for higher-density residential development. Unless expressly permitted herein, the
transfer of development potential may not occur in the Town of 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 recognized 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
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
· Draft Supplem'ental Generic ElS
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
enviromncntal 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 hamlet centers;
· Lack of environmental 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 same school district,
· Transfers must occur within the same Groundwater Management Zone as def'med by the SCDHS,
· Density must be determined based on underlying single family residential zoning (by accepted
yield factors), with the intent that a formula for providing additional density for less-intensive
units (multiple family and senior citizen units) will be established as an incentive to shifting and
creating appropriate development in receiving locations,
· Sending parcels must be appropriately encumbered through dedication to a public or recognized
non-profit entity or covenants restricting furore development, and should be registered by an
appropriate tracking method through the Town,
· Receiving parcels 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 an appropriate form of sewage treatment is available,
· Receiving parcels should be subject to fertilized area restrictions, clearing restrictions and site
plan or subdivision review,
· Receiving parcels should be subject to further design standards and/or special exception criteria
as may be determined through further review and analysis; such standards may include design
parameters, development guidelines, buffering, clearing restrictions, fertilized area restrictions,
setbacks, infraslrucmre installation and measures to improve community compatibility.
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 fi.om a sound TDR program in a number of ways, noted as follows:
· Preservation of open space and watershed recharge areas associated with sending sites.
· Ability to redirect growth to areas suitable from such growth considering environmental resources
and infrastructure.
· Ability to transfer density credits from outside to inside hamlet centers in a manner that promotes
creation of affordable housing.
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
· Ability to promote mixed use, multifamily residential use and diverse housing opportunities
including affordable housing through density incentives and transfer.
· Reduction in the mtmber of development rights and/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 transfer 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 any negative impact upon the
availability or potential development of low or moderate income housing caused by the transfer
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 oppommities, 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 opporttmities 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 oppommities 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 l~om 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 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. Fo~
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 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 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 senffmg areas.
Def'mition 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 fights 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:
· Land in hamlet and HALO areas
· Business zoned land not subdividable (single and separate lots of less than the minimum zoning
acreage) and non-subdividable residential zoned land of twice the minimum zoning lot size
requirement
· Unbuildable land (wetlands, dune, beach, surface water)
· Existing community facilities (lands in public ownership, used for public purpose and 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-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
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
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.
An additional discussion centered mound 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 fanned 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 fanned.
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 that 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
presexvation 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 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 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 defmition 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:
· Land in a designated HALO or hamlet;
Page 1-11
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
'Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
Land recorded in Town GIS as being less than 7 acres in size;
· Land in Town GIS database as community facility lands;
· Land in Town GIS database as including wetlands, dane, beach and/or surface water;
· Land in Town GIS database as having a protected status through prior PDR, acquisition or
conservation easement; and
· Land in the Town GIS database that does not have an Agricultural District or Individual
Commitment 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 1-1:
TABLE 1-1
SENDING AREA CREDITS BY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Mattituck Union Free School District 1,907 1,030
New Suffolk Common 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: Mauituck UFSD includes Manituck and Cutchogue HALO's.
Southold UFSD includes PeconJc and Southold HALO's.
Oysterponds UFSD includes East Marion and Or/ent HALO'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 Designation
The Town Board has taken the initiative to designate HALO areas for Mattituck, Cutchogue, 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.
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
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-limited 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
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 SGEIS.
Each of the other districts including B, HB, LB, RO, AHD, FID, 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 AHI)
where appropriate based on sound plarming 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 ofa 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
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
· Drat't Supplemental Generic ElS
inccntivizing the redemption of credits in a form that will result in compatible land usc 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 rrDR local law based on each individual zoning district, was thc most appropriate option.
This option would involve creating a TDR section of thc Town Zoning Law that would recognize thc
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 and a
means of allowing such development to occur must be provided.
· This is the simplest option to ensure an understandable and effective program.
· This option could be adopted as a separate TDR local law that would complement existing code
provisions.
Recommended Receiving Zones that are coincident with the HALO boundaries are mapped in figures
included in Appendix B.
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
· Two-Family Homes
· Multiple Family Dwellings
· Detached Accessory Dwelling Units, and
· Mixed use or flexible zoning developments under potential future Planned Development District
The following provisions are recommended to facilitate the redemption of TDR's:
Single Family 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 that 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.
Two-Family Homes - The intent is to permit transfer of credits to develop two-family homes in
appropriate areas, by the methods noted below:
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
· Existing zones that arc recommended for or permit two-family homes include thc R-40, R-SO, 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 Family 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.
· 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 and A-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 for under NYS Town Law dealing with incentive zoning. A
PDD is a change of zone, typically to a more intense use than permitted by the underlying zoning;
however, any increase in density must be offset by public benefits that would be provided to the
community. Projects may include mixed uses, and 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 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 HALO'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.
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
A major public benefit would be redemption of TDRs and potentially providing sewage treatment
facilities that could accommodate additional flow from off-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 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. How will 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
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, developers and
investors benefit from an additional mechanism to facilitate compatible and planned development
projects that provide return on investment. HALO communities benefit from investment in their
hamlet areas resulting in redevelopment and compatible land use that strengthens the hamlets and
achieves other land preservation goals. Local businesses benefit from an increased local
consumer/customer base.
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
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.
5. 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 wilt 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
adjustments 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.
7. How do l participate if l 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.
8. How do I participate if I own land in a Receiving Area?
A receiv'mg 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 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.
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.
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Suplilemental 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 heating during this period; regardless of whether a public heating is held, all
substantive comments on the DSGEIS will be addressed in a Final SGEIS ("FSGEIS"). After
completion of a FSGEIS, a 1 O-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 heating, notice and filing
requirements prior to enacting legislation.
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
2.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Section 2.0 of the GElS prepared for the CIS (May 2003) contained a thorough and complete
description and discussion of the existing environmental resources of the Town. As this
document is a supplement to that prior document, those previous analyses that are valid need not
be repeated h~re. 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 predominantly 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 landscapes, wooded
areas and proximity to the water make soils in this association desirable as prime homesites. The
sand texture and steep slopes make the soils in much of this association poorly suited for farming and
the slopes are the dominant limitation to use of these soils for building sites.
Haven-Riverhead Association soils are characterized by deep, nearly level to gently sloping, well-
drained, medium-textured and moderately coarse textured soils on outwash plains. These soils are the
predominant soil type found within the North Fork area of Southold. Due to the gently sloping to
nearly level topography and 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 land. Other areas not designated as prime farm
soils may contain soils suitable for agriculture.
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
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 mora'me 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 GEIS 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 treatment means that
development densities in these areas would be limited to 300 gpd/aere, or 1 dwelling uniffacre, 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 he 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
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
their associated potential for agricultural chemicals, would tend to minimize or preclude their
potential for tree 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.
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 Land Use
Section 2.6.1 of the GElS 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.
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
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, subdivision 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 GElS 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 infi.astructure 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 fi.om
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.
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemen'tal Generic ElS
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 necessmy community services and infrastructure are
already available.
2.7 Community Character
Sections 2.10 and 2.11 of the GElS 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 fi.om the
hamlet centers, some hamlets exhibit more office and residence-office uses, with some
intermixed highway business and/or light industrial use. Also flinging 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 enviromnental resources. Uses in the hamlets
Page 2-7
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
are g~nerally 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 pattm-ns. 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 knowledge 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.
S~nding Areas
These areas are presently in active fanning 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
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Gefieric EIS
3.0 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 pumhases, 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:
~?ne proposed action is voluntary on the part of both landowners that choose to sell development
rights from sending parcels and 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 program 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 program as potentially beneficial, and as is
requked 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
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
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
Sanitary Code.
4. Hamlet growth will be monitored through program implementation to ensure that open space
remains in hamlet areas, and development occurs in a manner that is consistent with design goals
of the Town.
5. Development will take 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 limited density increases of new subdivisions;
· Two-Family 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 Planned Development
District
6. Purchase of development rights and outright land purchase programs will continue, thus
continuing to reduce density and potential impacts of land 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 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.
· Residential density in the HALO's provides opportunity for alternative transportation such as
walking and bicycle travel
· Use ofTDR's in the HALO's maypromote beneficial investment and redevelopment.
· Use of TDR's in the HALO's will provide alternative forms of housing to single family
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 H/tLO'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
~l~ Page
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
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."
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 fanning 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 infi'astmcture 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.
Town
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
Table 3-1
SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
Resource , Beneficial Impacts Potential Adverse Impacts
· Would preserve existing farmland on Sending sites, and eliminate development · Would result in clearing and grading in
Geological Resources potential from these properties. HALO areas for developmeat resulting from
· 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.
Water Resources · 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
Ecological Resources · Would enable preservation of existing agricultural land in large contiguous blocks, acreages in HALO areas for those parcels
with less fragmentation 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
Transportation · Would place additional density in areas where road systems and infrastructure reduced traffic generation in sending areas;
Resources exists. HALOs are more walkable and promote use
I· 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 Use, Zoning & otherwise not be possible.
Plans , ,, Would establish conditions to address affordable housing needs. · No adverse impacts expected.
I · 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 community services
Community Services in impacts to rural services, and infrastructure in HALO areas, with
· 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 of the hamlet areas. · Would result in more development in HALO
Community Character · Would strengthen consumer base for business interests in hamlets, adding to areas, with 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
Socio-Economics
· Would stimulate establishment of new business in HALO areas, the HALO development.
,~ ~o~ g voo~ ~c Page 3-4
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
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 4/17.
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 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 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 fi.om aghcultural 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.
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
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 fights 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 aghculture.
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.
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplen~ental Generic ElS
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 beating waste) and therefore density limitations
are based on the nitrogen-beating 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 fi.om 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
infi.aslructure 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 infi'astmcture, 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 ElS
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 fi'agmentation 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 emigration
· Habitat fragmentation
· Disturbance (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 tkrough emigration
· Habitat Fragmentation
· Disturbance (i.e., construction, traffic, people)
· Habitat isolation caused by a variety of development types, resulting in increased edge
effects and sometimes 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 fragmentation throughout an area
· Reduced habitat diversity
· Ongoing habitat loss or fragmentation over time, resulting in progressive isolation and
reduced gene flow (reduced genetic diversity can result in loss of resilience to
environmental change 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 ElS
The negative effects of cleating and development have been well documented on ecological
resources. The effects of cleating 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,
requiting 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 family 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 forms of transportation including
pedestrian and other transit options.
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
· 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 f'md their way to the hamlets anyway, given
the demographics and geography of the Town, as a result, an equal density shift would not
increase vehicle trips in all cases.
· PDR and land acquisition programs will continue, and these programs 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 agh-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 infi'astructure,
signalization and the Towns roadway systems which allow altemative 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 veh/cular 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
3-11
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
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 Planned 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 Soutbold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
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 CommuniW 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 geographical distribution of solid waste generation toward the hamlet areas, this would
not be significant 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 and toward areas already served by adequate supplies of groundwater.
Drainage - The new development associated with this scenario would have to provide on-site
stormwater retention facilities, in conformance with Town and/or County regulations.
Wastewater Treatment - The volume of sanitary wastewater generated will increase, and the pattern
of this 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 or extension of existing community 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 expanded electrical services in hamlet areas. LIPA and Keyspan are utilities
chartered to provide these services for a fee charged to ratepayers. Services would have to be
provided in areas 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 hamlets would tend to minimize impacts to these service providers.
Page 3-13
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
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 summa, many aspects of this program reduce potential impacts on community character.
These have been identified in prior sections and are summarized below:
· There are various options for credit redemption which would tend to amortize new development
in a manner that reduces the impact of any one form of new development.
· Changes to commnnity character will occur in small incremental changes over a period of time.
· Hamlet areas currently exist and their community character would be expected to benefit as a
result of appropriate increased utilization which provides a consumer base for businesses.
· There are 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 program.
Page 3-14
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Drhft Supplemental Generic ElS
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 fi:om 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 fi'om 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 program will conform to SCDHS TDR standards, and as a result is consistent with
groundwater management as established under Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code.
· There are a variety of receiving site types on which the credits can be located;
· While there are substantially more sending sites than receiving sites, there are several alternative
programs and mechanisms whereby credits can be redeemed, ensuring credit holders that there
would be sufficient numbers of potential developers seeking their credits;
Page 3-15
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generi~ ElS
· Experience with pine barrens credits has shown that there is a healthy market for credits, the value
of which has steadily grown;
· The growth in credits' value indicates that developers consider credits a viable investment;
· Town has ability to administer laws already on books;
· Preservation of significant natural lands in the Town was established as a priority by the Town;
and
· The Town and its residents have a legitimate 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.
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 part of both landowners that choose to sell development
rights from sending parcels and 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 program 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 program 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 ail site-specific or project-
specific impacts. Each future action which proposes to redeem transferred credits must be
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
Sanitary Code.
4. Hamlet growth will be monitored through program implementation to ensure that open space
remains in hamlet areas, and development occurs in a manner that is consistent with design goals
of the Town.
5. Development will take 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 limited density increases of new subdivisions;
· Two-Family 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 furore Planned Development
District
6. Purchase of development rights and outright land purchase programs will continue, thus
continuing to reduce density and potential impacts of land development pr/madly 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.
l~-~ Page 4-1
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
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 fi.om 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 fi.om 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.
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
Table 4-1
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
Resource potential Adverselmp~cts, Mitigation Measures
Geological Resources · 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 densit7 shift, project sites; site plan and subdivision review will minimize potential impacts.
· Would use public water supply in HALO areas
and not in sending area locations. · Public water will be supplied by the Suffolk County Water Authority in conformance with
the approved water map; hamlet locations are identified as appropriate water supply are.as.
Water Resources · 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, Article 6 limitations based on 20,000 SF lots.
with reduced load in sendin~ areas.
· HALO areas generally are suitable for development due to the current land use pattern;
· Would decrease natural vegetation and habitat
current activity levels preclude the presence of unique or sensitive wildlife species; impacts
Ecological Resources acreages in HALO areas for those parcels which
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;
Transportation reduced traffic generation in sending areas; development in hamlets is encouraged for walkability shared parking and trips and use of
Resources 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, Zoning & · The proposal would implement the Towns intended land use pattern through zoning law
Plans · 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 Services
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 fall of 2006 when
· Would result in more development in HALO ·
the Hamlet Density Model was discussed; a limit on development that will be monitored
Community Character areas, with resultant reduction of development in
sending areas; HALO development would be will be used to control density and assist in addressing community character; community
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 density transfer.
· The program anticipates equal density with no increase in what is permitted under full build
Socio-Economics · Would necessitate costs to provide services to the out Townwide; the TDR program is voluntary which is a mitigation in itself; the program
provides options to landowners wishing to preserve agricultural use, and will be used to
HALO development, supplement the PDR program; increased service demand will be addressed by ut~ility
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 pattem 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 land use in the Town, the goal is to
achieve a level of protection for valuable aesthetic and environmental, social and other
characteristics and resources that would otherwise not be achievable absent the proposed action.
This would be achieved by a relocation of this gxowth toward the hamlets and away 15om the
areas where these resources are found.
· The proposed action would conform to the zoning pattern in the Town (in order to achieve the
specific land preservations and development concentrations inherent in the proposal), and this
development would be in conformance with the applicable elements of the Town Zoning Code.
Page 4-4
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
The proposed action has been formulated specifically to implement a number of the
recommendations contained in numerous Town land use plans and studies prepared over the past
20± years, and therefore is consistent with the Town's comprehensive plan, including
preservation of farmland, community character and 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 $outhold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Suppi'emental Generic ElS
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 tour/sm 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
5.0 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 altematives to automobile travel, while preserving the scenic and historic
attributes of roadways in the Town. The TDR program 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 lxaffic and potential fugitive dust and noise generation, particularly during grading
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.
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
· Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
There will be a potential local increase in the concentration of nitrogen in recharge as compared
to current conditions; however, the program is intended to conform with SCDHS groundwater
management requkements for density.
_There will be change in the pattern of vehicle trips generated by !and 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 program would still entail residents using their cars to access hamlet areas for
goods and services. Traffic calming measures in hamlet areas will help minimize this impact.
There will be a shift in various demographic patterns, including school-age children and 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 community services and upon
infrastructure resources, though it is noted that the hamlets are better able to accommodate the
increased density than rural and farm areas that may not have convenient access to infrastructure
and conununity services.
In smmnary, 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 tiffs 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.
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
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 complementaD,
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 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 (schools, 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.
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 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 thek
previous quality.
· To preserve and promote a range of housing and business opportunities that supports 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 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-making 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 - assumes that development credits are 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 - assumes that development credits can be redeemed for non-
residential use.
5. TDR Bank - 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 altemative 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
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
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.
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
D~aft Supplemental Generic ElS
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 fi.om 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 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.
The proposed program provides a wide range of altematives 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 family homes can be constructed on 20,000 SF lots in hamlets
using TDR. This provides a significant 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 Generli: ElS
40, R-80, A-C and R-200 zoning districts would be expected to take advantage of this density
increase. The resultant un/t is a single family home, and as a result this is a significant incentive.
· Two-Family Homes - Additional flexibility would be provided to create two-family 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 significant
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, and may facilitate development wh/ch
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 significant incentive as it does not
currently exist. Existing homeowners wishing to supplement income or provide the flexibility of
an additional dwelling unit can purchase a credit and reap the long-term benefit of creating a
Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit on the same lot.
· Mixed use or flexible zoning developments under potential future Planned 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 connection
with create land use proposals.
If Town policy with regard to density changes and a greater emphasis on TDR is needed to
ach/eve 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 family size.
· Potentially lower volume of sanitary flow and 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 family size.
· Lower sales price thereby creating additional mixed housing stock.
· More sustainable form of development, located in a hamlet area and able to make use of local
goods and services, walkability and 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 fxactional
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
· Planned 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 altemative 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 un/ts 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.
7-5
rage
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
7.3 Use of Open Space as Sending Areas
7.3.1 Description of Alternative
This altemative 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 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 fi'om 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. [of the TDR Planning Report].
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
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Sulbplemental Generic ElS
meet thc 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.
In addition, as is noted in the TDR Pl~d-fing 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 make it infeasible to build on certain parcels in sending areas.
· Continuing aggressive land acquisition and purchase of development rights programs.
· Continuing aggressive conservation subdivision planning which results in density reduction and
open space preservation.
· Unique real estate market which places value on residential units which are able to be consWacted
within the Town.
The TDR Planning Report ultimately recommended that parcels which are subject to
Agricultural District designation or an individual commitment, be adopted as sending areas. A
summary of the basis for this recommendation is provided as follows:
· PDR is directed toward agricultural parcels; TDR is viewed as a program to supplement the PDR
program and 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 commonly 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, and provides
compensation to the owner.
· Inclusion of open space parcels would further increase the potential sending credits, which would
farther limit 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.
IfTDR 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 famaland 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 fi-om 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
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplem'ental Generic ElS
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 environmental 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 commercial 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 formula would need to be established to convert a development credit which originates from
residential land, to a corresponding commercial use intensity.
· Market conditions will establish the needed amount of commercial space in the hamlet centers;
there may be sufficient commercial space in the hamlets either existing or which can be built
Page 7-8
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
under current zoning, to accommodate this demand. As a result, an incentive for transfer of
commercial density may not be attractive.
· Business zoned and used parcels in thc hamlets tend to be smaller and as a result, transfer of
density to these smaller parcels would result in greater difficulty in complying with density
limitations under Article 6 of thc $CSC.
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
Use Design Flow qmva!~ncy Rec0mmended
~o SFD Transfer SF
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, fids 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 parking 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 fids 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 Supplemefital Generic ElS
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 arc anticipated as this alternative is also voluntary, and would complement a beneficial
land use program that is in keeping with Town land usc 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 and 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.
%11
~-~,~ ~. ~ LLC rage
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
APPENDICES
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rigbts Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
APPENDIX A
Findings Statement, CIS, Town Board
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Findings Statement
STATE ENVIRONMENTAl, QUALITY REVIEW ACT
FINDINGS STATEMENT
SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION
STRATEGY
Town Board, Town of Southold
Pursuant to Article 8 of the New York Environmental Conservation Law and Title 6, New York
Codes, Rules and Regulations Part 617, the Town Board of the Town of Southold, as Lead
Agency, hereby makes the following findings.
Name of Action:
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Lead Agency:
Town Board of the Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Contact Person:
Hon. Joshua Horton, Supervisor
(631) 765-1800
Date Findings Filed:
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 make 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
ElS 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, where 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 through a series of policy discussions held with 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 enviromnent; 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
planning Process, Zoning and Zoning Code
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; exchange 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. Review Special Exception Provisions (Winery-Vineyard; adequate farmstand parking)
6. Review of Zoning Code (mandatory clustering, recreational requirements, 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 FIB, flag lots, encourage common driveways; change of use
requirements)
7. Review Zoning Map (Mattituck Creek, industrial on Route 25 west of Greenport, FID in Greenport; water dependent
uses, Al-ID - repeal or expand)
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 through land use tools and
density reduction)
11. 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 relocationdmanagement)
13. 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)
15. Critical Environmental Lands Local Law (steep slopes and escarpments, shallow groundwater, wetlands, waterways;
define for yield purposes)
16. SEQRA Local Law Review/Revision (Type 1 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)
Page3
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Findings Statement
~ducation~nforeement
18. Agricultural District ReviewfEducation (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; 1PM; 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 ham]et 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 progrmn; B&B's, network of visitor centers)
25. Enforcement (illegal conversion of agricultural buildings; use expansion controls; change of use requirements)
CaPital Improvements/Expenditures
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 (del-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)
;4. Create a Parks and Recreation Department (manage parks, recreational resources, non-church cemeteries)
Page 4
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Findings Statement
;5. Scenic By-Ways Management Program (Route 48/Route 25 currently designated; signage, link with 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)
Inter-Agency/Quasi-Agency Initiatives
40. Housing Financial Assistance Program (North Fork Housing Alliance; review other opportunities based on 1993
report and Updated Affordable Housing Policy)
41. Develop Water Supply Master Plan (Town involvement, SCWA preparing; manage infrastructure with other agencies)
42. Emergency Preparedness (groundwater contamination, drought 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, churches,
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 the 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 itselI; 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 10, 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 GElS was prepared based upon this Final Scope.
On June 3, 2003, the Town Board accepted the Draft GElS 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 Southold web site.
A public hearing on the Draft GElS 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 GElS 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 has been a consideration of past studies and may present certain options that the
Town Board may wish to consider in the 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 the adequacy of responses in the FGEIS with regard to projecting a
build out analysis based on a continuation of land preservation efforts, providing several examples,
and suggesting that the 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 Town 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 water 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 GElS 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 the 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 GElS
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 with the Final Scope for the GEIS.
Regional Impact Assessment for Build-Out Conditions
Laud Preservation Efforts and Future Development Trends
Resoume Impact Analysis
Geological Resources
Water Resources
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 of Implementation Tools
These Findings summarize the facts and conclusions of the Final GELS. 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 environment and in the
formation of these Lead Agency Findings.
FACTS, CONCLUSIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED WITHIN THE
DRAFT & FINAL GEIS'S RELIED UPON TO SUPPORT THE LEAD AGENCY
DECISION
Summary of Existing Land Preservation Efforts
Southold Town has been aggressive in pursuing voluntary 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 current 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 amount of land preservation
from 1997-2002 was 260 acres per year. The estimated average amount of residential
development over the 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 percent 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 amount 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-Oat 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 this Build-Oat 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 alternative.
The FGEIS found that some of the tools (proposed actions) were of a procedural or legislative
nature, which would not have a physical environmental 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 su~ect action. These conclusions are based upon a
review of the Draft GELS, the Final GEIS and public commentary 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 mount 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 number 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 pumpage; 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 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 fi.om 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 lakes, 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. Further 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 where 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 patterus 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 amount 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, Zoning 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 alt
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 with 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 percent. 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 community 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 Waste Handling and Recycling - Under a reduced density potential, future development
would result in a decreased amount of residential solid waste generated. While 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 same facility regardless of
where they originate.
Water Supply - 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 pattem 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.
Wastewater 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 amount 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.
Natural 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 units 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, which 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 from 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
environmental impacts to the resource categories analyzed
Potential Impacts of Implementation Tools
Overall, the proposed action is identified overwhelmingly as having substantial beneficial
impacts to thc Town in relation to confomaance with Town goals, land use plans, thc pat~cru 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 farmland and open space;
decreased intensity of land use; less burden on resources; maintenance of rural character;
stren~hening of cultural features including hamlets and historic resources; expanded housing
opportunities including affordable 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, in 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 GELS. The
results did not indicate that any of these alternatives would be preferable to the proposed action
in terms of ability to achieve the Town's goals while minimizing potential adverse impacts nor
were any of the alternatives (other than the no-action alternative and the alternative to allow a
regional government/utility to establish a watershed protection zone) found to have any
significant adverse environmental impacts.
Page 16
Southold Comprehensive Implementation S't~tegy
]Findings Statement
TABLE 2
IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS - PRELIMINARY IMPACT MATRIX
Implementation Tools I Beneficial Primary Impacta and ImplicationsI,Preliminary Discussion/Analysis
Plauning Process, Zoning and Zoning
Code
1. A-C District Use/Dimensional Parameters Reduces potential development in agricultural areas; provides greater
(mechanics of zone; now essentially consistency with legislative intent; removes potentially incompatible uses from Land retains value and other use options;
same as other residential zones) farmland areas, special exception uses could be incompatible.
Voluntary program that retains landowner's equity in land while retaining land Funding efforts will continue; alternative
2. Rural Incentive District (based on
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
permanently attain long-term goal of 80% farmland/open space for tax benefit, voluntary yield reduction, TDR,
period of time in exchange of PDR at
appropriate yield/density) preservation/60% density reduction; provides "incentive" zoning with special 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
Agricultural lands are key to Town character
Review improved site design where development occurs; designates importance of and economic vitality.
(geographic definition and goals) unique geographic area~resource of Town.
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 regional development pressure; SCDHS Article 6 density limitation is equal to
5-acre zoning for agricultural areas with 80%
4. 5-Acre Upzoning (A-C District Town- improves compatibility between agricultural and residential use by reducing farm preservation; prior plans support 5-acre
wide or specific area) number of residences in agricultural areas; maintains rural quality of Town;
enables Town to permanently attain long-term goal of 80% farmland/open zoning for groundwater protection; land retains
space preservation/60% density reduction; consistent with SGPA, farm/development value at 5-acre density.
WSM&WnPS and Comell 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 provides better definition of hamlets; provides potential affordable housing; to sanitary flow restrictions; country inns to be
strip shopping centers & fast food in HB, provides consistency with goals and prior studies; improves enforcement, reviewed case-by-case.
flag lots, encourage common driveways;
change of use requirements, country inns)
Page 17
Southold Comprehensive lmplementatit
Findings Statement
Implementation Tools Beneficial Primary Impacts and Implications Preliminary Discussion/Analysis
7. Review Zoning Map (Mattituck Creek,
industrial on Route 25 west of Greanport, Provides for better land use pattern in sensitive and important areas of Town; Proper land use pattern is responsibility of
HD in Greenport; water dependent uses, Town.
AHD - repeal or expand process)
8. Review Subdivision Regulations (road Enables better control of site development; provides applicants with better
Probable SEQRA Type II action, continuing
requirements; drainage; lighting; understanding of Town requirements; clarifies review procedures; potential
infrastructure; 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 better Probable SEQP, A Type 11 action, continuing
understanding of Town requirements; clarifies review procedures; potential
requirements; drainage; lighting;
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.
10. 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.
11. Planning Process (formalize pre-
submission Enables more efficient & effective development review & planning processes; Improved coordination of land use input early
conference, review departmental provides forum for committee input./involvement; provides applicants with in process will 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
Program is optional, but is an available tool;
(mechanism for appropriate density growth, preservation of valuable farmland/open space; reduces acquisition cost
relocation/management) of farmland/opan 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 for beneficial projects, required.
housing, infrastructure, dedication, etc.)
14. 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 U'ee visual resources, impacts rural 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.
def'me for yield purposes)
Page 18
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Sfl~tegy
Findings Statement
Implementation Tools Beneficial Primary Impacts and Implications Preliminary Discussion/Analysis
16. SEQRA Local Law Review/Revision Enables better control of land use patterns & analysis of potential Identifies projectsthatmayhavean impact and
(Type I List; possibly add Scenic- environmental impacts, are more likely to require an EtS up front.
Byways; CEA's)
17. Scenic By-Ways Overlay
Development Controls (Route 48/25; Provides preservation/protection of valuable Town aesthetic character and Code would assist with protection of
define corridor 1000'/500'; reconcile visual resources; provides applicants with better understanding of Town views/rural character for large # of viewers;
farm structures; setbacks, mass,
architecture; Committee review, SEQRA requirements; clarifies review procedures, early input/clarity.
designation)
Education/Enforcement
18. Agricultural District Review/Education Provides awareness; encourages farmowner participation; preserves farmland, Probable SEQRA Type 11 action; no significant
(Agriculture and Markets Law;
encourage participation; maintain economy and benefits; maintains rural/farmland character; gives tangible tax adverse impacts identified.
benefits to farmowners.
existing participants)
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 11 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
important for management, protection &
educational materials, link with land use Town; increases protection of such resources, education.
controls)
22. Encourage Use of Public Transportation Decreases use of private autos, with associated reductions in emissions, trips,
(relate to congestion; increases use of public transit; reduces needs for transportation Probable SEQRA Type 11 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,
congestion; increases use of public transit; reduces needs for transportation
transportation/pedestrian improvements; improvements, extensions and infrastructure; increases efficiency of Intent is to promote intermodal and alternative
encourage public transportation, create transportation system operations; increases walkability of hamlet centers; transportation to reduce congestion; no
hamlet hubs; ferry linkages, winery protects rural character, significant adverse impact identified.
shuttles, signage "best route to"; work
with LIRR)
Page 19
Corn rehenslve I I _w
Southold p ' mp ementation Strategy
Findings Statement
ImPlementation Tools Beneficial Primary Impacts and Implications Preliminary 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
oppommities and mariculture; included tourism/recreation destination; directs public infrastructure in a cost-effective Intent 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 of these resources)
25. Enforcement (illegal conversion of
agricultural Reduces illegal/improper/unsafe land uses; ensures that Town goals will be Probable SEQRA Type 1I action.
buildings; use expansion controls; met.
change of use
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) eco-tourism, benefit.
27. Administer Parks of Town-wide Increases Town control of and quality of public parks; better services and Parks are important aspect of
Significance
(for benefit ofallTown residents) facilities for residents, recreational/social setting and Townwide
needs.
28. Prioritize and Supplement CPPP
(additional Bond issue would have Town endorsement; 2%
acquisitions; scenic by-ways Continues & expands valuable Town-wide open space preservation program; 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, facilities to meet required service demand.
Direct Town Management
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 S r~tegy
Findings Stntement
Implementation Tools Beneficial Primary Impacts and Implications Preliminary Discussion/Analysis
Smart growth principals direct growth to
31. Concentrate Development in Hamlets Increases Town control of development in hamlets while reducing hamlet centers proximate to services to
(define hamlets; ensure appropriate development elsewhere; increases economic & social health & vitality of
improve social setting and reduce external
infrastructure; affordable housing; link hamlets; increases hamlet "sense of place"; enables Town to increase hamlet traffic; strengthens hamlet and businesses;
with land use mechanisms/tools; capital development & identity with associated benefits (stimulates economic activity, assist with need for affordable/ alternate
improvement program; traffic calming) reduced congestion, mixed housing opportunities), housing.
32. Park District/School District Boundaries
Enables improved coordination of planning between school and park districts Probable SEQRA Type II action; no significant
Conformity (determine need and and recreational facilities of both; provides park access to entire Town. adverse impact identified.
reconcile districts)
33. Update Park Inventory and Management Facilitates assessment of need and corresponding improvements; enables
Plan (prior 1980 study needs updating; improved management of park and public recreational facilities; provides Probable SEQRA Type 1I 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 recreational Town to evaluate need for new department.
recreational resources, non-church facilities.
cemeteries)
35. Scenic By-Ways Management
Program (CR 48/NYS 25 currently Enables improved control of transportation resources and simultaneous Scenic By-Ways are of Townwide importance
designated; signage, link with Scenic
By-Ways Overlay for standards, preservation/protection of valuable Town aesthetic character, and observed by many viewers.
guidelines & land use controls)
36. Trail Inventory/Trail
Committee/Bikeways (Transportation
Commission exists, determine Provides for significant Town-wide recreational, aesthetic and environmental Probable SEQRA Type II action; no significant
resources and use thereof by public; promotes alternative transportation;
appropriate committee, inventory, input provides public recreational opportunities supportive of rural character., adverse impact identified.
into GIS to manage, trailhead directional
information in kiosks)
37. Inventory and Manage Cultural
Resources (archaeologically sensitive Provides for improved preservation, restoration, management & beneficial use 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 Provides improved control & regulation of development, with associated
Parameters (determine need for and improvement in aesthetics of Town; maintain consistent cultural Town
Architectural qualities are important due to
establish ARB; generate guidance character; provides socio-economic benefit.
Southold's unique cultural/rural character.
documents and integrate into land use
review process)
Page 21
Southold Comprehensive Implementation SW~egy
Findings Statement
Implementation Tools Beneficial Primary Impacts and Implications Preliminary Discussion/Analysis
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.
Program) recreational/tourist destination; economic asset protection.
Inter-Agency/Quasi-Agency Initiatives
Addresses critical demographic need for affordable housing at various low-
40. Housing Financial Assistance Program moderate income levels; beneficial soeio-economic impact; enablas Town to
(North Fork Housing Alliance; review ~lCreasc hamlet development & identity with associated benefits (stimulates Public-private partnerships beneficial to
other opportunifics based on 1993 repor~ economic activity, reduced congestion, mixed housing opportunities); benefits create/stimulate necessary affordable housing
and Updated Affordable Housing accrue as a result of public-private partnerships and less expenditure of Town opportunities.
Policy) 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
manage infrastructure with other infrastructure (and thereby growth) should be located; inter-agency needs; water resources are limited and require
agencies) coordination provides greater benefit, management.
42. Emergency Preparedness
(groundwater contamination, drought Protects Town residents by pre-planning and inter-agency coordinated Probable Type Il; Town residents need, require
management; ensure adequate response; establishes Town procedures & plans in case of emergency, thereby and deserve proper emergency preparation and
emergency services (police, fire, minimizing damage costs and safety problems, services.
ambulance); flood hazard mitigation
plan; erosion)
43. Social Services Programs (senior citizen Establishes inter-agency coordinated Town-wide program to meet the resident Probable Type Il; Town residents need, require
care, adequate community facilities, day needs; socio-economic benefits to residents in need of key services; and deserve proper social services; no impact
care, meals on wheels, churches, strengthens overall community and social interaction, identified.
libraries)
Page 22
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Findings Statement
The impact analysis prepared for the proposed action and analyzed in the DGE1S was based
upon development conforming to the above-referenced recommendations; as the analysis
indicated that no adverse environmental impacts would result from the proposed action, it may
be concluded that the implementation tools themselves would not result in adverse impacts.
COMPREHENSIVE 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,
warrant 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
· Rurallncentive District [proposed]
· Agricultural Overlay District/A-C Zoning Review [proposed]
· A-C District Use/Dimensional Parameters [existing]
· 5-Acre Upzoning [proposed]
· Review of Zoning Code [existing]
· Conservation Subdivision Program [proposed]
· Transfer of Development Rights [proposed]
· Planned Development District Local Law [proposed]
· Tree Preservation Local Law [proposed]
· Scenic By-Ways Overlay Development Controls [proposed]
Education/Enforcement
· Agricultural District Review/Education [existing]
· Watershed Protection Zone/SGPA's [existing]
Capital Improvements/Expenditures
· Improve Waterfront Access [existing]
· Prioritize and Supplement CPPP [existing]
· Create a Centralized Year-Round Recreational Complex [proposed]
Direct Town Management
· Park District/School District Boundaries Conformity [existing]
· Update Park Inventory and Management Plan [existing]
· Create a Parks and Recreation Department [proposed]
Page23
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:
Planning Process, Zoning and Zoning Code
· Rural Incentive District [proposed]
5-Acre Upzoning [proposed]
· Transfer of Development Rights [proposed]
· Planned Development District Local Law [proposed]
· Tree Preservation Local Law [proposed]
· Scenic By-Ways Overlay Development Controls [proposed]
Education/Enforcement
· Create General Guidance Documents [proposed]
· Watershed Protection Zone/SGPA's [existing]
· Enforcement [existing]
Direct Town Management
· Concentrate Development in Hamlets [existing]
Scenic By-Ways Management Program [proposed]
· Inventory and Manage Cultural Resources [existing]
· Architectural Review Board and Design Parameters [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:
Planning Process, Zoning and Zoning Code
· Rural Incentive District [proposed]
· 5-Acre Upzoning [proposed]
· Review of Zoning Code [existing]
· 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]
· 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
· Administer Parks of Town-wide Significance [existing]
Direct Town Management
· Concentrate Development in Hamlets [existing]
· Scenic Advisory Board [proposed]
Inter-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-economically diverse community.
Implementation tools that inter-relate with housing and business planning are listed as follows:
Planning Process, Zoning and Zoning Code
· Agricultural Overlay District/A-C Zoning Review [proposed]
· A-C District Use/Dimensional Parameters [existing]
· Review Special Exception Provisions [existing]
· Review of Zoning Code [existing]
· Review Zoning Map [existing]
· 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 Management
· 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
Town.
Tools identified as part of this CIS that relate to transportation planning are listed as follows:
Planning Process, Zoning and Zoning 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]
Education/Enforcement
Page 25
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Findings Statement
· Create General Guidance Documents [proposed]
· Encourage Use of Public Transportation [existing]
· Transportation Management Plan [proposed]
Direct Town Management
· Concentrate Development in Hamlets [existing]
· Scenic By-Ways Management Program [proposed]
· Trail Inventory/Trail Committee/Bikeways [proposed/existing]
Inter-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 future actions will be undertaken or approved,
including requirements for any subsequent 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 ifa 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 GElS but was not addressed or was not adequately addressed
in the findings statement for the GELS;
A negative declaration must be prepared if a subsequent proposed action was not
addressed or was not adequately addressed in the GEIS, and the 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 GElS 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
acconunodate social and economic considerations. Therefore, having considered the Draft
GEIS, the Final GEIS and having further considered the foregoing written facts and conclusions
Page 26
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Findings Statement
relied upon to meet the requirements of 6NYCRR Part 617.11, this Statement of Findings
certifies that:
I. 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 Town 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 ~ed 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, AICP, 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
Page 27
Town 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
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM
PLANNING REPORT TO THE TOWN BOARD
JUNE 25, 2007
Revised March 26, 2008.b~r DGE1S
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
Town of Southold
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM
Planning Report to the Town Board
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
PAGE
PROGRAM FOUNDATION
2.1 Components of a Successful TDR Program
2.2 Public Need
2.3 Town Objectives
2.4 Background and History of Town TDR and Related Programs
7
7
10
10
11
PROGRAM OVERVIEW AND GENERAL PARAMETERS
13
PROGRAM ELEMENTS
4.1 Sending Zones
4.2 Receiving Zones
4.3 Interrelationship of Land Preservation Programs and Tools
4.4 Density Limitations in the Receiving Zones
4.5 Program Mechanics Summary
14
14
18
21
23
28
CONCLUSION
31
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
Dral~ 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 Genetic Environmental Impact
Statement (GELS) 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 ElS 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 outfight 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 !
Town of Soutbold
TDR Program Planning Rel~ort
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 HALO'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, RO,
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 HALO's. The form that
increased density could take includes the following:
- Single Family Homes
· Two-Family Homes
· Multiple Family Dwellings
· Detached Accessory Dwelling Units, and
· Mixed use or flexible zoning developments under potential future Planned 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 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. 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 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 cormnunity
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, parking 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 HALO's provides opportunity for alternative transportation such as
walking and bicycle travel.
· Use of TDR's in the HALO's may promote beneficial investment and redevelopment.
· Use of TDR's in the HALO's will provide alternative forms of housing to single family 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
reconmmendation 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 Title Land Purchase
· Purchase of Development Rights
· Conservation Subdivision
· Standard 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 enviromnental impacts of the program are addressed,
and will provide a forum for public input and consensus building.
Page 4
Town of Southold
TDR Pro,ram Planning Report
Town of Southold
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM
Planning Report to the Town Board
Draf~ 6-25-07; Revised 3-26-08 for DSG£1S
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Town of Southold is seeking to implement a Transfer of Development Pdghts (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 platming 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 (C1S)] 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 reconmaendations 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, fmal 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 Planner and Project Manager
John Sepenoski, Town Data Processing
Patricia Finnegan, Esq., Town Attorney
Melissa Spiro, Town Land Preservation Coordinator
· Leslie Weisman, Member Southold Town ZBA & Chair of Southold Hamlet Stakeholder
Committee
Charles Voorhis, CEP, AICP, Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, 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 during the course of this study.
Other Town staff and resources of Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC ("NP&V"), consultant to the
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, tkrough 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 heating 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 ora 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 C1S 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 transferred from 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 programs encourage TDR sales by reducing the development potential of the sending
sites through zoning incentives, favorable alternatives to development, restrictions, environmental
regulations, farmland protection measures, and ordinances that require adequate public facilities
before development can 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
greater 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 community to consider designating village or hamlet areas where more
concentrated development will be encouraged. TDRs can then be used to obtain the higher densities
that are possible in these select areas.
3. Facilitating Use of TDRs
After appropriate stakeholder involvement and adoption of appropriate legislation subject to public
disclosure, hearings and review processes, most communities approve TDRs administratively,
without public heatings or discretionary decisions. This approach can increase the use of TDRs since
it gives developers greater certainty over the cost, timing, and approval of their projects.
Many communities also facilitate transfers by treating TDRs as a commodity, available for sale to
anyone at any time. In addition, some programs feature a "TDR bank" which serves as a buyer and
seller of TDRs when private transactions become too time consuming. Finally, the most successful
TDR programs provide ongoing information to the general public, as well as staff support and
instructional materials to assist TDR buyers and sellers.
4. Building Public Support
A successful TDR program will mean more intense development at receiving sites. The community
as a whole needs to understand and accept that this will occur. Community-wide, comprehensive
planning efforts are important in developing TDR programs. In the context of a 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 programs are in communities that specifically designed
their comprehensive plans to be implemented through TDR.
An effective TDR program can add optimism to the planning process by offering a way for
compensation to be provided to property owners without the use of tax dollars. This optimism can
encourage the public to establish stronger land 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
GElS for the Town of Sonthold 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 substantially decreased development with as much preservation of existing farm use as can be
achieved in the rural areas of the Town outside of the hamlets, thus identifying both sending and
receiving sites.
· The Town Board conducted prior studies and incorporated TDR into the planning documents
(including the Town-wide CIS) as a desirable tool, thus incorporating the concept into its
comprehensive plan.
· The Town has built community support by assembling stakeholders and conducting the 2005
Hamlet Study to determine the desires and concerns of local residents and identify hamlet centers
and surrounding HALO boundaries (receiving sites), resulting in direction on a community-by-
community basis to build community support.
· The Town and the Suffolk County Water Authority have sought to manage limited groundwater
resources, in a manner 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 balance of growth potential due to
limited water resources, aquifer management and public health safety in coordination. Initiatives
include the Water Supply Management & Water Protection Strategy, and adoption of an official
Water Map (of water supply extension areas) in 2000 and amended in 2007.
~ Page 9
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
The challenges that lie ahead include the following:
· Defining sending and receiving sites, particularly in view of the myriad of preservation programs
cu~ent!y in use, and the desire to continue a policy of densiP/ reduction through purchase of
development rights.
· Determining the land use mechanisms for redemption of credits and realization of transferred
development in the HALO's.
· Providing adequate economic incentives to facilitate transfers, and ensuring a proper balance of
supply and demand.
· Ensuring a margin of program success in consideration of the Suffolk County Department 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 environmental 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 and other rural lands are a significant resource in
the Town, in terms of both economics and aesthetics and provides for an important sector of the
Town's economic base, while maintaining the open, rural atmosphere.
· As a result of the Town's efforts, a number of mechanisms am being used, that provide
opportunities and alternatives to land development 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, farm and agricultural land use associated with
sending parcels, to promote land preservation and environmental protection.
· Provide an increase in the amount ..... ero~ .,ous~ng s,ock fo,,~ ~
· Reduce suburban sprawl and promote "smart growth" development principals including
strengthening of hamlets and businesses, walkable communities, sustainable growth, mixed-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 encouraging controlled development in appropriate use
· Promote 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.
· Promote the long-term planning 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 land preservation without expenditure of public funds.
In stmunary, 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 pattem 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 of SouthoM'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 Generic ElS 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 C1S, studied in the Generic ElS and is under ongoing consideration by the Town
Board. This TDR ?rogram 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:
As set forth in numerous comprehensive planning documents, the Town's goals include the
preservation of open space, agricultural lands and recreational landscapes; preservation of the rural,
cuhural and historic character of the hamlets and surrounding countryside; preservation of the
natural environment and prevention of further deterioration of resources; preservation and
promotion of a broad range of housing and business opportunities to support a socioeconomically
diverse community; and increased transportation efficiency. To achieve these goals, it is the intent
and purpose of this chapter to provide for the transfer of sanitary flow credits, and thereby transfer
development potential from areas designated for preservation to areas designated as more
appropriate for higher-density residential development. Unless expressly permitted herein, the
transfer of development potential may not occur in the Town of 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 fights, 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
~ 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 staffrecognized 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 feat~es 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 Common 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 and 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 ~--~'- T~. ...... , .......,__,~
ttmlltCt~, litlC Wi)Iix glOU].J lt~iU 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 program 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 an incentive will be explored as an
alternative under the SEQRA process for the TDR program.
· The TDR program contemplates redemption of credits for residential units, but will examine the
potential for commercial 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 can 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 and private space.
At this time, the Town has formally adopted the HALO boundaries for Mattituck, Cutchogue,
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 am 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 L~_
na~ 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 ora TDR program and identification of sending areas.
Definition of Sendin~ 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 I 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 fanning 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:
· Land in hamlet and HALO areas
· Business zoned land not subdividable (single and separate lots of less than the minimum zoning
acreage) and non-subdividable residential zoned land of twice the minimum zoning lot size
requirement
· Unbuildable land (wetlands, dune, beach, surface water)
· Existing community facilities (lands in public ownership, used for public purpose and certain
non-public lands (churches, utilities, etc.)
· Land 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.~L' ...... 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 mom 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:
· Land in a designated HALO or hamlet;
· Land recorded in Town GIS as being less than 7 acres in size;
· Land in Town GIS database as community facility lands;
· Land in Town GIS database as including wetlands, dune, beach and/or surface water;
· Land in Town GIS database as having a protected status through prior PDR, acquisition or
conservation easement; and
· Land in the Town GIS database that does no~t have an Agricultural District or Individual
Commitment 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 Common 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, Cutchogue,
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
· l-lB-hamlet business
· LB-limited business
· RO-residence office
· AI-ED-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 program 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 an understandable and effective program.
· 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
· Two-Family Homes
Page 19
Town of Southold
TDR Progra~ Planning Report
· Multiple Family Dwellings
· Detached Accessory Dwelling Units, and
· Mixed use or flexible zoning developments under potential future Planned Development District
lhe following provisions are recommended to facilitate the redemption of TDR's:
Single Family 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-Family 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 Family 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 C1S. PDD's are provided for under NYS Town Law dealing with incentive zoning. ,4
PDD is a change of zone, typically to a more intense use than permitted by the underlying
zoning; however, any increase in density must be offset by public benefits which would be
provided to the community. Projects may include mixed uses, and 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 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 HALO'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 off-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 HALO'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 Land Purchase
· Purchase of Development Rights
· Conservation Subdivision
· Standard 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 nol 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 landowneffdeveloper 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 County Department of Health Services Density 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
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planfiing 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 model for SouthoM
Hamlet that will prevent undesirable over-development and protect the hamlet's unique
qualities, scale and historic 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
SchoOl District Total Potential
TDR Credits
Mattituck UFSD 185
New Suffolk CSD 57
Southold UFSD 302
Greenport UFSD 21
Oysterponds UFSD 98
Notes: Mattituck UFSD includes Mattimck 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.
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 Matfimck 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.
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 Soutbold
TDR Program Planning Repot!
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, parking 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 a-M
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.
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Re'port
· Residential density in the HALO's provides opportunity for alternative transportation such as
walking and bicycle travel.
· Use of TDR's in the HALO's may promote beneficial investment and redevelopment.
· Use of TDR's in the HALO's will provide alternative forms of housing to single family detached
development, thus providing oppormniti~ 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 Plarming 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 for controlled growth requires creative planning and foresight. Transfer of development
rights is just one tool used in the battle to contain sprawl. TDR is the exchange of zoning privileges
from areas with low population needs, such as farmland, to areas of high population needs, such as
the Hamlet Centers. These transfers allow for the preservation of 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 SouthoM 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, developers and investors benefit from an additional mechanism to facilitate
compatible and planned development projects that provide return on investment. HALO
communities benefit from investment 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.
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
5. 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 adjustments 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 if I 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 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 Pro~ram 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. lhe I own has considered 1 DI~. 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.
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
progrmn 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 ,Mth Sqffolk CounO; 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 "smart growth" and
other communi~ benefit in receiving areas. Sending areas should be those areas the Town
wants to protect such as environmentally sensitive parcels, critical ~4'oodlands, 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. A TDR program can be designed to work
with incentive zoning provisions through a PDD and can be used to promote affbrdable
housing. In any case, a receiving area must have one or more of the following
characteristics:
· Proximi~ to hamlet centers;
· Lack ofenvironmemal sensitiviU;
· Suitable road access;
· Availablepublic water; and
· Ability to handle sewage or access to a sewage lreatment 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 same school district,
· Transjkrs must occur within the same Groundwater Management Zone as defined by the
SCDHS,
· Density must be determined based on underlying single family residential zoning (b_v
accepted yield factors), with the intent that a formula for providing additional density for
less-intensive units (multiple family and senior citizen units) will be established as an
incentive to shifting and creating appropriate development in receiving locations,
· Sending parcels must be appropriately encumbered through dedication to a public or
recognized non-profit entity or covenants restricting future development, and should be
registered by an appropriate tracking method through the Town,
· Receiving parcels should be within areas serviced bypublic water,
· Receiving parcels should not exceed twice the density allowed under the SE[folk County
Sanitary Code (SCSC) unless an appropriate form of sewage treatment is available,
· Receiving parcels should be sul?ject Io lbrlilized area reslriclions, clearing resu'iclions ~lnd
sile p/an or subdivision reviews,,
· Receiving parcels should be subject 1o fitrlher design standards and/or special e~ceplion
criteria as mctF be determined lhrough .furlher review and analysis: such standard~
include design parameters, deve]opmenl guidelines, hq[]bring, clearing restrictions, ferlilized
area reslrictions, selbacks, iqfi'aslrttcture installation and measures Io improve communi0
compalibilily.
Because of Southold's unique environmenla] constrainls, a TDR program would have lo
discourage/eliminate inappropriate deve]opmenl on sensilive and important ]ands and
promote appropriate development on parcels where such developmenl can be sustained
The Generic ElS 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 benefil fi'om a sound TDR program in a number of wc(vs, noted as follo*v~:
· Preservation oj~open space and walershed recharge areas associated with sending sites.
· Ability to redirect growth to areas suitable from such growth considering environmental
resources and iqfi'astructure.
· Abili~ to transfer densiO; credits fi'om outside to inside hamlet centers in a manner lhat
promotes creation of af[brdable housing.
· Abiliu to promote mixed use, multifamily residential use and diverse housing opportunities
including affordable housing through densi~ incentives and transfer.
· Reduction in the number of development rights and~or fee title purchases that would need to
be made to achieve the Towns open space preservation goa&.
These measures are discussed and are analyzed in more detail below to provide the
framework for an effective TDR program. The program would not be expected to resuh 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 should therefore be incorporated into a Town TDR
program.
In general, TDR is an oppropriate tool for preservation and open space (and to a lesser
extent farmland, due to SCDHS TDR requirements) that envisions shifting density to
appropriate areas, thereby providing a means for land protection without the resulting cost
of purchasing the development rights. [It 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 density increases in subdivisions located 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. ~ PDD local law is
also proposed to provide zoning and land use flexibility for well-designed projects that
provide ~7~ecial public benefits that could include redemption pf transferred developmen!
rights.
A sound TDR program depends on adequate incentives to ensure program success. The Pine
the pine barrens plan; some Towns elected to provide incentives such that one &velopment
right in a sending area, would be credited with 2 multiple .[ami~l, units or 3 planned
retirement communi~ units at the receiving location. This is logical since, muhiple family
units are generally smaller, and therefore have less sewage flow (within certain size
limitations), 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
inpacts is even greater for retirement units. Such receiving siIe opportunities would be
provi&d by pecial land use projects that propi& mixed-uses or that otherwise advance
planning goals of the Town. This form of the TDR program would be designed to work with
incentive zoning provisions through a PDD. In addition, transferred units remove densi~
~'om ~hose districts where preservation is &sired, to those areas where infrastructm-e is
present. As a result, &nsity increases would be expected where bus routes and public
transportalion opportunities are enhanced, and in hamlet center areas where walkabili~ and
local se~wices are provi&d.
l/cry 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 HALO zones.
An additional potentially beneficial aspect of the TDR program is the ability og~ the Town to
use acquired parcels for redirection of growth to appropriate locations or for appropriate
programs which would specifically include providing diverse and affordable housing. NYS
Town Law 261-(a) requires that "the town shall evaluate the impact of transfer 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 any negative impact upon the availability or potential development of low or
moderate income housing caused by the transfer 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
SouthoM Town. Based on the cost of homes as noted in the Census and Home Sales data,
lhere 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 wouM become the sending locations under this TDR program.
]n addition, there are virlua]]1, no new multi~ami~, unit opporlunities in the Town and there is
a greater demand./bt housing than suppl, v.
The designation of sending parcels, and idenlification oJ receiving site opportunities which
include n?~.dti/hmi~v housing, miyed housing, and smaller unit development, as well as a
densi~ incentive for the creation of new housing opportunities at receiving sites,
significantly increases the polential for affordable honsing in the Town of Southold.
Therejbre, a Town TDR program would conform to NYS Town Lan; 261-(a), as it would
provide opportunities for affbrdable housing that currently do not exist, and no affbrdable
housing would be removed by the program. Further, there is little likelihood of developing
new affbrdable units in the sending sites, as the necessa~? infrastructure is not presen! or
sufficienl to service such development, and the locations of sending sites is such lhat rlatura]
resources would have made such development unlikely.
Further with regard lo affordable housing, the Town is considering the potential to use land
acquired subsequent to the completion of the Build-Out analysis, for transfer of development
credits fbr affordable housing. This would involve selling a development credit for each acre
of land preserved, to a privale developmenl company and/or home~land owner lhal uses that
credit to create o unit or an accessory apartment available for affordable housing in
perpetuiO;. The credits would sell al a reduced rate (perhaps 75% of the average of
development rights purchased under PDR) for those projects that conform to the program by
providing permanent affordable housing opportunities in appropriate locations. This
program has the added benefit of supplementing funding for open space acquisition. As
envisioned, this program would work in tandem with the PDD or could be used for accessory
apartments or addition of affordable housing to other exisling Town zones where density
credits are needed and would conform 1o the SCDHS TDR sanitary flow restrictions.
With regard to TDR, it is noted that wastewater impacts' are not expected to be significant, as
the predicted concentration of nitrogen in recharge for each zoning district at full build-out
indicates that the highest potential concentration was 6.09 mg/] in the R-40 zoning district.
Only very limited increases would be permitted in the R-40 district, and only in co~formance
with SCDHS TDR standards. Other hamlet zoning districts (HD, HB, AHD and others) all
were 5 mg/l or less, unless fidl densiU 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 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.
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 District (PDD)
The Town could implemenl a PDD Local Law consistent with Incentive Zoning as provided
for under NYS Town Law Section 261-b so that, for lhose hamlet-area properties which are
to be developed, a single use or a combination o~ complementau; uses could be located on a
~i,~ol~ elt~ Tb~ PDD 1..; ~lln~,~ a prr~prtv tn ha ~mmad ~nd datienated ns a PDD. xo thai
all development within it would be planned, distributed and designed as a single unit, with
regulations and standards for setbacks, building heights, etc. spec~cally designated for this
zone. The PDD concept includes a requirement jbr "special 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, provision of q~brdable housing,
communiO, facilities, community infrastructure, or other creative incentives. In this way,
development would occur on a well-planned basis with minimal opportuni? for adverse
impacts on in~'astructure and services, as public benefits would be accrued to the community
and all infi-astructure requirements and amenities necessa;T would be included fi'om the
onset of the projecr
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 otherwise 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 for a PDD, which could only
occur under the program that establishes standards for locations, types of uses, and public
benefits in connection with such a program Each proposal wouM be subject to site/use
specific NYS Environmental Quality 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 Flanning Report
Attachment B-1
Sending Area Map
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
Attachment B-2
List o£ Sending Zone Parcels
TDRSendList
Listing of parcels within proposed TDR sending area as of 6/1310
District Tax Map Number District Tax Map Number
1000 13.-2-8.2 1000 85.-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
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
Tax Map Number
109.-5-23.3
110.-8-2
113.-7-2.5
113.-7-2.6
115.-4-8.6
115.-7-13.2
115.-9-4
115.-10-1
116.-1-10
120.-1-3
120.-1-4
120.-3-2
120.-3-11.8
120.-3-11.9
120.-3-11.10
120.-3-11.11
121.-3-7.4
122.-7-8.8
125.-2-2.2
125.-3-11
127.-1-1
127.-2-2.1
127.-3-7
127.-3-11
127.-3-12
129.-1-1
Page I
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
~Z~ Hamlet ~nter
~ HALO Parcels Larger thart
5 Builder's Acres
Southold HALO Map
[] Community Facilities
~ Protected Land
~ HALO
~.~ Hamlet Center
HALO Parcels Larger than
5 Builder's Acres
Cutchogue HALO Map
Community Facilities
Protected Land
~ HALO
~_~l Hamlet Center
HALO Parcels Larger than
5 Btlilder's Acres
East Marion HALO Map
~ Community Facilities
~ Protected Land
~ HALO
'~ Hamlet Center
~ HALO Parcels Larger than
~ 5 Builder's Acres
i F
New Suffolk HALO Map
~ Community Facilities
~ Protected Land
~ HALO
~'~ Hamlet Center
HALO Pa[eels Larger than
5 Builder s Acres
Orient HALO Map
Community Facilities
Protected Land
~ HALO
~' ~i Hamlet Center
-=~ HALO Parcels Larger than
- 5 Builder's Acres
Peconic HALO Map
Community Facilities
Protected Land
~,~_~ Hamlet Center
HALO ParCels Larger than
_~ 5 BUilder;S Acres
Town of Southold
· TDR Program Planning Report
ATTACHMENT C
Sample R-20 Local Law
§ 330-1 I, Residence Districts Table of Dimensional Regulations9
[Amended 5-13-1986 by LL. No. 7-1986; 10-24-1989 by LI~ No. 22-1989; 1=10-1995 by LL. No. 3-1995; 5-13-2003 by LL. No. 41-2003; 6-10-2003 by L.L~ No. 47-20031 10-26-2004 by LL~ No. 33-2004; 6-28-2005 by L.L. No. 28-2005]
NOTES:
08-15-2005
Town of Southold
TDR Program Plannin~ Report
ATTACHMENT D
Land Preservation Flow Chart
HALO
x
HALO
NOT IN HALO
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
ATTACHMENT E
SCDHS General Guidance
Memorandum #17
DEPARTIag~ Of J-~ALTH SERVICES
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
5"rE~:L~'Y
SUFFOLK COUNI~' EXECUI'IVE
BR)AN L. HARPER, M.D., M.P.H.
'COMMISSIONER
May 13,2002
SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ,H~;A~TH SERVICES
G~ GUIDANCE MEMO~UM #17
AGRICULTURAL AND GOLF COURSE DENSITY
AUTHORITY
Thc Suffolk County Sanitary Code sets forth requi~ments for apprOVal of water and sewage disposal
systems. The statutory authority for these guidcllnes can be foUnd in Article 6 Section 760~603.
PURI~SE
Article 6 allows for thc installation of sabsarfacc sewage disposal systems in :Groundwater Management
Zones (GWMZ) Ill, V, and VI when.the population density :equivalent is equal to or less than that of,a
r~atty subdivision .or d~velopment of single family residences in which all parcels areat least 40~000 sq.
ft. For parcels that are-outside ofthese zones and served by a comm~mity water supply, the population
density equivalent is based on mlnlmuul 20~000 sq. ft. 10tS.
Axticlc 6 further defines :a clustered realty subdivision as one which allows a substantial nnlmproved
p-oftinii oftlie'It-act to ~d-Op~aval~tl uni~h~b'lt~; -Other ez~s'u~ctioz~ proje~hnt are not ~ubdivisio-m
of )nnd such as condominiums, ,plannexl l~tirement gommlmities, and apartments mum :also comply with
Article 6 population density ~quircmants. These requirements arc based on a standard subdivision yield
map or calculation of-thc adjusted gross land arc~.
~'ROBI~.M
The process of determining population density equivalent is straightforward when thc undeveloped
pordonis toxemain es.rmln~pmv~l :open space. Covenants and restrictions recorded against.the property
allow only got prope~y mainmmnce activities and passive .recreational pursuits :in the open space.
Comjflieafions arise when the.~ondevelgj)ed p?tion is ~ .,vC~osed .for _agricultural use or recreational ~'f
oonce~il~fiO~lS ~rl-~;l;Oll~,~i:gat~r ~ 4 ~lg/I~ in .GYV'~/IZ ]]], ¥, ~ ~und (6 ~lgJL in,,the l'c~sin~g .zones, it is
incumbent on the dcpaYanent to disallow lot .~e]_ii for.~cb.uses:
Monitoring ~well data'has shown that .turf m~co and _a~rioulture; can ladd s~i~q_an_t nitrogen ~o ~
~as shows an average nitrog~ ¢oncen~atinn o£.approximate]y 4 Mg/L
and data from~ fields shows ~t~ nitrate lov&s from ~ficultural pra¢ficos ~xcoed 6 Mg/L in
This guid.nce ~or allocating donsity for parcels wh~ agriculture, or .gOlf courses or other recreational
turf are proposed of.allowed supersedes all previous guidellnas and is as ~onows:
I~ deter"'''.;I''o ,allowable 'de~siw~ieo~ider as :develn.~tile only that :land which will NOT be ~sed
fo__r a~ieuttur~l.~,,golf:enurse~ or other ,recr~fional ,tur~
· ff 40 acres of a 100 acre parcd may be farmed,~or used as agolf course, then approximately :60 units
(based ~on l unit per acre) would be allowed in Zones 111, V, and VI, .and approximately 120 units
would be allowed in other zones (based on:2 units per aere). This assumes full yield; Actual yield
Would likely be lower based on either a standard 20~000/40,000 ~. ~..yield map or 75% of adjusted
:gross land arem
· if a vineyard wishes to construct a .Winery and "wine tasting" facili.ty, only that .portion ol' the
~vineyavd not in crops maY be used for..caicutafion of population density equivalent.
· For condnminltrms or like ~nits :intca:iii~ngled ~ith ~a goff :course, thc :golf course portion of the
preje~,-t-mast'be seperated.out~ofthe'-parcel:-m De~'ity world be!based on the.remainder of'the
· For golf courses, density for .accessory uses such as clubhouse or restaunmt, may .be derived from
those areas not acVmi~y used 'for Play such as,parking, area of buildings ~and area of any wooded
. po_nion_s:ofthc.parcel co s . . .....
· For pm-existing developments where land has.bean set aside for agricultural usc or recreational tur~
the same rul~s .apply. Hence, a;partially ,devel~ped.percel may not .claim densi!7 credit for acreage
used foragriculture .or recreational ~.regardlezs of deasit~,allocation formulas'that were originally
used in the ~eView and approval of the initial developme,t proposals.
Issued by:
Vim A. Minei, P.E., Director,
Division of Environmontal Quality
May 13,2002-
R~v. July 22, 2002; january 31, 2003; April'2;3, 2:003
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
ATTACHMENT F
SCDHS Design Flow Factors
S-OX1 D~ lfXB]:lf~l DBSTG~J FLOW
All sub-surface sewage d/sposal systens are to be designed
according to the occupancy rating and/or the following criteria~
Building US~ [ Design Flow
Single Fa~ly Equivalent I 300 gallons/day
Eff~ciency Apar~ments/Hotsl/Motel~ 100 gallons/day/unit plus food service
a
2 Bedroom Apartment day
3 B~ Condom4~iu~ I 300 allons da
Planned Ret
r g space
Bowling Alley, l~aoquetball or
Tennis Courts J 100 or
floor area
servLce
Public
Bars
Markets and Wet Stores
sen & Fo~
Dr~ Stores
Take
Bath House
ser'q'3, ce
area
area
floor.area
arsa
Town of Southold
TDR ]?rogram 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 TDPJplanning 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
centedHALO 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:
· wetlands
· community facilities
· existing protected lands
· lots less than .5 acre except for Orient which was 1 acre (nonconforming under HALO
down zoning)
· 15% of the subdividable 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: · 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
· The HALO areas used in these calculations also include land in the hamlet centers
· The half 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
Southold 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 should 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
Cutchogue 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 will 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/Workforce 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. 1 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.
5
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
APPENDIX C
EAF Part I, Town Board
Summary
Page 4
14-16-2 (2/87)-7c SEQR
617.21
Appendix A
State Environmental OualiW Review
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL A~SSESSMENT FORM
P~. rp. ose: The full EAF is designed to .h~elp ap~.lieants agd ag~enqies, determine, in an ,orderly ~m~.er,
w~aetlaer a project or action may_pc signinuant. 'lhe question ot whether a~. action may oe si.g~incant is
not always easy to answer. Frequently., there are aspects of a project that are anhjective or
unmeasureable. It is also understood .tljat those who deterd~e significance may have little.or no formal
knowledge of the environment or ..may, t~¢ technically expert in emaro~ .m~, en.tal aq'alysis. In add}~tion, m~y
who have knowledge in one particmar area may not be aware oI me oroaaer concern aneetlhg me
question of significance.
d The full EAF is intended to prov,ide~ a method.whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the
etermination process has been oroeny, comprehensive in nature, yet fle~ble to allow introduction of
information to ht a project or action.
Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts.
Part 1: Provides objeCtive data and information 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 identity.'.' ~ the range of p. ossible immcts that may occur from a project or action.
It provides guidance as to whe_.'iher~ an i~,pact ~is l~,.ely tq be, considered small ,to moderate, or whether, it
is a potentially-large impact, lne Iorm arno inenfifies wnemer an impact can ~e mifigatea or renucea.
Part 3: If any.impact in Part 2..is identified as potentially-large, then Pan 3 is used to evaluate
whether or not the anpact is actually important.
DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE - TY~E 1 AND UNLISTED ACTIONS
Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: X Part 1 Part 2 Part 3
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 i£ approp?at¢), and any other
supportin, g informatiqn,, .avpd ,con, sidaring ,both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is
reasonamy oeterminen oy me icao agency mat:
A. The projqct will not ,result in any large.and important ira. pac~t(s) and, therefor, e, .is one which
-- will not nave a signincant impact on me environment, merexore a negative aeczaration will
be prepared.
B Althg_ugh the__proiect.could ,have a signi,ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a
-- signilicant ellect lor this unlisted Action oecause the mitigation measures described in PART 3
have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.*
C. The project, may result in on.e or,more large and. im. portant imp, ac, ts that may,have a significant
-- impact on the environment, therexore a positive aecmratlon wm ne preparea.
*A Conditioned NegativeI)eclamtion is only valid for Unlisted Actions
Town of $outhold Transfer of Development Rights Program Name of Action
Town Board
Scott A. Russell
Name of Lead Agency
Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency
Supervisor
Title of Respomible Officer
Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency
Signature of Preparer
If different fi'om responsible officer)
Date
PART 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION
Prepared by Project Sponsor
N.O .TI~CE: Tl~i~'~s docun3ent is designed to. assist in d. ete .m3ining whether _the action proposed may have a
.s)gmncant .eltect .o,n the env.ir, onment. Please complet.e tla. e entire form, Parts A t~ough E. Answers to
m~e~ qu.esUons ,Wld b9 cons)dered as p..art of the a.l~phcaUon for app. roval and may be subiect to further
verm.caUo_n ana public review. Provtde any admtionai informhfion you believe will 'be needed to
complete Parts 2 and 3.
It is exvected that completion of the full EAF will be deoendent on information currently available and
will not involve new sfudies, research or investigatian~ id'information requiring such additional work is
unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance.
NAME OF ACTION
Town of Southold 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
Town Board, Town of Southold
ADDRESS
Town Hall 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179
CITY/PO STATE
Southold NY
BUSINESS TELEPHONE
(631) 765-1938
ZIP CODE
11971
NAME OF OWNER (If different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE
ADDRESS
CITY/PO STATE ZI? CODE
DESCKIPT]ON OF ACTION
(See Attached)
Please Complete Each Question - Indicate N.A. if not applicable
A. SITE DESCRIFFION
Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas.
1. Present land use: Urban Industrial Commercial
Rural (non-farm) X Forest
X Residential (Suburban)
X Agriculture
2. Total acreage of project area: N/A acres
APPROXIMATE ACREAGE N/A PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION
Meadow or Bmshland (Non-agricultural) acres acres
Forested acres acres
Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) acres acres
Wetland (Freshwater or Tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) acres acres
Water Surface Area acres acres
Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) acres acres
Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces acres acres
Other (Indicate type), acres acres
3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? Haven-Riverhead and Carver-PIFmouth -
Riverhead soil Associations
a. Soil drainage: N/A Well drained __% of site; Moderately well drained % of site;
Poor drained __ % of site
b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil ~oup 1
through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? N/A acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370).
2
4. Arc there bedrock outcr'opp, ing on project site? Yes X No
a. What is depth to bedrock? 1,000:t: (in fee"f)~
5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: N/A 0-10% %; 10-15% %
15% or ~-"~ter -- % --
6. ~ p.roject..substsntialJ~.9ontigu~ns t~o~ or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the
rqa'dobal Kegisters ozHistoric maces. Yes .__~o N/A
7. Is proiect substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks?
Yes No
8. What is the depth ofthe water table? * (in feet) * Variable (O-95± feet)
9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? X Yes No
10.Dohunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? X Yes __No
11.Does project site contain any species of plant or aninlal life that is identified as threatened or
endangered? Yes No According to N/A
Identify each species
12.Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological
formations) __ Yes X No Describe
13.Is the project site presently used by the cormnunity or neighborhood as an open space or recreation
area? X Yes No If yes, explain Sending Areas: Open space rural qualitiest historic
settine, prominent views
14.Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to thc community?
X Yes No (Sending Areas)
5. Streams within or contiguous to project area Multiple surface waters within Town
a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary
&Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: Multiple wetlands within Town
a. Name b. Size On Acres) ~
7.Is the site served by existing public utilities? X Yes No Partial water/gas service;
However, water supply limitations are present and no sewer districts are presen£.
a) l. fYes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? X Yes No (See Above)
b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? X Yes No
8.1s the site located in an a~ieultural district eertifie, d p .u~s~ uant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article
25-AA, Section 303 and 304? X Yes ~4o {oending Areas)
19.Is ~e §i,te ~loc~at.ed ~.qr sub, ~st~,t~ial, 1.~c~ogt, i~oua to,,a .Critical Env'.ugnm~tal Area designated pursuant
toAIIlCle~5oltheg~,L, anllolXlXcl~t~.Ol/[ ~ les lxlO (Pat'titd)
20.Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? Yes X No
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION* ACTION IS LEGISLATIVE -- No physical changes are
proposed; project/site specific impacts may occur.
1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate)
a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor Entire Town.
b. Project acreage to be developed N/A acres initially;. N/A acres ultimately.
c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped N/A acres.
d. Length of project, in miles: N/A (if appropriate)
e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed N/A
f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing N/A ;proposed N/A
g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour N/A (upon completion of project)?
h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: N/A
One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium
Initially
Ultimately
3
i. Dimensions (in feet) oflargestproposedstructure:N/A height; N/A width; N/A length.
j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? N/A fL
2. How~ ..much naturgl ,material (i~e., rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site?
~V/A tens/cumc yaras.
3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? __ Yes No X N/A
a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed?
b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? Yes No
c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? Yes No
4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? N/A acres.
5. Will oa~t~y m~, forest (,ov~ 101~ y .mr,,s old) or other loc.ally-im, po,~ant vegetation be renaoved by th/s
project. _ xes 2t ~o t'ossmte Juture project pnysicat atteration.
6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction N/A months, (including demolition).
7. If multi-phased: N/A
a. Total number of phases anticipated (number).
b. Amicipateddateofcommeacement phase 1 __month__
c. Approximate completion date of final phase __ month __
d. Is phase I functionally depeadeat on subsequent phases?
8. Will blasting occur during construction? Yes X No
9. Number of jobs generated: during construction N/A ; after project is complete
10.Number ofjobs eliminated by this project N/A
year (including demolition).
year.
Yes No
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; not part of
a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industr/al, etc.) and amount leeislative changes.
b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged
13.Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? __ Yes X No Type: SanitarF wastewater
14.Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal?
If yes, explain:
Yes ~ No
15.Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? X Yes No (Partial)
16.Will the project generate solid waste? X Yes No
a. If yes, what is the amount per month N/A tons I
b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? X Yes No
c. If yes, give name Town £acility location Cutchogue
d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? X Yes
e. If yes, explain Rec~clable vortion of waste streatm
No
17.Wiil the project involve the disposal of sohd waste? Yes X No
a. Ifyes, what is the anticipated rate ofdisposal? tons/month.
b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years.
18.Will project use herbicides or pesticides? __ Yes X No
19.Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? Yes
20.Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels?
~XNo
Yes X No
21 .Will project result in an increase in energy use? X Yes __ No
If yes, indicate type(s) Proieet Specific
22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity N/A gallous/minute.
23.Totalanticipatedwaterusageperday N/A gallons/day. (See also Narrative Request, Section D).
24.Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? Yes X No
If yes, explain
25.Al~provals Required: The Town Board is the only agency that.can implement the TDR Program.;
a~-oJ~ever; other related project speciJ3c approvals are as ~llows.
Type Submittal
Town Board X Yes No
Town Planning Board X Yes __ No
Town Zenfing Board __..X Yes __ No
County Health Department X Yes __ No
Other Local Agencies X Yes __ No
State Agencies X Yes __ No
Other Regional Agencies __ Yes X No
Federal Agencies __ Yes X No
Rezoning, Legislation
Site Plan, Subdivision
Variances
Water Supply, Sanitary System
Roadwork
Roadwork, 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 zoning variance X special use permit X subdivision X site plan
__ new/revision of master plan X resource management plan X other LWRP Consistenc~
2. What is the zoning classification(s) of the site? Multiole residential, commercial and special~,onine
dletytet&
3. What is the maximum potential development ot ~e s~te il tlevelopeO as pennlttea t~y the pre~ent
zoning?
4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? Possible changes to result from vianning efforta
5. What is the maximum !ootential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed
zoning?
6. ~.th~ proposed ac. ti.'on consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans?
A..&_ ~es __ ~o
7. W~..t ~e the~,re4t, o ,minant land u~,e,(s) and zoning classifications within a 1/4 mile radius of proposed
aeuon; Multiple ~oning ana rand uses; Town-wide
8. Is th~qPorOposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a 1/4 mile? X Yes
9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? N/A
a. What is the minimum lot size proposed?
10.Will proposed action require a~), anthorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts?
~tes X No
11.Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education,
police, fire protection)? __ Yes X No Potential specific needs will be addressed.
a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? __ Yes No
12.Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels?
__ Yes X No Planning efforts expected to reduce buildout traffic
a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? Yes
NO
5
D. INFORMATIONAL DETAILS AND WATER SUPPLY NARRATIVE REQUEST
Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your p.rojeet. If there are or may be any
adverse i~paets associated with){our proposal, please discuss sucl~ inipacts and the measuxes which
you propose to mitigate or avoid mem.
E. VERIFICATION
! certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge.
Applicant/Sponsor Name Scott A. Russell Date October 15, 2007
Signature Title Town Supervisor
If the action is in th.e. Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment
Form before proceeding with this assessment.
F. PREPARER
Name Charles J. Voorhis, CEP, AICP; NP& V
Signature
Date
Title Managing Partner
6
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
EAF Part 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed action involves an amendment to the Southold Town Code to implement a voluntary
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program, 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 I transferred
credit is proposed to equal 1 receiving credit. 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.
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.
As required by SEQRA, the potential environmental impacts associated with the CIS were determined,
described and analyzed in a GEIS, and a Findings Statement was prepared. The Findings Statement
discussed the potential impacts of the recommendations analyzed in the CIS, and established procedures
to be followed when the Town Board implemented those recommendations. These procedures included
preparation of supplemental analyses for these recommendations.
It should be emphasized that the proposed action involves primarily legislative changes, with no specific
physical changes proposed.
The proposed TDR program is expected to provide the following public benefits:
· Protect critical resources associated with Sending Areas including rural character, farm and
agricultural land use to promote land preservation and environmental protection.
· Provide an increase in the amount of diverse housing stock for a variety of income levels.
· Reduce suburban sprawl and promote "smart growth" development principals including
strengthening of hamlets and businesses, walkable communities, sustainable growth, mixed-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 infmstructare needs as a result of encouraging controlled development in appropriate use
· Promote 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.
· Promote the long-term planning 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.
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.
Page 1
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
APPENDIX D
Positive Declaration
Summary
Page 5
SEQRA POSITIVE DECLARATION
Notice of Intent to Prepare 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, Supervisor
Address:
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Date: October 15, 2007
This notice is issued pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to
Axticle 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act - SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law
and Chapter 44 of the Town Code of the Town of Southold.
The lead agency has determined that the proposed action described below may have a significant effect
on the environment and that a Draft Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)
for the Town Comprehensive Implementation Strategy (CIS) will be prepared.
Title of Action:
Town of Southold, Transfer of Development Rights Program
SEQR Status:
Type I Action
Description o fAction:
The proposed action involves an amendment to the Southold Town
Code to implement a voluntary Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
program, to permit and facilitate private transactions that would shift
development fxoln 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. The proposed action
would include a limit on the number of uints that can be received in the
HALO zones to maintain a careful balance of existing COrnrmnlity
character and ensure compliance with density limitations of the Suffolk
County Department of Health Services.
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
Determination of Significance
Town Transfer of Development Rights Program
(2002-03) reviewed in terms of current needs and Town goals, ia 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 plznning documents reiterated
recommendations of prior Town plans and studies, resulting in much
consistency between studies and the goals of the Town over the years.
As mqaired by SEQRA, the potential environmental impacts associated
with the CIS were determined, described and analyzed in a GEIS, and a
Findings Statement was prepared. The Findings Statement discussed
the potential impacts of the recommendations analyzed in the CIS, and
established procedures to be followed when the Town Board
implemented those recommendations. These procedures included
preparation of supplemental analyses for these recommendations.
It should be emphasized that the proposed action involves primarily
legislative changes, with no specific physical changes proposed.
The proposed TDR program is expected to provide the following
public benefits:
· Protect critical resources associated with sending parcels
including rural character, farm and agricultural land use to
promote land preservation and environmental protection.
· Provide an increase in the mount of diverse housing stock for a
variety of income levels.
· Reduce suburban sprawl and promote "smart growth"
development principals including strengthening of hamlets and
businesses, walkable communities, sustainable growth, mixed-use
development, improvements to and use of existing infrastructure,
controlled in-f'fll development, reduction in vehicle trip ends, and
increase in inter-modal transportation opportunities.
· Reduce in~astructure needs as a result of encouraging controlled
development in appropriate use areas.
· Promote beneficial design guidelines and standards within the
hamlets including nco-traditional development in appropriate
areas, maintenance of natural vegetation, minimization of
fertilizer application, buffers and setbacks.
· Promote the long-term planning 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.
hi snmmary, 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.
Page 2
Determination of Significance
Town Transfer of Development Rights Program
Location:
The proposed action would apply to the Sending Areas and Receiving
Axeas as designated ~n the proposed action.
SCTM No.:
(sec attached list of tax lot numbers of the Sending 3xeas, and map of
the Sending & Receiving Areas)
Reasons Supporting This Determination:
The proposed project involves the implementation of a land preservation technique that was
recommended in numerous prior Town planning studies. Therefore, it is consistent with the Town
Comprehensive Plan, which embodies the goals, legislative actions and the record of decisions that forms
the Town's direction in terms of achieving its vision. The proposed action is not expected to cause
significant adverse impacts, since it advances the goals of the Town. However, the action is of Town-
wide significance, and does involve changes to natural and human resources. In addition, since the
action is a Town-wide initiative, it is determined to be a Type I action pursuant to SEQRA Part 617, and
therefore is more likely to require an environmental impact statement. Since the action will affect
property, resources and the shaping of the Town's future, it is prudent to prepare a Supplemental GEIS.
Finally, the Findings Statement prepared for the CIS GEIS 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 been reviewed pursuant to the Criteria for Determination of Significance
contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.7. Consideration has been given to information supplied by the
applicant including a Part 1 Environmental Assessment Form.
The proposed action may result in impacts to the natural and human resources of the Town,
individually, cumulatively or synergistically. Zone changes and/or Town Code revisions may be
necessary to implement recommendations.
The action may set a precedent with regard to the growth and character of the Town and/or
individual communities.
For Further Information Contact:
Patricia A. Finnegan, Esq., Town Attorney
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Telephone: (631) 765-1889
Copies of this Notice Sent to:
Town of Southold, Supervisor's Office
Town of Southold, Town Clerk
Town of Southold, plsnnintg Board
Town of Southold, Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Southold, Town Trustees
Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services
Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works
Suffolk County Water Authority
Suffolk County pJnnning Commission
NYS Dept. of Environ, mental Conservation, Commissioner, Albany
NYS Dept. of Environmantal Conservation, Regional Office, Stony Brook
NYS Dept. of Transportation
Page 3
Deter~tination of Significance
Town Transfer of Development Rights Program
NYS Dept. of State
US Army Corps of Engineers
Parties of Interest Officially on Record with the Town Clerk (if applicable)
Page 4
Town of Southold
TDR Program & DSGEIS Summary
Transfer of Development Rights Program
TDR PROGRAM PLANNING REPORT AND
DSGEIS 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 To~vn 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 Suftblk
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.
Obiectives 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 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 supports 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.
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
Town of Southold
TDR Program & DSGEIS Summary
Transfer of Development Rights Program
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 tbnns 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 confbrmance 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 part of both landowners that choose to sell development
rights from sending parcels and 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 program 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 program 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 ~nust be
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
Sanitary Code and as a result of the Hamlet Development Model and resulting limitations.
Town of Southold
TDR Program & I)SGEIS Summary
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Hamlet growth will be monitored through program implementation to ensure that open space
remains in hamlet areas, and development occurs in a ~nanner that is consisteot with design goals
of the Town.
5. Development will take the tbnn 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 limited density increases of new subdivisions;
· Two-Family 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 Planned Development District
6. Purchase of development rights and outright land purchase programs will continue, thus
continuing to reduce density and potential impacts of land development primarily outside of
hamlet 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 charmel 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 gro~vth potential in the Town and that changes would
be beneficial as a result of better conforn~ance 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
mitigation of potential adverse impacts. These provide mitigation that is inherent in the TDR
program. Two tables summarizing potential impacts as well as mitigation measures are included
as Tables ! and 2.
Town of Southold
TDR Program & DSGE1S Summary
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Alternatives Considered
The following alternatives are considered in detail in the DSGEIS:
I. No Action - assumes that the proposed action is not implemented.
2. Density Transfer Incentive - assumes that development credits are 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 am established as sending areas.
4. Non-Residential Credit Redemption ~ assumes that development credits can be redeemed for non-
residential use.
5. TDR Bank- assumes the Town establishes a method for pumhase and m-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-making 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
prep.aration of legislation by the Town Attorney and follow proper hearing notice and filing
requtrements 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, biking, car
pooling, public transportation).
Page 4
Table 1 - SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
To~vn of SoUl'Id
TDR Program & DSGEIS Summary
Transfer of Development Rights Program
ResoUrce · BenefiCial Impacts Potential Adverse Impacts
Would preserve existing farmland on Sending sites, and eliminate development · Would result in clearing and grading in
Ge0!0gic~Res~es potential from these 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 withdrawals in rural areas.
Wa~rReSo~ees ~ 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 fragmentation 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
· exists.W°uld place additional density in areas where road systems and infrastructure reduced traffic generation in sending areas;
are more walkable and promote use
HALOs
~i Would encourage pedestrian activity and use of alternative forms of transportation, of alternative transportation.
· Would maintain rural land use patterns.
~:~?~.~: ~,. Would provide for divemity of housing types in HALO areas, which would
~ otherwise not be possible.
· No adverse impacts expected.
Would establish conditions to address aflbrdable housing needs.
~':~ ; : 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 community services
:
iintt I ~
.n.m,.ac.s,orura. serv, ces. and infrastructure in HALO areas, with
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 of the hamlet areas. · Would result in more development in HALO
t~r Would strengthen consumer base for business interests in hamlets, adding to areas, with 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.
Soeib~Ec, onomic~ · Would necessitate costs to provide services to
· Would stimulate establishment of new business in HALO areas, the HALO development.
Page 5
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
Table 2 - SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
I~-es°m'ce ~tential ~Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures
Geological Resources * 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, pro)ect sites; site plan and subdivision review will minimize potential impacts.
- · · Would use public water supply in HALO areas
. ~:" and not in sending area locations. · Public water will be supplied by the Suffolk County Water Authority in conformance with
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, " Article 6 limitations based on 20,000 SF lots.
';" ~ ' :'. with reduced load in sending areas.
::-:: ' ,, Would decrease natural vegetation and habitat · HALO areas generally are suitable for development due to the current land use pattern;
acreages in HALO areas for those parcels which current activity levels preclude the presence of unique or sensitive wildlife species; impacts
;,, :,. ' :: ¢ currently possess such characteristics, would be localized to specific projects sites and site plan and subdivision review would be
:. :: ,,* 4: 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
,;: 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.
· ¢ '~ ~': * The proposal would implement the Towns intended land use pattern through zoning law
? . :. ~. · No adveme 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
.... Se infrastructure in HALO areas, with reduced community needs; it is noted that the TDR program anticipates equal density between
~ . r,,nees 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.
· Would result in more development in HALO the Hamlet Density Model was discussed; a limit on development that will be monitored
· Communities participated in planning during the hamlet study and in the fall of 2006 when
Comm~ity : areas, with resultant reduction of development in will be used to control density and assist in addressing community character; community
sending areas; HALO development would be
varied and potentially smaller in unit size. use will be subject to small incremental changes over time and as a result can accommodate
reasonable use through equal density transfer.
· The program anticipates equal density with no increase in what is permitted under full build
Socio-Eeonomics · Would necessitate costs to provide services to the out Townwide; the TDR program is voluntary which is a mitigation in itseIf; the program
provides options to landowners wishing to preserve agricultural use, and will be used to
HALO development, 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.
Summary
e6
Summary
Town of Southold
TDR Program Planning Report
TABLE 4-2
POTENTIAL RECEIVING CREDITS
SchOol District Total Potential
TDR 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 HALO's.
Oysterponds UFSD includes East Marion and Orient HALO'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 mn
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 I 10 98 29
Notes: Mattit~ck IJFSD includes Mattimck and Cutchogue HALO's.
Southold LrFSD includes Peconic and Southold HALO's.
Oysterponds UTSD includes East Marion and Orient HALO'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.
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
TDR PROGRAM PLANNING REPORT AND
SGEIS SUMMARY
Summar~ 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. 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 nnmerous 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 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 resoumes 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 supports 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.
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.
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.
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
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 HAL O'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 part of both landowners that choose to sell development
rights from sending parcels and 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 program 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 ElS that identified this program 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 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 am potential impacts which have not been adequately addressed.
3. Them 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
Sanitary Code.
4. Hamlet growth will be monitored through program implementation to ensure that open space
remains in hamlet areas, and development occurs in a manner that is consistent with design goals
of the Town.
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
5. Development will take 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 limited density increases of new subdivisions;
· Two-Family 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 Planned Development
District
6. Purchase of development rights and outright land purchase programs will continue, thus
continuing to reduce density and potential impacts of land development primarily outside of
hamlet 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 sanitaw, water supply and drainage systems, roadway
improvements, increased community services capacities (schools, 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 will potential for
adverse impacts. These are a form of mitigation that are inherent in the TDR program. A brief
table of additional mitigation measures is included in Table 2 at the end of this summary
document.
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
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 are increased when transferred to a
receiving ama.
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 - assumes that development credits can be redeemed for non-
residential use.
5. TDR Bank- 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 Enviromnental 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-making 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 fimds to go
farther in achieving total preservation goals through continued use of PDR. This form of
development would also achieve a greater level of sustalnability 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).
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic EIS
Table 1
SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
Resource Beneficial Impacts Potential Adverse Impacts
i Would preserve existing farmland on Sending sites, and eliminate development * Would result in clearing and grading in
Geological Res0urces potential from these 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 withdrawals in rural areas, areas and not in sending area locations.
Water Resources · Would eliminate discharge ofsanitary effiuent 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
1
Eco ogical Resources · Would enable preservation of existing agricultural land in large contiguous blocks, acreages in HALO areas for those parcels
with less fragmentation 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
TransPOrtation * Would place additional density in areas where road systems and infrastructure reduced traffic generation in sending areas;
Resot~rces exists. HALOs are more walkable and promote use
· Would encourage pedestrian activity and use of altemative 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 Use, Zoning & otherwise not be possible.
Plans ° 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 community services
CommUnity Services in impacts to rural services, and infrastructure in HALO areas, with
· 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 of the hamlet areas. · Would result in more development in HALO
Community Character · Would strengthen consumer base for business interests in hamlets, adding to areas, with 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.
Socio-Econornics · 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.
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Draft Supplemental Generic ElS
Table 2
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
Resource Potential Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures
GeologiealResources · 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 bom density shill, project sites; site plan and subdivision review will minlmiTe potential impacts.
· Would use public water supply in HALO areas
and not in sending area locations. * Public water will be supplied by the Suffolk County Water Authority in conformance with
the approved water map; hamlet locations are identified as appropriate water supply areas.
Water Resources · Would locally increase nitrogen load in HALO
areas through transfer conforming to Article 6, · A model was used to ensure that the average density of new development will not exceed
with reduced load in sending areas. Article 6 limitations based on 20,000 SF lots.
· Would decrease natural vegetation and habitat · HALO areas generally are suitable for development due to the current land use pattern;
Ecol0gieal Resources acreages in HALO areas for those parcels which current activity levels preclude the presence of unique or sensitive wildlife species; impacts
currently possess such characteristics, 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.
· Though traffic would increase in some areas, it is noted that density is transferred fi-om
· Would generate traffic in HALO areas with other locations within the hamlet and many of these trips would exist on area roads;
Transportation reduced traffic generation in sending areas; development in hamlets is encouraged for walkability shared parking and trips and use of
Resources 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, Zoning & ° The proposal would implement the Towns intended land use pattern through zoning law
Plans ,, No adverse impacts expected, measures in conformance with past land use plans and studies; land use can be monitored
and ad. iustments made if found to be necessary.
· Service providers would experience small incremental increases in demand over a long
i· Would result in need for community services and period of time and as a result, providers would have time to anticipate and serve
Community Services infrastructure in HALO areas, with reduced community needs; it is noted that the TDR program anticipates equal density between
demand in sending areas; HALOs can more transfer and receiving areas and would not increase density.
readily provide infi-astructure. · 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 fall of 2006 when
· Would result in more development in HALO
the Hamlet Density Model was discussed; a limit on development that will be monitored
Connnunity Character areas, with resultant reduction of development in will be used to control density and assist in addressing community character; community
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 density transfer.
· The program anticipates equal density with no increase in what is permitted under full build
Soeio-Economics · Would necessitate costs to provide services to the out Townwide; the TDR program is voluntary which is a mitigation in itself; the program
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.
Summary
Summary
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
PUBLIC HEARING
May 27, 2008
7:30 PM
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN That the Town Board will hold a public hearing on
the Draft GElS for the Transfer of Development Rights {TDR) at a special Town
Board Meeting on May 27~ 2008 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, 53095
Main Road~ Southold, to receive public comment on the DGEIS. At least 10 days will
be provided for written comment after the close of the public hearing.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: What I would like to do is I would like to get the meeting
underway. Would everybody please rise and Pledge Allegiance to the Flag? Okay,
tonight's public hearing with reference to a Transfer of Development rights or TDR
program for Southold Town is the culmination of a couple of years of work and study by
groups within Southold Town government and with the help of a consultant who I would
like to introduce now, to come up and give everybody a brief summary of the work and
where we are at. So, without further ado, Chick Voorhis.
CHARLES VOORHIS: Thank you, Scott. Good evening. My name is Charles Voorhis
with the firm of Nelson, Pope and Voorhis and I am hem tonight as consultant to the
Town of Southold assisting with the Transfer of Development rights program that is
currently under consideration. The purpose of the meeting tonight is to receive input
from the public on the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the TDR
program that the Town Board is currently considering. The Town Board received a draft
TDR report last year back in 2007 and in review of that proposed action, the Town Board
assumed lead agency, classified the project as a Type 1 action and found that the project
could have one or more potential adverse environmental impacts. As a result, a positive
declaration was issued and that required the preparation of the Draft Generic
Environmental Impact Statement. So we are here tonight to receive input on the Draft
GEIS. That document was accepted by the Town Board on April 22, 2008 and the Board
did hold a public information meeting on the TDR program on May 6, 2008, just a few
weeks ago and at that night information was distributed that included a summary of the
document, information about the process and you know, was available for clarification
purposes. So tonight, I just want to stress that no decision has been made and no decision
will be made tonight. We are here to receive comments on that document that that
information meeting was held on and has been in cimulation. The DGEIS and the notice
of the public hearing were circulated to involved agencies and parties of interest and the
document itself was made available on the Town's website, at the Town offices and the
two local libraries. All requirements of SEQRA part 617 of the ECL and the rules and
regulations have been complied with, with respect to this process. The DGEIS will be
Southold Town Board Public Hearing 2
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
the subject ora comment period for at least 30 days as is required by law, which will end
10 days after the close of the public hearing. Comments made in writing carry an equal
weight with comments made at the hearing, so as a result you are encouraged to provide
written comments in addition to or in lieu of any comments made at this hearing. And I
am speaking really for the benefit of the public, the Board is aware of this process but just
to provide a summary of the process that will carry forward. After the close of the
comment period which we anticipate will occur 10 days after the close of the public
hearing, I will assist the Board and the team that prepared the Environmental Impact
statement in preparing responses to all of the comments that are on record. So this
includes all of the written and all comments. The Town Board will ensure that that
document is complete and will accept that as a Final Generic Environmental Impact
Statement at the appropriate time. Once the final GEIS is accepted, that will also be
available on the Town's website, in the local libraries and at Town Hall. And that will be
made available and circulated for at least 10 days after the acceptance of that document.
Once that is complete, the SEQRA process is basically done from the standpoint of
public input but this Board will make an appropriate statement of findings on the ElS
process that weighs and balances the social, economic and environmental issues with
respect to the overall action. So as you can see, the process involved a number of
opportunities for public input. This evening we are requesting comments on the contents
of the ElS which has been circulated. Just a few very quick ground rules and then we will
proceed to the open comments. If you wish to speak, raise your hand. Scott will
recognize you and once recognized, come forward, provide your name and address for
the record, tell the Board your specific comments on the document and speak clearly, as
your comments will be made part of the record. We will not exchange in dialogue or
endeavor to answer questions tonight, this is strictly to receive public input. And I will
stress again, all substantive comments will be addressed in the final ElS and you may
submit written comments for a period of 10 days after this evening to complete the
process. So, Mr. Supervisor, I guess if you would like to conduct the meeting and
recognize speakers, I will be here to listen, take notes and collaborate with the team to
help with the final EIS after we receive all the comments.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay, thank you. With that being said. Mr. Meinke?
HOWARD MEINKE: Hi, my name is Howard Meinke, 7075 Peconic Bay Boulevard in
Mattituck. I am speaking for myself and North Fork Environmental Council. The early
discussions of TDR were pretty firm in saying it was going to be density neutral, so one
house would go from here and one house would land here. There would be no net
increase in numbers. From reading the document, it seems that a net density increase
should be expected because the value of one right to build on two acres is probably worth
more that one right to build on a smaller house on a half acre in the hamlet, thus TDR
will bring an increase in the number of residents, taxes, traffic, congestion and a loss of
rural atmosphere. So the one to one that has been talked about doesn't seem to be real, it
seems as though it is going to get to be higher than that. There is discussion in the TDR
plan and document that points out that the increase in residential develop in the hamlet
HALO through the TDR will necessitate an increase in commercial development and
infrastructure in the hamlet. This sounds logical. Consequently, we think that you
Southold Town Board Public Hearing 3
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
should allow TDR's to be used to augment commercial uses while we allow it to grow
the residential side of the hamlet and HALO zones. Thus we can get less than one to one
transfer and achieve a net reduction of density if they use commercial TDR's. I think it is
a mistake. We think it is a mistake not to do that. It is suggested in the report that
transfers of density would be aided by the addition of strategically placed sewage
treatment systems. We think that this is a bad idea. The forces of growth will use this
potential for added density to ram in more commercial and residential development. We
will have trouble keeping it rural without this added factor. Affordable housing will be
built and it will not require TDR, so there will be additional growth in the hamlets that is
(inaudible) through the slow increase in affordable housing and we just bring that up that
that is more growth that is not being counted in these documents here. The report states
that the movement of growth from two acre housing and large houses to the hamlet
HALO and smaller houses will result in a lesser tax impact because of fewer children. I
wonder if there is backup for this assertion. We can envision smaller houses with
younger occupants putting just as many kids in school as the larger two acre houses. We
are not sure that is a totally correct statement unless we see the backup. There is a
window of opportunity now during the mortgage crisis and the building slowdown to
determine how much growth in Southold is appropriate and to move legislation to set a
firm goal. A few years ago, NFEC presented a plan that used the 80 % preservation, 60
% density reduction idea as part of the conservation subdivision idea as a target for all of
Southold. From figures in the DGEIS of 2002, this meant that build out of 15,500
residences would be reduced to 12,434, when Southold was settled and, if you think
about the population numbers and the residence numbers, that makes sense to us.
Southold Town seriously needs this sort of stated objective. The current attitude of we
are doing fine now and if the numbers change, we will act, is fatally flawed. An up-to-
date comprehensive master plan that unequivocally states a build out goal that reflects
that citizens desire to preserve rural Southold will allow something real to be done. The
sudden awakening to over development without the backup of a master plan will be all
pain and no gain. To properly think about the potential of TDR, we need more
information. Southold needs an up-to-date analysis, possibly the status of preservation
and development as of December of 2007. The residential build out number, if all
existing houses and possible buildable lots are counted, is required. Of course, this also
requires an up-to-date calculation of the real build out potential of the hamlet and HALO
zones. With this, the Town Board plus the citizens can judge at what growth point
Southold loses the rural quality of life that makes it special. On the other hand, if as time
passes we agree that we are wrong, it is easy to authorize more growth. If we blunder on
with no plan and see that growth is strangling Southold, hand wringing will be our only
answer. The Town Board will have failed. The DGEIS also states that potential
residential units from all zones other than AC, R-80, R-40 would be 388. The TDR
reports sites the receiving zone for TDR's as allowing 663. This seems to be an
additional use in RDU's and we want to know where it will stop? Shouldn't we know
what the growth target is? Thank you.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you.
Southold Town Board Public Hearing
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
4
MR. VOORHIS: Scott, I think that such an important point...yeah, I just wanted to
clearly state that the proposal that is before you and the recommendation of the TDR
planning board is based on a one-to-one, density neutral transfer program. It is basically
to shift one unit from ascending site and have that be received as one unit at a receiving
site. There is an alternative in the EIS that does look at the potential for some type of
additional incentive but that was discounted as not being appropriate for the purpose of
you know, the plan that we are recommending to the Town Board. So we will complete
the process, we did also look at commercial receiving areas and transferring credits for
the purpose of commercial intensity and that is an alternative as well. So, I just wanted to
be clear on this. If Howard has any questions, he is welcome to call me and do you have
a copy of your written comments? Because the one part that I didn't follow (inaudible)
MR. ME1NKE: Well, I am, this is (inaudible) but I was going to tomorrow send or e-
mail in to the whole Board this document.
MR. VOORHIS: Great.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. My understanding is it is a density neutral
proposal. The calculation outside the HALO would be based on zoning. It is two acre
zoning, you needed to buy two acres to secure one building right, the calculation inside
the HALO for Suffolk County Department of Health purposes allows the Town to look at
half acre, one acre zoning. It is not a gift of zoning. It is to reach those development
potentials. You would need to secure the rights elsewhere. But my whole understanding
from the, I can't speak for the whole Board but I know that I myself and Councilman
Krupski firmly said this had to be a density neutral proposal. We are not in the business
of creating housing. Relocating it is something that seriously has to be considered
whether we are going to go that approach or not. But certainly not creating more housing
than the current zoning allows for. Would anybody else like to come up and address the
Board?
ROBIN IMANDT: I just want to clarify something. Robin Imandt, East Marion. So are
you saying one single occupancy building would be traded for one other single
occupancy building?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: The development to build, the potential to build would be
taken out of the sending area and relocated to the defined hamlet area. If you are in the
hamlet and you have two acres of property, even if it is zoned at two acres of zoning,
under the current zoning, you are allowed one building lot. If you are to go out and
secure two acres of two acre zoning outside of that hamlet center, you could transfer that
one building right back. In other words, you need two acres to make one house. Secure
two acres, buy one building right and then you can relocate on that property. At the end
of the day, you still are only trading offthe potential to build one here and relocating it to
here. It is density neutral.
Southold Town Board Public Hearing 5
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
MS. IMANDT: But if you change the size of the lot, the lot size let's say. You are going
from one single occupancy two acm and over hem now you are going to have quarter
acre.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Right.
MS. IMANDT: So you could have 8 units.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is right. The density would be increased but it would be
increased through the extinguishing of building potential elsewhere.
MS. IMANDT: Oh. Okay.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED: Inaudible.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Scott, I would just like you to clarify, you refer to
yourself and Councilman Kmpski. I think you ought to speak for the whole Board.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes. I am quite certain, you have to remember this started
with the previous Board, I am quite certain the whole Board was set on a density neutral
proposal from the beginning. I can't speak for the two councilmen who are new to the
Board and Councilman Wickham certainly, is by all means able to speak for himself, but
I can tell you when this started originally it was, the whole premise from the beginning,
density neutral. The idea wasn't to create new density. It was to relocate existing,
potential density.
BENJA SCHWARTZ: Hi, Supervisor Russell, members of the Town Board. Getting to
that. My name is Benja Schwartz. Remember me? For a long time you could never
remember my name Tom. But I think that was a long time ago. Maybe there is some
kind of a density neutral equation built into this proposal but that all depends on what
you, you know, what your frame of reference is. If you are considering this transfer of
development rights as an alternative to the purchase of development rights programs,
which have been so well received by the people of the Town of Southold, this is clearly
not density neutral, it is instead of extinguishing development rights by their purchase
and extinguishment, you are transferring them, into other places. I would just like a few
preliminary things. I sent an e-mail on May 20, Tuesday May 20. Was that a week ago
today? Asking for access through the website for the Town of Southold Generic
Environmental Impact Statement. The document which we are considering today is
designated a supplemental generic environmental impact statement. Well, there is a
mistake on the home page of your website where it is abbreviated DGEIS. The DGEIS
was some other document that, it is in here, you can find the index of it on the website
but when you click on the links, they go nowhere. So it should have been a very simple,
very quick fix. But I sent that last week and asked to be notified when the links were
repaired and checking it this evening, they are still not repaired. So in order to really
Southold Town Board Public Hearing 6
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
consider this proposal and this supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, I think we
have to go at least as far back to the generic environmental impact statement which this is
a supplement to. I would suggest we need to go farther than that, to our infamous master
plan or comprehensive plan. Call it what you will. There are certain qualities, which
planning, especially master plan or comprehensive planning should have. It should be
complete, it should be consistent and it should be accessible. With all due respect, how
are we going to plan to change the zoning and to continue to, if we don't know what our
base is? What we are starting with. I think we established at the last Town Board
meeting that the Town Board is not familiar with the current master plan to the extent that
one does exist...
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I don't think we established that.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I have been to several of the library's to try to find the documents
that are supposedly a part of that plan. Although we don't know which documents are
part of that plan. There is no place where you can go and say this is part of a plan or this
isn't. It is a kind of a myth. Some people have suggested that we take some time out and
create a, at least an index, a frame of reference to that. It wouldn't take very long and if
we don't do it, we are going to be stuck for a long time with whatever we end up with as
a result of partisan politics and planning for private profit and this is what we are dealing
with in the heart of Cutchogue. 46 acre property, which last time we brought you a
petition with over 1,000 signatures Supervisor Russell and you said, oh, well, that
property is zoned for four units per acre and it is only going to be developed at two and a
half units, the current proposal is only for two and a half units per acre. Well, I did some
quick math yesterday and it comes out to like 3.65 almost 4 units per acre that the current
development with 140 units. The original proposal was for higher than the density for
which that property is zoned for. But in addition to the residential units there, there are
also proposing currently a large, private club to benefit the people who purchase the
condominiums, who will also get the lower tax breaks.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: With all due respect, this is about a TDR hearing tonight. I
can appreciate all these things that you talk about because we listen to them all the time.
But I would hope that we can just narrow the discussion tonight to TDR program.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Sorry but I misplaced one page ofmy notesbut ....
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay.
MR. SCHWARTZ: But in my review of the tape from the meeting a week ago, the
public information session on the TDR program, the Town's consultant spoke about,
excuse me ....
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Can you address the Board, please?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, but could you please keep...
Southold Town Board Public Hearing 7
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes, can the audience please be respectful of everybody's
right to speak?
MR. SCHWARTZ: There is one person here who is making a scene. He has been doing
it regularly. Your consultant for the Town spoke of and in the report, in the receiving
areas, it says that a variety of zoning districts in the hamlets that could potentially act as
receiving areas include hamlet density zones. But there are no hamlet density zones in
the hamlets. Hamlet density zones are the places that we are thinking about putting
hamlet density outside of the hamlets.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: You lost me on that.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, the hamlet density...
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: The HALO's you mean? Okay, hamlet versus HALO.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Right. The HD zoning was the idea that maybe we should have
some high density outside of the hamlets and those zones still exist although the hamlet
studies groups essentially proceeded as if there were no such thing. They ignored them.
One of those zones is the property in the heart of Cutchogue.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Right.
MR. SCHWARTZ: There was a discussion, comments by the consultant at the public
information meeting last week that perhaps the Town might like to do some rezoning to
create some new hamlet density zones. Some places that could receive the credits from
the areas where the development is going to be transferred from. With all due respect, I
think it is very, very relevant in this process that the Town not consider legislating new
zoning because essentially what you are doing is rezoning here and you know, you have
got a bunch of alternatives. You have got a lot of words in this report. But the number
one alternative to this program would be for the Town to accomplish the objectives of
reducing the density in areas where we don't want high density by down zoning. It was
called five acre zoning. That was rejected but that essentially is what we are trying to do,
is down zone to, excuse me, to up zone to reduce the density. It is confusing. We are
trying to up zone the sending areas and down zone the receiving areas. And one way that
this could be accomplished would be if the town would simply say you can have less
density, less building. The Town doesn't need to allow people to buy the rights and sell
the rights. The Town could do a planning study and just say, this is the amount of density
you can do in these areas and this is the amount of density you can do in these areas.
Everything else here is somewhat more or less of a smoke screen around that essential
alternative. That alternative is not included in this, in this environmental impact
statement here. Very simple. Do it by zoning, you know, I just, I am sorry, I need to go
back to the biggest problem that I see currently in the master plan, was this spot down
zoning and I will be brief here and I will try to give you an executive summary. Spot
down zoning of one particular farm, 46 acres, that was rezoned at the request of the
owner, by a negative declaration of the Town Board, meaning that there could not
possibly be any environmental impact of changing the zoning from one unit per two acres
Southold Town Board Public Hearing 8
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
to four units per acre or eight times the zoning, and at that time the Town Board found
we don't need to do an environmental impact statement because there won't be any
negative environmental impacts. Well, the Planning Board didn't agree with that the
following year. They said there had to be an environmental impact statement. The
developer refused to do one, the Planning Board denied their application and sued the
Town...
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I understand all this and this is a history we listen to every
two weeks but we really want to get a TDR hearing underway.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Alright. But this is, this is, that is now. Why hasn't that zoning
been looked at?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Good question.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, the owner of that property, Richard Cron, he was on the, in the
Cutchogue-New Suffolk Chamber of Commerce.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: We discussed this at the last work session. We had...
MR. SCHWARTZ: Did we talk about the...
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah. That was raised by Nancy, I believe, at the last Town
Board meeting that he had served as a hamlet ....
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, I would like to discuss it.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: And I appreciate that. We have a meeting next Tuesday to
discuss it.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I am not repeating what Nancy said.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: But we want to get on with the TDR hearing tonight and I
will listen to everything that you have to say at that forum which would be the Town
Board, the general discussion part of the Town Board meeting. But I really want to keep
the discussion narrowed to a TDR discussion this evening.
MR. SCHWARTZ: And my point is that this would be, if you are going to have four
units per acre outside of the HALO zone, outside of the hamlet center in the heart of the
farming heritage, in the area where there are two and a half times descending credits for
any other area in this proposal, in the Cutchogue hamlet; if you are going to have the
density there, then at the very least have the density transferred from some other part of
the thing and don't just rely on 25 year old zoning that was influenced by a man who was
on the master plan workshop committee, Richard Cron and Nancy didn't mention that, so
I am not repeating that.
Southold Town Board Public Hearing
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I think she did at the last meeting.
MR. SCHWARTZ: She didn't mention that he was on the master plan workshop
committee.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes, she did. Either way, I do appreciate that and everything
you said is valid...
MR. SCHWARTZ: She didn't talk about the other original partner, Bill Carroll, who
was, his sister was married to Henry Raynor's or his...
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Benja? For purposes of this hearing...
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: We understand that your comment is that hey, let that
Heritage project be an area to receive density through a transfer program rather than an as
of right four units to the acre. That is the take home message for the public hearing
tonight.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: And that is a very fair point.
MR. SCHWARTZ: And in terms of TDR's, I would like to make a point that calling
them development rights is not helping anyone to understand what is going on here.
They are actually development potential and indeed, when I looked up transfer of
development rights and potential, I found that every planner who had done a study of this
described it not as the transfer of development rights but as the transfer of development
potential. So I think if we look at it that way, I would love to see the Town move forward
with a transfer of development potential but not until we have a comprehensive plan
which covers the whole town and I am not just talking about the Heritage. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Good point, Benja. I appreciate that. Mr. Baiz.
CHRIS BAIZ: Good evening, Supervisor Russell, members of the Town Board. My
name is Chris Baiz, I am a resident of Southold. I have not had a chance to really review
all of the data. I do have a diskette that I just acquired earlier today, however, I do want
to make several comments about a TDR program. I think a TDR program that benefits
the outstanding feature of what we are trying to do in the Town of Southold in terms of
open space and farmland preservation is an excellent additional tool. I do get concerned
when by the numbers in this study that the sending area represents a total area of almost
3,000 acres or almost 1,600 potential TDR's out there or excuse me, development rights
of which the receiving areas as it designated and I have these numbers orally that were
given to me about one week ago, receiving units that can be put into the HALO's and
hamlet centers is 662. Mr. Meinke made reference to 663, my addition gave me the
smaller number by a unit, I am concerned when we can land in this program 42% of the
development rights that are out in the agricultural fields into our HALO's and hamlet
Southold Town Board Public Hearing 10
Draft GElS for Transfer of Development Rights
centers as the first stop in this program. I have always felt that a TDR program could be
invaluable to farmland and open space preservation in this Town. I would like to see a
first target of perhaps landing up to 10% of the total available development rights into the
hamlet centers. I mean, currently as the plan stands, the village of Southold and HALO
can receive up to 160 more residential building units. Mattituck 138. Peconic and why I
don't understand this, 142 and then lesser amounts to East Marion, 73; New Suffolk 57
more units; Cutchogue 47; Orient 24 and Greenport 21 to get to this magic number of
662. I once had a boss who was president of a major bank in New York City and his
modus of operating was if we are going to make mistakes, let's make mistakes slowly
and right now, I see a plan here that says we can put up to 42% of all development rights
out on the ag lands, right into our village centers and HALO's and you know, we can
always adjust this in the future. I would rather see a number like, if there are 1,600
potential, the report says 1,571 potential TDR's. Let's say, let's start 150 and see how it
works and we can always up it if it works. You know, this is going to be sort of a cat
chasing its tail. If you want to land a building site in a village center and you have got to
start out and pay an additional $160,000 or $200,000 to land that development right and
then go build a structure and is that structure going to give a return to the builder that
makes it worthwhile for him to increase that density presumably on a property that he
owns in the village, to begin with. Let alone what an outside developer might do. So,
currently I perceive this really not as a preservation plan at 662 development rights out of
1,571 being allowed to land in our HALO's and hamlet centers, I see this as a
development plan not a preservation plan.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Chris, do I understand that you are concemed that there
are really too many landing sites?
MR. BAIZ: Yes, sir. Right offthe top.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I would like to ask the team to describe briefly the caps
or limits that we have placed in this document so that we don't overload the hamlet
centers. Now maybe those caps are too high but I am not sure if the public understands
how we came up with how the document came up with 600 and some sites and the
methodology and the caps that we put on that, to address the issue that you raised. So
could we ask the team to just outline briefly the methodology? And I don't mean to get
in a debate about it, I just...
MR. BAIZ: I think at 42%, it is seriously overloaded as a preservation tool.
MR. VOORHIS: Yeah, I think, we were trying to follow the numbers and I think Mr.
Baiz is referencing the total potential receiving sites within the HALO's when in fact our
recommendation in the TDR planning report is to take 30% of that total. So the, in fact
what we are recommending is the receiving zones would receive in the neighborhood of
200 credits townwide. So I think it is a little bit closer to what you are identifying as a
possible scenario.
MR. BAIZ: So you are saying about 15%?
Southold Town Board Public Hearing 11
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
MR. VOORHIS: A little bit more than that.
MR. BAIZ: Yeah. Okay. 18%.
MR. VOORHIS: But I think, just to be clear, there was a calculation that allowed us to
achieve conformance with Suffolk County Health Department article 6,pending their
review and input and we actually reduced it based on the stakeholder meetings that went
out to each of the hamlets and there was a lot of talk and input to the members of the
Town that went to those committee meetings about the need to preserve open space,
about the need for recreation, about, you know, even though you are in a hamlet, we
don't want to intensify so that you lose the character of the hamlet and that is the reason
that that limit was placed on the total potential, so we kind of backed into that number...
MR. BAIZ: Right.
MR. VOORHIS: And it is almost exactly what you are referring to. The
recommendation is to monitor it over time, determine the success of the program and
then you know, in a couple of years evaluate to determine if it is working, if there is a
market and if the absorption of those credits is reasonable within the hamlets. Is that, I
should be addressing the Board.
MR. BAIZ: So, as long as the recommendation says let's go to 30% of the 42% and call
that the cap for now, so that we can't just blow right through the cap and keep going, I
mean, I for one as a resident of this area, someone said to me earlier today, well, I am
resigned to the fact that this is going to be a 30,000 person community and I am not
resigned to that fact. Okay? And I think the brave new world that we are entering right
now is perhaps not even going to allow that development to occur here, simply because
of energy costs. We are captive to a region that has not dealt with its energy costs very
easily yet and it is just, it is going to be monumentally difficult to sustain a 30,000 person
population and generate an economy here that is going to support $4 or $6 gallon of
gasoline or $5 a gallon heating oil let alone, I had some Dutch friends visiting three
weeks ago and they paid 3 euros a liter for gasoline back in Holland right now. That
translates to $17 a gallon and they are living with it. Are we going to be living with that,
too? And I think that that will have a major, major impact on these kinds of things.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Chris, can I just say?
MR. BAIZ: Sure.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I think you characterized it correctly by saying that we
are talking about 30% of that 42%.
MR. BAIZ: Okay.
Southold Town Board Public Hearing 12
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
COLrNCILMAN WICKHAM: Secondly, I go back to the point the Supervisor made
earlier on, it is a one for one transfer. We are not developing new potential here. We, the
book, proposes a transfer of density. We are not generating new density.
MR. BAIZ: Oh, I totally understand that. But what you are saying in all of this is that of
the 1,571 development rights that either could be preserved through the farmland
preservation program, either at the town level, the county level, state or federal level, we
are going to allow up to 42% of that to be built out but built out in our HALO's ....
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: A third of that.
MR. BAIZ: Well, okay.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: 30% of 42%.
MR. BAIZ: So long as we are definitely capped at that 30 of 42 and then we revisit it.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Could I just explain on behalf of the stakeholder committee?
There is a far greater amount of available credits than there is areas to land it. One of
their first proposals was to say, you know what? Let's put a cap in each of the hamlets.
The Town Board, in a new Town Board in a new day, can always revisit that cap and say
do we need to elevate the cap, do we need to keep the cap in place?
MR. BAIZ: Okay.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That safeguard, that governor, of that program was in fact the
cap for each of the hamlets. And it is by no means meant to replace the traditional effort
which is to extinguish and there is certainly plenty of discussion to have on TDR's but
the, I don't think anybody is presupposing this replaces our traditional role, which is to
extinguish credits by purchasing development rights through the very successful
programs.
MR. BAIZ: Let me understand your point then, are you saying for instance, in the case
of the village of Southold and its HALO, where the plan said up to 160 TDR's could be
landed, in fact not more than 30 % of that will be landed at this time?
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Yes. Correct.
MR. BAIZ: Okay.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: There are two calculations. How much can you
physiologically relocate, based Suffolk County Department of Health...
MR. BAIZ: Yeah.
Southold Town Board Public Hearing 13
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: And how much does the zoning allow for and then how
much are we going to allow for through this program. That is where that cap came from.
MR. BAIZ: Okay.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: The calculation is merely a calculation so that we know what
we could do under Suffolk County Department of Health which is really the guiding
influence here to all of this.
MR. BAIZ: Okay. Very good.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: And a new Board would have to take an affirmative, formal
action to raise those caps. Local law presumably.
MR. BAIZ: Okay. Very good. I think it would be a useful tool, then.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you.
MR. BAIZ: At this stage.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes?
LESLIE WEISMAN: Leslie Weisman, chairperson of the Southold Hamlet Stakeholder
Committee, I am a member of the TDR workgroup. I just want to add one small historic
explanation. When we were sitting 2 ½ years ago at a Planning and Zoning Committee
meeting and the discussion took place about doing a feasibility study to see whether or
not, we knew certainly there was more than enough agricultural and open space worthy
of preservation, but was there enough room within the hamlet HALO areas to do
something that made it even feasible to consider a townwide program, I agreed to work
with John Sep and Mark Terry, who was then acting director of the Planning Department
on the creation of a model for the feasibility study on the following conditions: that no
overdevelopment that was inappropriate in scale or density that would in any way
compromise the historic character and scale of our respective hamlets, each of which are
different and each of which have to be considered separately in an equitable, not an
equal, but an equitable formula so that it is a win-win situation; would we proceed? It
was on that basis that that goal was explicitly stated in the original feasibility study that
this TDR proposal built upon. So from the very get go, everyone involved was on the
same page. The hamlets were never to become the "dumping grounds" of preservation
and inappropriate overdevelopment. And we believe that through this cap we have been
able to create, based upon looking at full potential build out and then back stepping to say
how can we continue to have open space within the HALO's and hamlets and appropriate
development that doesn't create excessive traffic but that does permit preservation with
out using taxpayers dollars. Preservation that in fact comes from market money, market
made money and private development so it is an additional tool but again, not when it is
not at the sacrifice of the quality of life of those of us who love our hamlets. All of us
who live here. So the model from the very beginning incorporated that and if you really
Southold Town Board Public Hearing 14
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
read carefully this larger scale proposal, you will see that those caps are in place, that
there is an agreement. The larger proposal by law must incorporate alternative
suggestion. It doesn't mean that they will be adopted, it means that it is a required step
that has to be incorporated and so perhaps there may be little confusion about you know,
what exactly the proposal is but the proposal was never intended to create inappropriate
overdevelopment in the hamlets.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. Linda?
LINDA: We were talking about trading one for one density and I did ....
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Linda Goldsmith.
LINDA GOLDSMITH: Oh, I am sorry. Linda Goldsmith, East Marion. If I own 50
acres in an R-80 zone, that means that I would have 25 credits, no?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Not likely, with the new subdivision calculations. You
would have to calculate the building yield.
MS. GOLDSMITH: Okay. That was my question. Will that building yield be
calculated?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: My presumption is it would have to be because otherwise you
are trading in intangibles that might not exist.
MS. GOLDSMITH: Because I could not build 25 houses there? On my 50 acres of an
R-80. I would have to put a certain amount of...
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah, the set-offs for drainage, for roads, you would have to
cluster. It is not likely you would get all 25 building lots. You would get close but not
quite because of the way the current zoning requires 40% of your land to be involved and
60% for open space.
MS. GOLDSMITH: Correct.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: But my presumption is, and I will ask Chick and the rest of
the group here if the calculations could it be based on the actual ability to build and not
just on the theoretical zoning. That is a big issue.
MS. GOLDSMITH: That is my issue.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is a fair point.
MS. GOLDSMITH: And the other comment I wanted to make was I was not a
stakeholder but I was, I listened very closely when our stakeholders had meetings and at
Southold Town Board Public Hearing 15
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
least in East Marion the TDR was never mentioned. Was this something stakeholders
were working on, or grappling with or thinking about or anything?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: When I first came into office, after the initial report was
handed to the previous Town Board, I had asked about the word TDR, in fact I invited all
of the stakeholders back but for two of them, everybody said, oh, the issue of TDR
specifically never came up. It came up in different facets, it came up you know, in
everything but the specific words 'transfer of development rights'. The concepts were
there, the discussion was there but I am not sure it was as assertive, the word, as it should
have been. But again, it was revisited when we went through the process again.
MS. GOLDSMITH: And lastly, especially if you look at East Marion where the HALO
or where the HALO zone is, it actually extends south of Bay Avenue you know, into that
area and there are just lots. I mean, there is no big clump of property south of Bay
Avenue. There is a lot over here, there is a lot over here. Most of them are not even an
acre but I think that most of them, I think that one or two of them are R-40's. So that
would mean if someone went and bought development rights that one piece of property
say on Bay Avenue that is one acre, that could have one house right now, could possibly
have two?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That would be a presumption, yeah. Absolutely. A
legitimate presumption.
MS. GOLDSMITH: Okay. That is my concern as far as you can take a nice, you know,
houses along there are pretty much on ½ acres, I mean mine is probably on less but you
know on half acres but you can actually put, you see t his one piece of property and you
can actually put two more houses on it. And the other thing I wanted say was, I think
there was some discussion at the meeting last week regarding, they were saying big
homes have more children in the schools and all of that or something to that effect and
that this would, I am not sure how that went but I was, that pretty much is a fallacy
because I look at some of these estates with huge, big homes. There are 30 houses, 35
lots in there and I think there are maybe 6 children in the school. So, thank you.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I will tell you from a guy who lives in a 900 square foot
house and has two children, one of who eats enough to feed 40 children, I can agree that
the size of the unit is not indicative of the population of the unit. Can I just get a
clarification, my concern for East Marion. East Marion and I am going to ask you it is a
technical issue, East Marion doesn't have, I am sorry, Orient doesn't have public water so
its ability to absorb density in the hamlet center would be limited at probably presumably
one acre? One acre. It seems we did this on a school district by school district. Is it
possible that someone could secure building rights in Orient and transfer them to East
Marion, since it is part of the same school district? But a very different hamlet? Because
that would be a concern because you have public water which would make you
vulnerable to half acre zoning, whereas Orient would not be.
UNIDENTIFIED: But all of East Marion does not have public water. We have wells.
Southold Town Board Public Heating 16
Draft GElS for Transfer of Development Rights
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Oh, I know. I am just talking about, I am just talking about
what would be an unfortunate consequence would be to buy a farm in Orient and then
relocate density to East Marion. That is something I think the Town Board really needs
to look at. That would be problematic.
MS. GOLDSMITH: That is my other question and I am sorry, I know it is not a question
and answer. If someone bought development in Cutchogue, could they transfer them to
East Marion?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: No, school district by school district.
MS. GOLDSMITH: Okay.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: But again, if you look at those zones, if you buy in Mattituck
you theoretically could move to Cutchogue. If you bought in Cutchogue you could move
to Mattituck.
MS. GOLDSMITH: And Laurel as well.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: In East Marion it becomes a little unfair for East Marion
because you don't have the public water, I am sorry, you have the public water which
allows for these half...
MS. GOLDSMITH: Not all of, not all of East Marion.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I know but if you look at that HALO, you could be
absorbing half acre zoning that is just not possible in Orient. So that is something the
Town Board should need to work out.
MS. GOLDSMITH: Well, how is that going to happen?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is something, we have to march forward. I would
propose density neutral and hamlet neutral. So that the density in East Marion could only
be transferred in East Marion. That sort of thing.
MS. GOLDSMITH: Well, that's, that's (inaudible)
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: So if you are going to absorb in hamlet center, you at least
know it was saved right in that immediate vicinity, rather than across the causeway.
MS. GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes.
BARBARA PFANZ: Barbara Pfanz, Main Road, East Marion. A number of things aside
from Orient only being an ascending area and East Marion being a receiving area, that is
Southold Town Board Public Hearing 17
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
one thing I was going to say. Another concern of mine is enforcement. I don't know if
you are still going to keep the same amount of alleged enforcement that you have on now
with all of this potential development going on. As we know, certainly in East Marion
people do what they want to do and people, the Town, looks the other way and them is a
whole bunch of illegal stuff going on them. I certainly hope if you are going to do this
you are going to do it responsibly and really plan for having up to code, legal housing
brought to the area, if you are going to do that. And also, another concern of mine, when
I was looking at the map originally I saw the HALO area in East Marion was originally
just north of the road. Now there is a large parcel south of the road. The community has
expressed, they don't want the development of a HALO district and I feel like, even
though we are saying that, the Town is going right ahead and look at that, the HALO
district is growing. So, I know in there you said that you will take what the community
has to say in mind but I don't how much power we are going to have when there is just
buying and selling going on. I don't know.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is a good point. Let me just point out that there is no
private function here in that people get to go out and buy what they want and relocate it
and do what they want. Every site that would become, that would absorb a development
credit, has to come to this Town Board for a public hearing and a change of zone. You
cannot simply take a one acre piece of property, turn it to two half acre pieces of property
on your own by going out and securing development rights elsewhere. You need to come
in for a change of zone. Secondly, I have given the public, particularly in East Marion a
great deal of influence here. The Kokkoris piece, I believe that is the name of the piece?
Kortsolakis. That was a proposal that was created by a previous HALO stakeholder's
group. I reconvened those groups, put the public in and you know what? The public in
East Marion spoke and said we don't want it. And the whole thing died. That was a
direct result of giving the public the opportunity to weigh in on itself. And also on the
enforcement issue, we are not looking the other way. We used to but now we are trying
to do something about it. It is like trying to turn around the Queen Mary, it is far more
frustrating than we thought and we are going, hopefully in the near future, discuss a
rental permit law that will help me resolve some of those complicated issues in East
Marion.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Can we focus on the hearing?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: We are trying. John?
JOHN COPERT1NO: I am glad you mentioned input that you received from, I am sorry,
John Copertino, Willow Drive, East Marion. I want to speak of the impact on East
Marion in regards to this. I would like, well, each hamlet is unique in itself, it is, you
know, Cutchogue has a hamlet center and developed land and roads and Mattituck does
too. East Marion doesn't. We can't bear any extra traffic. We have a ferry that gives us
a problem and as I was going through these TDR paperwork here, I saw one on page 116,
it says who benefits from this program? It says ascending area landlords, the investors,
the developers, landowners etc. etc. Local businesses benefit. It doesn't say anything
about the community desires of the community. The community definitely will benefit
Southold Town Board Public Hearing 18
Draft GElS for Transfer of Development Rights
somewhat from businesses and so forth but the desires, like you said, is not there, we
don't want, in East Marion, we do not want a hamlet center. We don't want any
development. East Marion has been there for 350 years and it has been the same for 350
years. Throughout this paperwork, you know it mentioned single family homes, two
family homes, multiple family homes, etc. etc. Which is frightening to us out in East
Marion. Your potential adverse impacts, it says here, would result in clearing and
grading in HALO areas for development resulting from density shift. We don't want it.
Everything here is what East Marion doesn't want. We presented you with a petition
stating that. Showing that out of 440 households, 328 households did not want it and I
could have given you 440 households except it was too exhausting for me. But I could
have got about 98% of the households. And East Marion is unique and I wish when you
make judgments on this TDR that you consider that. Consider each hamlet as a unique
entity. It can't be one blanket coverage. I know that is difficult to do, I am sure it is
difficult to do in planning but this is what I want and this is what most of the people in
East Marion want. We want to be treated differently because we are different. Let's see.
Oh, the gentleman mentioned about four and five bedroom houses being developed.
Thirty percent of the houses in East Marion have been built since 2000 and most of them
are four and five bedroom houses. Impact on the schools is not even present them
because the people that built those houses are wealthy, second home owners or retirees.
They have no young children going to school to speak of. I would say 90% of them are
not putting children in the school. You can see that by the same number of children in
the grammar school. So people don't come out here anymore, especially to East Marion.
There is no jobs out them to support a four and five bedroom house. But if you start
putting in multi-family houses then you are going to have an impact on the school, which
is exactly opposite of what it says in this paperwork. It says it would reduce the impact
on the schools. Well, that is ridiculous. It would increase, when you get multi-family
houses. Cheaper houses. You are going to get younger people coming in and the impacts
on the school is going to be greater. So there is a couple of contradictions in here. I think
I have covered most of it and the most important thing is the desire of the community.
Your stakeholders mentioned to you or voted no further commercial development in East
Marion. That is what they wanted. They came, they were assigned by you and that is
when they came up and they told the Planning Board that. We came up with a petition
with signatures on it. We don't want a hamlet center. Please consider that when you are
making your judgments on these YDR's. Each hamlet is unique and it should be treated
that way. It can't be a blanket, you know a blanket edict. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you, John. I couldn't agree with you more and it was
a challenge. You are trying to create something that might work in Cutchogue or
Mattituck but might not work in East Marion. I think they did as thorough and as
thoughtful a job as possible but sure, there are going to be issues that we need to be
cognizant of as we march forward. Mr. Wills? And I will go to you right after that.
FRANK WILLS: Good evening, Frank Wills, Mattituck. I have a few comments to
make on the TDR. Basically I am in favor of them. But the write up is surprising and it
only mentions the HALO zone. It never says anything about the hamlet center and the
stakeholders, we were told to develop the hamlet center and the HALO around it but
Southold Town Board Public Hearing
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
19
almost nowheres in the whole report now maybe they were combined, maybe the
numbers were combined. But they are not t hem. The other one is transfer of
development rights in the school districts. It says should generally be in the general
school system. And I was wondering, I didn't bother looking in a dictionary what
generally meant but it is an unusual term. Are we going to get around it or are we going
to merge school districts?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is a good question. I know what the intent of this
Board is but you don't know what the intent of a future Board might be. You know,
faces change every day. So, you are right.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Actually, there is a legal definition to that.
TOWN ATTORNEY F1NNEGAN: The law is that you can't unreasonably transfer
between school districts.
MR. WILLS: Unreasonably.
TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: That is the state law, so theoretically you would be
allowed if it was reasonable.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: There is the clarity you were looking for, huh?
TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: But in our law we can put in there that it won't be
allowed.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That won't be allowed generally.
TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: Yeah, we can put in there that it will not be allowed.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That was a good point, Frank.
MR. WILLS: The other one is, it mentions all sorts of housing, single, double, multiple
occupancy but there is almost no mention of affordable housing. And my impression was
that originally the only transfer of development rights were for affordable housing and
now apparently that isn't mentioned anyplace.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: They are a very separate program. We already have a
transfer of density for affordable housing, sanitary flow credit program that was created
by the previous Board. When we extinguish development rights as a Town body, in
some cases we can take that sanitary flow credit and apply that to a bank which a
developer can buy to build affordable housing. The problem with marrying affordable
housing to this specific TDR program is that it is economically unfeasible to create
affordable housing and keep a TDR program that is going to be economically viable. No
one can buy the right to build density and then still produce affordable housing from that
equation. That is why it is a separate program.
Southold Town Board Public Hearing 20
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
MR. WILLS: Thank you. That is it. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. Wills. Mr. Huntington.
RAY HUNTINGTON: Ray Huntington, Cutchogue. Good evening. Some really
elaborate work has been done on the idea of transfer of development rights here. And it
is an idea that has been kicking around for at least 10 years that I know of on the north
fork. But tonight your objective is to receive comments on the supplemental impact
statement dealing with the transfer of development rights in Southold. This prefatory to
accepting a document which is an environmental impact statement in support of future
legislation which is not yet written. I just want to make that as a clarifying statement, I
know you understand that already. But there are some confusions that we can clean up as
we go along. One of those is the idea of HALO. Last time I tried a halo on, which was a
long time ago, it had a hole in the middle and the terminology in the impact statement
implies that it is only the donut that is where you land the transfer and I do believe the
intention is it is the donut plus the center, plus the whole.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is exactly right. It is not a donut but a pancake.
MR. HUNTINGTON: Okay. One of the basic principles that we have discussed many,
many times through the years is the idea of making changes by transfer resulting in
neutral density. This principle is not well expressed in the document, in fact it actually
goes out of its way to talk about incentives that would overbalance towards more density.
So that is an important point that I think is missing from the impact statement. That the
idea was to not create more density by transfer. There is another piece that is not actually
missing but it is mentioned only as an alternative and that is the commemial component.
The commercial component is a very important part of this picture because it could be the
element that makes this a successful program. We talked before just a moment ago about
incentives to get people to transfer development from farmland into the hamlet centers,
that transfer, that incentive of course is hard to come by. Why would you want to do that
necessarily? Well, one way of course is to change the exchange rate and get two for one,
three for one, whatever and the Town Board can do that. That is something we don't
want to go. And the commemial component however, let's say that a restaurant wanted
to have outdoor dining or something like that which is currently prohibited by the code I
think, then perhaps if you saved a couple acres of farmland, that could be taken into
consideration. So it is a very powerful element here in the commercial aspect that is
missing from the document now. You are moving towards perhaps legislation that would
enact something. With this part missing, I think we have got the heart out of the
program. Excuse me. I am going to use some round numbers to describe what could
happen here. From the sending areas, 1,600 let's call them residential development units,
can be transferred to the receiving areas. In the receiving areas we can receive 660 units.
This means that you have more coming in than will fit. However, the Town Board can
make them fit by changing the exchange rate. Very dangerous business. Right now, by
using the numbers in the document, it looks like 42% of that which could be transferred
theoretically would only fit in the receiving zone, so not all of it could go in. However,
Southold Town Board Public Hearing
Draft GElS for Transfer of Development Rights
21
we have got more to put in. The how many actually land depends upon the legislation,
on what is actually set up. In other words, this document sets up some models, studies
the issue, shows what could or couldn't happen but the real key is going to be the change
to the code itself, not yet written. Without the code the efficacy of this program really
can't be measured. Can't even be judged. You have to know what the code is going to
say. so, this is a cart and a horse problem. You need the environmental impact statement
to do the legislation but you can't understand the impact if you don't have the legislation.
Somehow we have to get the horse and the cart together here yet. My basic concern,
though, given all that is the marginal cost of the program may be quite a problem. That
is, how much land will we actually preserve for every say, $100,000 worth of cost of
operating the program. This program is complex, it is going to be costly to administer
and because of these complexities it is going to be of dubious impact. We are not going
to see a lot of volume here. So it is a big question in my mind of whether we are being
wise in spending our tax dollars preserving land this particular way. We won't know the
answer to that until we actually see the legislation that you may propose. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I think you are right. Actually, you raise the issue of the
commemial component. The reality is that under this current TDR proposal, they have
used a farm district as a designated feature. In other words, this is active farmland. Well,
under current rules you can't transfer sanitary flow away from active farmland unless you
want to sterilize the farmland. There is no incentive for business to buy TDR's if they are
not going to get the attendant sanitary flow. There is just, and what you proposed I think
is almost frightful to suggest that a small business owner needs to go hat in hand in to the
Town and buy up development rights every time they want to expand and invest in
themselves. There is also the other extreme to that where you let somebody with deep
pockets buy their way into all sorts of new zoning, so that is problematic from all
approaches. But realistically, I don't think the commemial component can be there until
you get a Department of Health on board.
MR. VOORHIS: Just another clarification. And I think Pat may want to jump in on this
as well. But this document will create a record based on that this Board will have to issue
a statement of findings.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Right.
MR. VOORHIS: The way you structure the findings is the way the law will have to be
written. Basically we can't deviate from what is studied and what comes out in the
findings. The intent at this time is that it is density neutral, there is no bait and switch
here. I mean, we really can't do that.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Right. Right.
MR. VOORHIS: So I think we do, we have enough information to write the code, we
have the recommendations and a basis for the overall legislation and program. That will
be the next step. But basically the code would be written to conform to statement of
findings which will be consistent with the planning report and your further deliberations.
Southold Town Board Public Hearing 22
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
So, again, I just, I think there was again a misunderstanding. I could look at the
document but I know that it says number one, that it is voluntary, number two that it is
density neutral and our intent right from the beginning was to keep it simple. So there are
a lot of words in here, there is a lot to read but I know the summaries, we stress that. I
think it was meetings with this Board in preparation for the public informational meeting
where you said make sure that everybody knows. And we added language to make sure
that everybody knew that those were the three key elements that we were looking at when
we began this. So the receiving area at 660 units, again, that is the maximum. That did
not reflect the cap. One column to the right of that is a lesser number, it is the
recommendation of this program. Just, it is a little bit redundant but a very important
point.
TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: Can I just also add, when the code is written, there
will be public hearings at that time, too, on the code. This isn't the final public hearing.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: This is to accept the SEQRA document.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: And I would like to also add that the consideration of a
commercial component is included in the report as an alternative.
UNIDENTIFIED: (inaudible)
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I hope you people don't leave. I haven't read the statement
from Albert Krupski yet and I promised him I would. No, I can wait. Albert wanted to
be here, he couldn't make it. So my apologies to Albert if he watches this later.
UNIDENTIFIED: Just so you understand, we are not actually leaving, we are in session
in the other room.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I understand that. And I will talk loud so you can hear me in
there.
UNIDENTIFIED: Can I ask Mr. Voorhis one question?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah. Can I get a clarification for the question from John
Copertino and then I will go to you, Mr. Meinke? You can ask me and I will...
MR. COPERTINO: He kept saying density neutral?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Right.
MR. COPERT1NO: I don't understand that statement because if you are adding to the
density of the hamlet center, then it isn't density neutral, is it?
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Let's ask Chick to define density neutral.
Southold Town Board Public Hearing 23
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. Yeah, John Copertino.
MR. VOORHIS: The program is based on one sending area credit is equal to one
receiving area credit, period. We do recognize that there will be an increase in growth in
the HALO areas as is described in this report and we tried to disperse it in many different
ways that those units could be received so that it did not change community character
along with all the things that Leslie spoke about before in terms of the hamlet
development model, the stakeholder input and so forth. But one sending unit is equal to
one receiving unit. It is a shift in density from the areas that we want to preserve to the
areas that can sustain reasonable growth with better infrastructure and all the safeguards
that are in place.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. Just let me go, Mr. Meinke?
MR. ME1NKE: Just very quickly, I just wondered that I do know that Riverhead does
have a commemial component to their TDR program and when I was actively snooping
in Riverhead development projects and so on, I saw TDR's being used for commercial
things that had to do with some of the big box stores, so I, you make it sound like it is
excruciatingly difficult to get there, they are getting there and I wondered (inaudible)
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: For two reasons, first of all, they have a sanitary system.
They have septic, they are not encumbered based on Department of Health rulings
because they have septic systems. They have public sewers. That is a huge bonus if you
are going to take control of your own zoning and in particularly Riverhead's case, allow
for the type of development that they do. We don't have that anywhere in Southold
Town but for the Village and we don't control their zoning. Secondly, their investment
market is very different. They have Wal-Mart, they have superstores that are willing to
invest substantial amounts of money to locate there. We don't have it and we don't want
it in Southold. A small business owner would find it very difficult in the current TDR
program because he doesn't get any sanitary component to that. In other words, to just,
to put 30 new seats out outside isn't enough for him. He needs to be able to go to the
Department of Health and know that they are going to approve that plan. (Inaudible)
might give him all the zoning concessions you want but if the Department of Health
doesn't sign off on it, there is no meat to it for him. There is no benefit to him. It just
becomes intangible. That is the component that is missing because again, under this
current proposal, the decision was to use farm district property. Those are active farming
properties and you can't transfer sanitary off of those. You could were you to expand
this program and talk about private nature preserves, you know, vacant, virgin land. Not
nature preserve but, yeah, and then you can get into that sanitary flow translation. You
can't under the current proposal because it is using active farmland and the county will
not allow you to transfer sanitary off of that.
MR. MEINKE: So Riverhead can take it from active farmland but where they put it has
sewers so that...
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah, they have public sewers.
Southold Town Board Public Hearing 24
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
MR. MEINKE: Okay. That probably answers that question. The other thing that I
wanted to say refers to Mr. Copertino that I think that the residents of all Southold feel
that it is very special just as the East Marion people do and that is why I stress we do
need a comprehensive plan. I would like to see a meeting of the minds between you on
the dais and the people out here on what, when you tell us what the current development
population number of housing units is now and what it will be when all this planning is
applied, do we have an intestinal feeling that we are going to like Southold when that
happens or do we not? And then if you had a master plan, my understanding of a master
plan is that you could enact a development plan that says this number of RDU's is the
answer because our residential component, our industrial component the attractiveness to
outside money for tourism and etc. depends on the keep it rural part of Southold and the
ambiance of Southold and it needs that number. I believe that would work if you had a
master plan. You could always change it and increase your development potential if you
had a master plan. If you don't have a master plan and you want to hold down
development, you are screwed and you all know that.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Well, I agree. I think that we need to update the
comprehensive master plan. I just think that some people are using that right now
because they think it is going to bring everything to a grinding halt in their communities
and I think that is faulty thinking. I think there is a better legal approach that we are
taking. I know I am going to have a comment in a minute. Robin?
MS. IMANDT: This concept of neutral, what is it called?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Density neutral.
MS. IMANDT: Density neutral is a Karl Rove special. I mean, you are saying you have
one and you are going to have four over here. So that is not neutral to me. You have one
credit here and then you are going to, as Mr. Baiz said, rezone this other receiving area
and make that four. That is not neutral. That is quadruple in my...
MR. VOORHIS: They would have to buy four to put four in that spot...
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Let me explain...
MS. IMANDT: That is not what you said before.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Let me explain what they mean. This is the school district,
this is the hamlet center.
MS. IMANDT: Mmmhmm.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Say the current potential right now for the entire school
district is 100 credits. By creating a TDR program, it simply allows you to locate some
of those credits within this district. It doesn't add to the hundred credits. That is a frozen
number. It simply lets you take rather than the two acre zoning here, it lets you buy and
Southold Town Board Public Heating
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
25
relocate some of those 100 credits into this downtown, into this hamlet center. But the
net equation is 100 credits is still the same. Whether you are going to focus four of them
here or four of them on eight acres out here, you still at the end of the day you still have
100 credits. You are just allowing for zoning flexibility to locate tighter clusters in those
hamlet centers. That 100 is still the same number though.
MS. IMANDT: So basically you are glomming then into one area?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah. Glomming isn't a technical term but it is a good term.
MS. IMANDT: So in East Marion, there is no reason for this glomming effect. I mean,
we have a general store, we have a post office, we have a fire house, we have no industry
other than Angel's general store. What would be the reason to push that into that area
except to develop the area?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: In East Marion, again, it is the hamlet without a center. And
it is very unique and problematic from this point of view. In, say, a Cutchogue or a
Mattituck where you have a lot of active farmland and you want to save that farmland, it
is number one on everybody's priority list. Do you save that active farmland by
relocating that density into an area that can absorb it, like a Factory Avenue or an Old
Sound Avenue. I am not suggesting to the cameras that that is what we are doing, I am
just saying where you can focus that incentive in that development. Again, East Marion
is sort of the hamlet without a center so I know it is problematic when you look at it
there. My concern for East Marion is, what are you going to absorb from Orient, which
is completely separate and distinct. Because you have public water. So that is a concern
that I would like to resolve before we move forward on it.
MS. IMANDT: Well, why do we need to absorb anything from Orient?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Well, I would suggest that if you had a program where all
you had to absorb was, what, if you are saving farmland in East Marion to put the density
elsewhere in East Marion you are getting the benefit of saving that farmland. But if you
are going to save farmland in Orient and move it to East Marion, that would be
problematic.
MS. IMANDT: Well, under your who benefits from this program, this to me is the whole
thing in a nutshell. Landowners, investors and developers benefit from an additional
mechanism to facilitate compatible and planned development projects that provide return
on investment. That has nothing to do with the community. That has everything to do
with people from the outside coming in and purchasing land to develop it to make money.
And the other thing I would like clarification on is HALO communities benefit from
investment in their hamlet areas resulting in redevelopment, whatever redevelop means,
and compatible land use which strengthens the hamlet and achieves other land
preservation goals. I would like somebody to please explain that.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Sure. Somebody? Mark?
Southold Town Board Public Hearing 26
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
MS. IMANDT: What is redevelopment?
UNIDENTIFIED (MARK): What page of the report are we referring to?
MS. IMANDT: I am looking at the summary, number seven, benefits from this program.
UNIDENTIFIED: Okay, these are general concepts that we believe that through this
program, those aspects, those seven points will benefit.
MS. IMANDT: What is redevelopment? Let's just start with that.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I will give you a good example without going to the experts.
If I have property in Mattituck, let's say the old KG Brown property, that might be better
suited for a residential use facility. Right now it is an industrial park that is vacant. It is
buildings, it is old. If someone could secure development rights to relocate a senior
community there, invest in that existing infrastructure and invest in what is basically an
eyesore. That would be redevelopment of a site that is already developed. You don't
have those examples in East Marion. The only real site you have that has been left
derelict is the fish plant and nobody wants to invest in that, they just want it gone. So...
MS. IMANDT: Are there any hamlets that will be exempt from this program?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Again, the program, it is not an automatic. You can create a
TDR all you want. You don't just run around and build, you have to come to the Town
Board for a change of zone in every single case. Whether it is a two acre lot in East
Marion or a 40 acre lot in Mattituck. You still have to come for a public hearing and a
change of zone to get there. Nobody is given the right to develop their property any
greater than they are currently allowed to. Whether they are in a HALO or not. Whether
the TDR program is adopted or not. They still have to come in for a specific okay every
time it is done and a change of zone.
MS. IMANDT: Okay. Just one last comment and then, when the stakeholders presented
the results of what people in the communities wanted, we said we didn't want anything to
change in East Marion, as did many of the other I think almost all the hamlets said that, in
the newspaper, it said the Town supports that. So what happened? Because this is not
supporting that concept. This is completely different.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: You are looking at this issue just as if East Marion is the
only part of the process here. We have several hamlets.
MS. IMANDT: No, but all the hamlets said they didn't want things to change. They
might want a traffic light or they might want a bus stop or they might want I don't
remember the various things but nobody says, yes, we want development please.
Southold Town Board Public Hearing 27
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: No, no. I think what they said was that we want smarter
development with design standards, we want investments in the downtown. In Mattituck,
they want investment in the derelict buildings. They just don't want this pell mell rush to
superstores, like the CVSs'. And that is the things, those are the challenges we need to
address for each of these hamlet centers. I don't think anybody met as a stakeholders
group and said we don't want it to change at all. East Marion did and certainly Orient
had a good argument to be made for that but other stakeholders, in Southold they were
very progressive, you know, looking for pedestrian crossings, and pedestrian trails and
new design standards. So I don't think it was a document, let's freeze everything in time.
MS. IMANDT: You supported that. You the Town Board supported that and yet...
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I would like to address the comment that I heard. I
participated in all of the early meetings of the stakeholders, including East Marion and at
least in the early stages, I am not sure about the mom recent ones but at least at the early
stages, every one of the stakeholders groups that I participated in was willing to see
greater density in the hamlet center provided it was planned and not excessive and
provided that it resulted in preservation somewhere outside. They didn't want to see
growth and development in the hamlet center if there were no benefit elsewhere in the
community but they did understand and they supported the concept. We didn't call it
TDR's at that time but everyone of the stakeholder groups that I participated and
essentially that was all of them, said yes, we are open to some modest growth within our
hamlet areas provided it is in good scale and not overdone and provided that it results in
some preservation outside. That is what this book is basically about and it is on a one to
one ratio. In other words, any growth in the hamlet is offset by an equivalent or equal
amount of reduction in growth in potential outside.
MS. IMANDT: I believe that the stakeholders meetings that you are talking about were
the appointed stakeholders.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Mmmhmm.
MS. IMANDT: Not the final group of stakeholders that exist to this day. They said, in
East Marion and I am not saying East Marion is the most important thing in the world
and who cares about anybody else but that is where I live so that is what I am talking
about. East Marion did not want any kind of growth or hamlet center or HALO zone or
any of that stuff and that is what came out of the stakeholders meetings and that is what
the Town Board, in the newspaper I wish I had the article, supported that.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Right. And let me give you two things. First of all, you are
being presumptuous to presume I support this. You said that if you support this, you are
not supporting our initiative. That is not true. I am not sure that I even support this.
Secondly, where I would be and I said the challenge particularly in East Marion, I said
that in the Suffolk Times were to keep things the way they are. Now to support the larger
proposal here which I haven't made up my mind yet to support that is not going to do in
East Marion. What would do in East Marion would be for me to somewhere down the
Southold Town Board Public Hearing
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
28
road, mm around and when someone comes in to receive density on Kortsolakis and I
would vote for it. That is where say I didn't keep my word in helping you try to keep
things the way they are. But the general TDR program, which is a town wide program
that might make sense in certain narrow cimumstances isn't throwing in the towel on the
wishes of East Marion. The specific zoning would have to take place down the road. I
wouldn't, I know the tempo, I have met with all of you, I know what the issues are in
East Marion and I don't see suitable locations for accepting TDR's. Again, I am not even
sure I support this notion but these specific actions down the road would decide whether
this Town Board supports the right of East Marion to stay the way it is or it doesn't. Not
this general TDR plan.
MS. IMANDT: Did I just hear you say though, that you do not support, that East Marion
would not be the correct place for these TDR's?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I would have to look at, under this current plan, I don't think
East Marion should be stuck with the prospect of receiving density from Orient and on
those other mom nuanced issues we can talk as we go. But East Marion is a challenge
there, there is no question about it and this might work in some cases, it might not in
others. You know, I have all these bullet points to raise issues tonight and I am sort of
raising them early but yeah, there are some concerns that have to be weighed in here but
it certainly doesn't apply in every case. This is not a perfect plan.
MS. IMANDT: Right. Thanks.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Mark?
MARK TERRY: Mark Terry, Planning Board. I am part of the TDR team. I just want to
qualify some of the practical applications of how the TDR can be used and I think that is
what we had in mind when we addressed the smaller hamlet or any hamlet for that
matter. And this sort of came out of the hamlet stakeholders groups where they wanted
flexibility and maybe the ability to turn a carriage house or one of their garages maybe
into a second dwelling and so when we look at the study, you will see that the way you
can land some of the TDR units is through what we call a detached accessory dwelling
unit and that could be essentially a second residential structure on the same lot, which is
prohibited by law now. So that is one of the flexibilities written into the program and I
think that would be terrific for East Marion as far as infill on certain structures that
already exist. We are not looking at whole end to end lot line buildout for East Marion, I
can say that we am very, very aware of the sense of community, we are aware of the
quality of live, even for the entire, all the hamlets. So I think that you really have got to
get down to the details and not fear the program but recognize it that it could be a way to
keep some of your sons and daughters hem. Instead of buying a half acre or one acm lot
at $360,000 you may buy one credit at $160,000 from a farmer. So you know, them are
some real benefits from this program for those communities that you just can't forecast or
see the density integrated now. That is it.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. Linda?
Southold Town Board Public Hearing 29
Draft GElS for Transfer of Development Rights
MS. GOLDSMITH: It is my assumption that this program is not for lots with existing
houses, is that correct?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: It could be. It could be. Again, it depends on how you want
to nuance this plan but I will give you an example. And I know many houses in East
Marion that have converted garages over the years, they are just not simply sanctioned.
Building permits, etc because it is not allowed under the current code. They could
theoretically come in and try to get it sanctioned by securing a TDR. That might be one
way to dissolve the building rights on Kortsolakis, which them is a big demand to
preserve right now.
MS. GOLDSMITH: So ifI own a home, as I do now, I could buy the development rights
from someone and come in and ask ifI could put an accessory home on that property?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: It depends on the size of your property. I think the allowance
is to half acre density? So if you have an acre, yes, theoretically you could do that.
MS. GOLDSMITH: Okay, so if you had sA of an acre you could not, probably.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Wouldn't be allowed under Department of Health.
MS. GOLDSMITH: Okay, my other question is we are talking about within school
district lines and things like that. You need to remember that if density increases in East
Marion the school district grows in Greenport because we send everybody, we send 90
students up them now. So if the density increases in East Marion, Greenport school
district increases students and we pay tuition to Gmenport so it would be very costly for
the taxpayers in Greenport when you increase that. The other thing is is that we are
talking again about big houses, doesn't mean they have the least children. Well, I have
lived in East Marion a long time and when my children were in school probably 18 years
ago, there weren't big houses. There was tons of farmland. There was 136 children in
Oysterponds school. Today with all the big gigantic houses and everything, is 101.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. I think what I need to do is ask this Board and Chick
you in particular, please specify with greater clarity the issue of density neutral. I think
there is a misunderstanding that density or populations are going to shift. If you have the
right to build 100 houses in East Marion right now and this is adopted, you still at the end
of the day only are allowed to build 100. It doesn't change that. It wouldn't change that
population shift. So I think we need to do a lot better clarity on that. Benja?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Good evening again. Benja Schwartz. Two questions that are
puzzling me. One, on the sending areas, how are, is it determined which properties will
be allowed to sell the development rights and how does that compare with the current
evaluation program in connection with our purchase of development rights programs?
(inaudible) Let me just ask this and then I will sit down. Second question is on the
receiving areas. You said several times that each receiving parcel would require a zone
change and so that is going to make it awful hard for people who want to buy one of
Southold Town Board Public Hearing 30
Drafi GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
these properties to go through a complete change of zone. Is that the way this program is
intended to work? To have to do a rezoning every time a development credit is received?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is a good question.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Why don't we let them answer?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah, I will let them. Let me just address the first issue. The
sending zone is almost identical to our preferred list of buying for PDR's, purchase of
development rights because it is active farmland and one of the goals of this town has
been to acquire the development rights to active farmland and keep it active. By
selecting properties from the ag district which is used as a template for the sending area,
that is the land that is currently being actively farmed. Chick?
MR. VOORHIS: I will give Benja a copy of the summary as well because I think it is all
pretty well specified in there. The first question had to do with sending areas, how is it
determined who sells development rights. Basically a landowner that is designated as a
parcel, a sending parcel, can apply to, in this case we are recommending the Town Clerk,
to get an interpretation or credit certificate that is a tradable commodity. It is a privately
based, market driven program, so someone that wishes to use that development right on a
receiving parcel would approach that landowner through a registry and purchase the
credit and then use it as part of the development project. The second question had to do
with do all the receiving parcels require a change of zone. Our report and the
recommendation in the report does not suggest that every receiving parcel would require
a change of zone. We actually divided it between the Planning Board, the Zoning Board
of Appeals and the Town Board to incrementally disperse density within the receiving
areas. The Town Board's role would be in one of the comments that came up earlier, if
you were to consider a parcel appropriate for say HD zoning, you could consider that as
long as it occurs with the redemption of credits or the extinguished amount credits that
would be shifted to the parcel. The Zoning Board of Appeals is recommended to be the
appropriate Board and again, this is just our recommendation for something like a
detached accessory residential unit, which was also discussed before. That seems to be
an appropriate small incremental increase where somebody could purchase a
development right and create an on-site additional residence where you couldn't do that
now. And the Planning Board is basically in our recommendations would be able to
marginally increase the density of a residential subdivision by slightly decreasing the lots.
And the factor is roughly a 20% increase in density for any given subdivision. As long as
it is in the HALO and it meets the criteria, our recommendation is the Planning Board
would be able to do that. So we think that it distributes the development rights
throughout the hamlets.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Then I have a question. The ZBA currently, if you give them
the authority, would have the right to create an accessory structure on an existing lot. It
is not a subdividable lot though. It is the house and the secondary structure, you can go
out and buy a TDR and create a house in that. It is still one property, it is not
subdividable. I understand that. But how can the Planning Board have the authority to
Southold Town Board Public Hearing
Draft GElS for Transfer of Development Rights
31
grant greater density than current zoning allows since at the end of the day, it is the Town
Board that speaks to the issues of zoning and density not the Planning Board. They just
administrate what we pass as law. So I don't know that I would be comfortable with a
plan that would give any of the reviewing panels the right to increase density. That at the
end of the day needs to be t he hard decisions that get made here. So that...
TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: The plan would be to put that though into the zoning
code.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay.
TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: If you took a detached dwelling unit, you would say
put that into your zoning code in this zone if it was in the HALO.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah, but the ZBA makes sense because there is already
prescription for that. It just simply allows it as a separate structure not attached to the
dwelling unit. But if you are going to allow someone to take one acre and just go to the
Planning Board and create two half acre lots on that...
MR. VOORHIS: No.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is change of zone. That would require the Town Board.
MR. VOORHIS: As I said, it is roughly a, it works out to a 20% maximum increase. So
if you have a 10 lot subdivision, you could add two units. That is the limit. I will tell you
that...
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: How is the (inaudible)
MR. VOORHIS: ...there is a precedence for it because it is exactly the same as the
program that is used in the Pine Barrens where local town government can marginally
increase, through the Planning Board, the density.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Marginally. Okay, if you have that one acre lot and you want
to take and create two, you have the existing structure, do you want to create a separate
building lot? That under this current plan would require Town Board action. Town
Board action. Okay. That is a change of zone realistically from 80,000 to 40,000 square.
40,000 to 20,000. Okay. Did we confuse you enough? John?
MR. COPERTINO: It seems to me that we are mentioning affordable housing,
unaffordable housing, four and five bedroom housing etc. The problem is housing. No
matter what cost the housing is here and the easiest solution to housing in my estimation,
your estimation and your previous Board's recommendations that you chaired, is
regulating accessory apartments. I don't know why that isn't being, that is an immediate
fix. An immediate fix.
Southold Town Board Public Hearing 32
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: We are working on that. We are actually, through the
housing commission, the Affordable Housing Commission, met with the Suffolk County
Department of Health to explore options. We are moving in that direction. Them is a
certain amount of science involved because we just again, don't have the right to convey
what we want, you need Department of Health okay as to the sewer system. But we are
working on that very program right now.
MR. COPERT1NO: And that is the immediate problem.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: And it addresses a much...
MR. COPERTINO: You know, we mention TDR's and building on an acre. It is all
going to be unaffordable. You know? It is always going to be very costly. $300,000-
$400,000 for the acm etc. Get the people housed first, put them in accessory apartments
and then try to figure you know, TDR's and ...
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: You and I have talked about this a lot. And I agree. I think
statistically much mom significant to look at the apartment route. We can make a bigger
difference.
MR. COPERTINO: I mean it seems simple to me. I mean, of course it is much more
difficult than that but you know, I think that the Board should be working on it diligently
and trying to get something passed for the younger people in the Town.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anybody like to address the Town Board?
UNIDENTIFIED: I will be quick, I just have an observation. Previously farmers would
sell their land, sell their development rights and that was it, it wasn't like, well, okay what
am I going to get for it? They would just sell their development rights, the land would be
preserved for the future and right now something has started where well, they can get
probably more money and in the meantime it is going to be creating higher density
somewhere else. To me it is an observation that just says it is kind of sad in my respect.
I don't know what incentive a farmer would have to just sell the development rights for
the land to be preserved unless they were truly altruistic and you know, unfortunately
they want to make a buck too, so I wouldn't blame them for getting more money with the
TDR. But it is just an observation.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I think the one thing that needs to be understood with what
you said was, we are really changing the focus of preservation a little bit because
historically development rights were bought by the Town and extinguished the same day
by the Town. If you are going to go to a private market, those rights are going to have to
be, the developer is going to want to be make whole, so he is going to want to land them
somewhere. Whereas if the Town served as a bank and went out and bought these
TDR's, we could, at the vote of the Board, extinguish them at any time. Just like we do
with current PDR's. and that was one concern I had with Councilman Ruland, we talked
about maybe the Town should stay in as a bank because if we decide you can't land 30
Southold Town Board Public Hearing 33
Draft GElS for Transfer of Development Rights
units here, we can extinguish them and that is that. It would be no different than our
traditional approach. That is a good point. Anyone else like to address the Board?
FLORENCE COPE: Florence Cope from East Marion. Maybe just another part of our
uniqueness, we are two square miles in size, two thirds of which is surrounded by water,
Bay and Sound and in that two square miles, we currently have 650 residences. My
concern is previously a gentleman mentioned when they spoke of caps on development
within a hamlet or a HALO zone, East Marion was listed to 73.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is total potential, isn't it? 29, your, the cap. Seventy
nine is the total you can absorb based on Department of Health standards. The cap would
impose your limit at 29.
MS. COPE: Twenty nine but it could go to 73.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: No. Twenty nine.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would be the cap. But a new Town Board could always
elevate that cap down the road.
MS. COPE: That is my point. Right. It could be elevated. For clarification, looking at
the map here, East Marion has no sending acreage at all. So I don't know just how this
formula applies to us, other than what we have in Orient because we are talking of school
district.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is again, I raised that issue earlier. You do have
potential for sending area in Sep's. My understanding of that is that the owner of that
wants to enroll in the ag district. That would potential add it to the list of sending areas.
But again, when you are looking at active farmland, there is not a lot in East Marion that
is part of the ag district, I know. Fair point.
MS. COPE: Okay. One other issue for East Marion and starting now today it is the end
of May. For the next three months and Mr. Wickham, I would invite you to try and come
to our post office on a Saturday morning and leave it safely. The traffic, you want to talk
about density, we put up with there and an excessive speed limit. I would love to see
down to even 40 for safety, not that everybody is going to do it maybe they will do 55
instead of 65. but the density there for us, all the way out to the Point, we have no other
road and to add additional density to that, I think maybe that is one of the reasons we are
all fighting so hard for this little place, we really can't, it is just not safe. So I just need to
mention that. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the
Board? I really have to read this from Albert (Councilman Krupski). I am sorry, you
have to indulge me, I promised him. Albert could not be here tonight because both of his
daughters are being honored at ROTC awards ceremony and as dads go, I don't blame
him. That should have been his first priority. "I regret not being able to be here with the
Southold Town Board Public Heating
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
34
Board this evening, my two daughters both participate in the Mattituck ROTC program
and tonight is the annual awards dinner for the whole Mattituck-Southold-Greenport unit.
I feel that my presence there to support my daughter's and their participation in the
ROTC program is important. I have attended several TDR work sessions as a Town
Board member as well as the previous public presentation. I believe that the program as
proposed, I am sorry, he hand wrote this; has merit and I support this concept as a means
of enhancing the Town of Southold's land preservation efforts. Land preservation is a
long term goal of the Town and I believe we should explore all options to reach that goal.
Sincerely, Albert Krupski, Jr." Okay. Would anybody else like to come up and address
the Town Board? (No response) Hearing none, can I get a motion ....
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I would like to make just one brief comment about the cap
and the ratio of sending areas to receiving areas. In my experience and knowledge about
transfers of development rights programs elsewhere, the programs that have really
succeeded in making a lot of transfers are those that have a lot of receiving areas relative
to sending areas. When you don't have, when the ratio is reversed, when you have a lot
of potential sending areas and not many receiving areas those programs they are on the
books, there may be an occasional person who will take advantage of it but generally
speaking, there aren't a whole lot of transfers that are consummated. With the caps that
we have and that are in the book, that are proposed, and given the numbers that are out
there, I think this can be a useful program but I really don't think we are going to see a
whole lot of transfers. Unless we have a commercial component, which is one of the
alternatives in the book, that would provide another way to receive units, unless that were
in place, I think this program could be successful, it could be nice to have in the books. It
might have some marginal value here and there but I don't really think that it will result
in very many transfers.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Anybody else? Board members like to comment? I have a
lot of reservations about it. I sort of expressed them in piecemeal fashion to you earlier
tonight but this isn't a vote tonight. This is just a, we are going to close the hearing but I
am sure we will have other public hearings and be able to explain a lot of our ongoing
concems. Move to adjourn?
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I move we adjourn but we keep the hearing open for
written comment for ....
TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: You actually close the hearing, and you will accept
written comment for 10 days.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay, we are going to have a motion to close the hearing
tonight and then accept written comments for 10 days.
Motion to close the hearing.
Motion to adjourn.
Southold Town Board Public Hearing 35
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
Elizabeth A. Neville
Southold Town Clerk
Nelson, Pope & Voo ,is, LLC
572 Walt Whitman Road Phone: 631-427-5665
· Melville NY,,~747 Fax: 631-427-5620
Invoice
~perty: 07008 Project: VA02296
Southold 'fDR Pro~-~u~-, & SEQRA lmplt
Managec, Voorhis, Charles
To:
Town of Southold
Tovm Hall, 53095 Sta2 Rle 25
P.O. Box 1179
Soulhhoid NY 11971-0959
Attention: Hon. Scott Russell
MAKE ~tlECKS PAYABLE TO NELSON POPE & VOORHIS
Resolution Nmnber 200'/=33~ adopted Mareh 27, 2007:
Professionnl Plamrtng S~rvJces In eonnecUon with n TDR
Program pursuant to Nelson, Pope and Voorhls proposal
dated March 13, 2007.
Invoice #: 5018
Invoice Dat~: June 29, 2007
Invoice Amount $16,900.00
Contract Amount: $16,900.00
Percent ComplY. 100.00%
Fee E,m~l: $16,900.00
Prior Foe Bill~ngs: $0,00
Current Fee Total:
$16,9oo.oe
*** Total Project Invoice Amount
Please make all ekecl~ payable to ~T.I~ON POPE & VOORIII$
Please i:w2ude t~veice ~umber e~ checl~
N~I,SON lSOl~ & VOOIU]]S NOW A~ CREDIT CAIU~
ViSA - MASTERCARD - AMERICAN EXPRESS
$16,900.00
Town of Southold - Letter
Board Meeting of March 27, 2007
RESOLUTION 2007-335
ADOPTED
Item # 39
DOC ID: 2761
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 200%335 WAS
ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON
MARCH 27, 2007:
RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby retains Nelson. Pope and
Voorhis to provide profgssional plannin~ SeFVices ill connection with a TDR OF4Mrem
pursuant to their DFODO~a] dated March 13, 2007 in an amount not to exceed $16,900, subject
to the approval of the Town Attorney.
Elizabeth A. Neville
Southold Town Clerk
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANZMOUS]
MOVER: Wllllam P. Edwards, Councilman
SECONDER: Albert Krupski 3r., Councilman
AYES: Evans, WIckham, Ross, Edwards, Russell, Krupski
Generated April 3, 2007
Page 62
6] 000006 OIP
214
200. oo
.8020.4.500.500
-8020.4.500.500
TBR155 5017
TBR481 5017
TBR335 5018
UPDATE-TOWN WATER M 1,800.00
UPDATE-TOWN WATER M 4,500.00
PLANNING SERVICES- 16,900.00
TOTAL 23,200.00
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD · SOUTHOLD, NY 11971-0959
Purchase Order #
'17874
]WN OF SOUTHOLD
Date
Tax Exempt # Alfi3554
I, ~ ,' "' L
Account # ~,-~... ~ . t ' ~')i...!'~ ""'
IDeliver and send billing to:
Department
Address \
Vendor '
Il 7q-}
VENDOR
**Return this copy and Town of Southold voucher itemized and signed for payment**
ITEM
QUANTITY
DESCRIPTION
UNIT COST
TOTAL
THIS PURCHASE ORDER IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURES OF THE DEPT. HEAD AND THE SUPERVISOR
I CERTIFY THAT THERE ARE
SUFFICIENT FUNDS AVAILABLE
IN THE!APPROPRIATION CHARGED
Dept~ Head
[RTIFY THIS TO BE A JUST
'RUE PURCHASE ORDER
Supervisor
· Nel on,,Pope & Voo'-'qs, LLC
~572 Welt Whitr,'~an Road Phone: 63, ..+27-5665
Melville NY 11747 Fax: 631-427-5620
Invoice
Property: 07008 Prqject: VA02296
Southold TDR Program & SEQRA Implr
Manager: Voorhis, Charles
To:
Town of Southold
Town Hall, 53095 State Rte 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southhold NY 11971-0959
Attention: Hon. Scott Russell
Invoice#: 5596
Invoice Date: January 31, 2008
Contract date~ber~
Task I: Project Start-up and Preparation of
Full Environmental Assessment Form 0gAF)
Parts I and II. ($1,250.00)
Invoice Amount
$9,321.50
Task II: Project Classification and Issuance of
Determination o.f Significance ($250.00)
Contract Amount:
Percent Complete:
Fee Earned:
Prior Fee Billings:
$1,500.00
100.00%
$1,500.00
$0.00
Current Fee Total:
$1,500.00
Task 4: Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental
Impact Statement.
Work Performed thru 10/22/07
FEB - ,~ 2008
Contract Amount:
Percent Complete:
Fee Earned:
Prior Fee Billings:
Current Fee Total:
$15,000.00
50.00%
$7,500.00
$0.00
$7,500.00
FEB 1 2008 ..~
SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE
lOWN Ill- 5UUI HULrJ
Purchase Order #
18901
7 WN OF SOUTHOLD'
Date July 23, 2008
Tax Exempt # A163554
B 8020 4 500 300
Account #
er and send billing to:
rtment PLA~NiNG BO~D
Address
JVendor ~ {~{J~[ J
Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC
572 Walt k%itman Road
~a~ville, NY 11742
VENDOR
**Return this copy and Town of Southold voucher itemized and signed for payment**
ITEM
QUANTITY
DESCRIPTION
Environmental Cob~a~ Se~ices
re: TMR & SEOR~
in payment of
UNIT COST
TOTAL
$6,739.16
THIS PURCHASE ORDER IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SI(~NATURES OF THE DEPT. HEAD AND THE SUPERVISOR
I CERTIFY THAT THERE ARE
SUFFICIENT FUNDS AVAILABLE
IN THE APPROPRIATION CHARGED
Dept. Head
~RTIFY THIS TO BE A JUST
TRUE PURCHASE ORDER
.. · ;.,~, . .,/
Supervisor
IWelaon, Pope & Voor is, LLC
57;~Walt V~h tman Road Phone: 63', _7-5665
Melville NY 11747 Fax: 631-427-5620
Il
To:
Town of Southold
Town Hall, 53095 State Rte 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southhold NY 11971-0959
Attention: Hon. Scott Russell
SU?ERVISOR'S O[FICE
TOWN OF SOUTNOLD
Property: 07008 Project: VA02296
Southold TDR Program & SEQRA Implr
Manager: Voorhis, Charles
Invoice #: 5951
Invoice Date: July 16, 2008
MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO NELSON POPE & VOORHIS Invoice Amount $6,739.16
Task 5: Revise DGEIS; prepare key point summary;
prepare for and attend public hearing; prepare
hearing introduction.
Work Performed thru 5/07/08
Contract Amount: $7,500.00
Percent Complete: 25.00%
Fee Earned: $1,875.00
Prior Fee Billings: $0.00
Current Fee Total:
$1,875.00
Task 7:Department/StafOTB Meetings, Hearings:
Town Board Meeting to advise/consult with Board
on DSGEIS prior to acceptance. Prepare for and
attend Public Hearing (5/27/08).
Work Performed thru 5/27/08
Contract Amount: $3,500.00
Percent Complete: 60.00%
Fee Earned: $2,100.00
Prior Fee Billings: $0.00
Current Fee Total: $2,100.00
· [,' Allen Video I
35 Plane Tree Lane
Saini James, N.Y. 11780
Invoice
In,n~ice
1849
Bill To
Town of Soud~hold
53095 Routc 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southhold, N.Y. 11971
Arm: Town Clerk
Ilem I~ Job D~e Amounl
Me.lng Tape Video Tapc Board Meciing Special informallonal meeting TDR'S 0'J/06t08 300.00
Tape Tapc Used (1) 8,00
Town of Southold, New York - Payment Voucher
,/
Town of Southold
Employee Time Record for Grants
Employee
Name: Melissa Spiro
Employee Title: Principal Planner
Grant Contract
Number: C059933
Grant Title/Development and Implementation of
Description: Town of Southold TDR ProRram
Budget Amount: ~11900
Date Description of work accomplished Hours Rate Total Hourly Rate
7/29/2005 Reviewed TDR Program prepared by P,F. 3.0~0 $ 139.32 $ 46.44
8/16/2005 Meeting with Town Board to discuss TDR 1.00 $ 46.44 $ 46.44
8/24/2005 Met with Town Board to review draft plan 2.00 $ 92.88 $ 46.44
9/21/2005 TDR Work group meeting 2,00 $ 92.88 $ 46.44
9/23/2005 Discuss TDR Req with SCDHS 2,00 $ 92.88 $ 46.44
SCDOH meeting update In attendance- Pat
Finnegan, Mark Terry, Melissa Spiro, Walter
10/19/2005 Hilbert, Vito Minei, Martin Trent 2.00 $ 92.88 $ 46.44
Prep and attend TDR Work Group
2/2/2006 meeting/HALO 4.00 $ 189.00 $ 47.25
2/6/2006 Planning and Zoning Meeting 1.50 $ 70.88 $ 47.25
2/15/2006 Prep and attend TDR Workgroup Meeting 3.00 $ 141.75 $ 47.25
3/8/2006 Prep and attned TDR Work Group meeting 4.00 $ 189.00 $ 47.25
3/14/2006 Discuss TDR Plan with Town Board W.S. 2.00 $ 94.50 $ 47.25
3/21/2006 Prep and attend TDR Work Group 3.00 $ 141.75 $ 47.25
3/27/2006 Discuss HALO/TDR with J.S., M.S.A.T. 1.75 $ 82.69 $ 47.25
3/28/2006 DiscussTDR with Town Board W.S. 2.75 $ 129.94 $ 47.25
11/17/2006 Joint Riverhead/Southold TDR Workshop 1.50 $ 70.88 $ 47.25
Met with Planning Board to discuss TDR
11/21/2006 methods and model. 2.00 $ 94.50 $ 47.25
11/28/2006 Met with SCDOH to discuss transfer rates 1.50 $ 70.88 $ 47.25
1/26/2007 Prep and attend TDR Work Group meeting 3.00 $ 147.42 $ 49,14
Discuss TDR with Planning and Zoning
4/712007 Corem 2.25 $ 110,57 $ 49.14
4/8/2007 Prep and attend TDR Work Group meeting 2.50 $ 122,85 $ 49,14
4/11/2007 Prep and attend TDR Work Group meeting 3,00 $ 147.42 $ 49.14
5/9/2007 Prep and attend TDR Work Group meeting 3.00 $ 147.42 $ 49.14
5~23~2007 Prep and attend TDR work group meeting 2.50 $ 122.85 $ 49.14
5/2412007 TDR Planning and zoning meeting 1.50 $ 73.71 $ 49.14
Prep and attend TDR work group to review
3/14/2007 DGEIS 3.00 $ 147.42 $ 49.14
6~8~2007 HALO meeting with J.S. 2.00 $ 98,28 $ 49,14
6/14/2007 Prep and attend TDR Work Group meeting 3.00 $ 147.42 $ 49.14
6/15/2007 HALO modeling meeting with M.S./J.S. 2.25 $ 110.57 $ 49.14
6/16/2007 Discuss HALO modeling with J.S. 1.75 $ 86.00 $ 49.14
6/21/2007 Update Planning and Zoning on TDR 2,00 $ 98.28 $ 49.14
6~26~2007 Met with Bill and Tom Town Board members 2.00 $ 98.28 $ 49.14
6~27~2007 Prep and attend TDR Work Group meeting 3.50 $ 171.99 $ 49.14
7~3~2007 TDR Work Group meeting 2,00 $ 98.28 $ 49.14
Met with Scott, Al and Dan Town Board
7~6~2007 members 2.00 $ 98.28 $ 49.14
7/12/2007 Review TDR program at Town Board WS 2.00 $ 98.28 $ 49.14
7/12/2007 TDR Work Group meeting 2.00 $ 98.28 $ 49.14
4/8/2008 Prep for TDR Work Group meeting 2.50 $ 142.03 $ 56.81
4/9/2008 'I'DR Work Group meeting 4.00 $ 227.24 $ 56.81
4~26~2008 Prep and attend TDR Work Group meeting 4.00 $ 227.24 $ 56.81
Meeting with Town Board AND Public on
5/14/2008 DGEIS 4.00 $ 227.24 $ 56.81
7/23/2008 ITDR Work Group meeting 3.00 $ 170.43 $ 56.81
8/8/2008 Discuss TDR/HALO with Town Board W.S. 2.00 $ 113.62 $ 56.81
10/12/2008 Prep and attend TDR work group 3.00 $ 170.43 $ 56.81
1.75 $ 99.42 $ 56.81
Hourly rates
include fringe
benefits
Town of Southold
Employee Time Record for Grants
Employee
Name: Mark Terry
Employee Title: Principal Planner
Grant Contract
Number: C059933
Grant Title/Development and Implementation of
Description: Town of $outhold TDR Program
Budget Amount: ~7,000
Date Description of work accomplished Hours Total Hourly Rate Hourly Rate
7/29/2005 Reviewed TDR Program prepared by P.F. 3.00 $92.02 $ 45.05
8/3/2006 Discuss TDR Program with P.F. Email 1.00 $30.67 $ 45.05
8/312005 Meeting with P.F on TDR program 2.00 $61.35 $ 45.05
8/12/2005 Email form P.F. 0.50 $15.34 $ 45.05
8/16/2005 Meeting ith Town Board to discuss TDR 1.00 $30.67 $ 45.05
8/17/2005 Discuss TDR with P.F. 2.00 $61.35 $ 45.05
8/29/2005 Discuss TDR Req with SCDH$ 200 $61.35 $ 45.05
8/24/2005 Met with Town Board to review draft plan 2.00 $61.35 $ 45.05
9/21/2005 TDR Work group meeting 2.00 $61.35 $ 45.05
9/23/2005 Discuss TDR Req with SCDHS 2.00 $61.35 $ 45.05
9/27/2005 Discuss TDR Req with SCDHS Email 1.00 $30.67 $ 45.05
9/28/2005 Discuss TDR Req with SCDHS Email 1.00 $30.67 $ 45.05
912912005 Discuss legal issues of TDR with P.F. 1.00 $30.67 $ 45.05
SCDOH meeting update In attendance- Pat
Finnegan, Mark Terry, Melissa Spiro, Walter
10/19/2005 Hilbert, Vito Minei, Martin Trent 2.00 $90.1(~ $ 45.05
2/2/2006 TDR Work Group meeting/HALO 3.00 $149.16 $ 49.72
2/6/2006 Discuss TDR with John Sepenoski 1.00 $49.72 $ 49.72
2/6/2006 Planning and Zoning Meaning 1.50 $74.58 $ 49.72
2/15/2006 TDR Workgroup Meeting 2.00 $99.44 $ 49.72
2/17/2006 Discuss HALO maps with John Sepnoski 1.75 $87.01 $ 49.72
3/8/2006 TDR Work Group meeting 3.00 $149.16 $ 49.72
3/14/2006 Discuss TDR Plan with Town Board W.S. 2.00 $9944 $ 49.72
3/21/2006 TDR Work Group 2.00 $99.44 $ 49.72
3/27/2006 Discuss HALO/TDR with J.S., MS. A.T. 1.75 $87.01 $ 49.72
3/28/2006 Discuss TDR with Town Board W.S. 2.75 $136.73 $ 49.72
11/17/2006 Joint Riverhead/Southold TDR Workshop 1.50 $74.58 $ 49.72
Met with Planning Board to discuss TDR
11/21/2006 methods and model. 2.00 $99.44 $ 49.72
11/28/2006 Met with SCDOH to discuss transfer rates 1.50 $74.58 $ 49.72
1/1/2007 Met with Consultant 1.25 $62.30 $ 49.84
1/24/2007 HALO Boundary Edits 1.7~ $87.22
1/26/2007 TDR Work Group meeting 2.25 $112.14
Discuss TDR with Planning and Zoning
4/7/2007 Comm 2.25 $112.14
4/8/2007 TDR Work Group meeting 2.00 $99.68
4/11/2007 TDR Work Group meet ng 2.00 $99.68
4/18/2007 Prepare for stakeholder meeting 5.00 $249.20
4/18/2007 Stakeholder meeting 3.00 $149.52
4/26/2007 Stakeholder meeting 3.00 $149.52
4/26/2007 Stakeholder meeting 2.00 $99.68
5/9/2007 ITDR Work Group meeting 2.00 $99.68
5/23/2007 TDR work group meeting 2.00 $99.68
5/24/2007 TDR Planning and zoning meeting 1.50 $74.78
5/30/2007 Discuss HALO model with J.S. 1.50 $74.76
2/24/2007 Review DGEIS 5.00 $249.20
3/14/2007 TDR work group to review DGEIS 2.00 $99.68
6/1/2007 Discuss HALO maps and models with J.S. 2.25 $112.14
6/6/2007 Discuss HALO maps with J.S. 1.75 $87.22
6/8/2007 HALO meeting with J.S. 2.00 $99.68
6/14/2007 ITDR Work Group meeting 2.00 $99.68
6/15/2007 HALO modeling meeting with M.S./J.S. 2.25 $112.14
6/16/2007 Discuss HALO modeling with J.S. 1.75 $87.22
6/19/2007 Review HALO method draft 1.00 ! $49.84
6/21/2007 Update Planning and Zoning on TDR 2.00: $99.68
6/21/2007 Halo model meeting with J.S 1.25 $62.30
6/26/2007 Met with Bill and Tom Town Board members 2.00 $99.68
6/27/2007 TDR Work Group meeting 2.50 $124.60
7/3/2007 TDR Work Group meeting 2.00 $99.68
Met with Scott, Al and Dan Town Board
7/6/2007 members 2.00 $99.68
7/12/2007 Review TDR program at Town Board WS 2.00 $99.68
7/12/2007 TDR Work Group meeting 2.00 $99.68
4/8/2008 TDR Work Group meeting 2.00 $111.90
4/9/2008 TDR Work Group meeting 4.00 $223.80
4/26/2008 TDR Work Group meeting 2.00 $111.90
Meeting with Town Board AND Public on
5/14/2008 DGEIS 4.00 $223.80
7/23/2008 ITDR Work Group meeting 3.00 $167.85
8/8/2008 Discuss TDR/HALO with Town Board W.S. 2.00 $111.90
8/14/2008 Discuss HALO areas with J.S. 1.00 $55.95
8/16/2008 HALO work group meeting 2.00 $111.90
B/16/2008 P&Z HALO method meeting 1,50 $83.93
9/7/2008 Town Board hamlet meeting 1.00 $55.95
10/10/2008 Discuss HALO model with J.S. 1.00 $55.95
10/12/2008 TDR work group 1.75 $97.91
10/23/2008 Finalize Greenport HALO map 2.00 $111.90
1.50 $83.93
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
49.84
49.84
49.84
49.84
49.84
49.84
49.84
49.84
49.84
49.84
49.84
49.84
49.84
49.84
49.84
49.84
49.84
49.84
49.84
49.84
49.84
49.84
49.84
49.84
49.84
49.84
49.84
49.84
49.84
49.84
55.95
55.95
55.95
55.95
55.95
55.95
55.95
55.95
55.95
55.95
55.95
55.95
55.95
55.95
QUALITY COMMUNITIES GRANT 2005- 2006 (QCEPF0064)
DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTION OF TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
NAME John Sepenoski
Meeting Record
Date - Hours Agenda and Topic (Staple Agenda (s) to Form)
2/3/06 2 TDR workgroup meeting
2/6/06 1 Discuss TDR with Mark Terry
2/6/06 1.5 Planning & Zoning meeting
2/7/06 0.75 Generate HALO & target acreages for TDR
2/8/06 0.75 Generate HALO statistics
2/13/06 0.75 Discuss HALO/TDR numbers with Melissa Spiro
2/15/06 2.0 TDR workgroup meeting
2/16/06 1.0 HALO mapping
2/16/06 1.25 Work on HALO/TDR statistics with M¢lissa Spiro
2/17/06 1.75 Discuss HALOs with Mark Terry, work on Mattituck HALO map
2/21/06 0.5 HALO mapping
2/23/06 0.75 Generate HALO build out numbers
2/27/06 1.0 Work on HALO maps
2/28/06 1.5 Generate HALO statistics, prim HALO maps
3/3/06 1.5 Discuss TDR statistics with M¢lissa Spiro, generate TDR statistics
a~ 76/06 0.25 Discuss TDR build out with Bill Edwards
3/7/06 0.75 Generate TDR statistics
3/8/06 2.0 Work on HALO/TDR methodology
3/9/06 3.25 Work on HALO/TDR analysis
3/9/06 1.0 Discuss TDR build out with Melissa Spiro & Anthony Trezza
3/13/06 1.0 Work on HALO/TDR methodology
3/14/06 1.5 Work on HALO/TDR methodology & statistics
3/14/06 2.0 Town Board work session
3/22/06 7.0 Work on HALO/TDR build out
3/24/06 0.25 Print parcel listing for HALO/TDR analysis
3/27/06 2.5 Work on HALO/TDR analysis
3/27/06 1.75 Discuss HALO/TDR with Melissa Spiro, Anthony Trezza & Mark Terry
3/28/06 2.75 Work on HALO/TDR analysis
3/28/06 2.0 Town Board work session
4/7/06 2.25 Planning & Zoning meeting
4/10/06 0.5 Work on HALO/TDR analysis
4/17/06 0.75 Work on HALO/TDR analysis
4/18/06 1.5 Prepare for stakeholder meeting
4/18/06 2.75 Stakeholders meeting
4/26/06 2..25 Stakeholders meeting
4/26/06 2.0 Stakeholders meeting
i~ q/23/06 1.25 Review proposed TDR legislation for meeting
.d24/06 1.5 Planning & Zoning meeting re TDR program
e5/26/06 1.0 Discuss TDR program with Melissa Spiro
~/30/06 1.5 Discuss HALO modeling methodology with Mark Terry, generate HALO statistics
for Sonthold
5/31/06 0.25 Generate Southold HALO statistics for Mark Terry
6/1/06 2.25 Discuss HALO maps & modeling with Mark Terry, generate HALO statistics
6/2/06 0.25 Generate Southold HALO statistics
6/6/06 1.75 Discuss HALO mapping with Mark Terry, create HALO density map
6/7/06 0.25 Update HALO density map
6/8/06 0.75 Update HALO density map, work on Southold HALO modeling
6/8/06 2.0 HALO meeting
6/9/06 0.25 Work on Southold HALO modeling
6/12/06 1.0 Update HALO modeling
6/15/06 2.25 HALO modeling ~roup meeting with Mark Terry, Melissa Spiro & Leslie Weisman
6/16/06 1.75 Review HALO modeling, discuss HALO modeling with Mark Terry
6/19/06 1.0 Review Leslie Weisman's HALO write up, discuss HALO modeling with Melissa
Spiro
6/20/06 0.75 Review Leslie Weisman's HALO write up
6/21/06 2 Planning & Zoning meeting
6/21/06 1.25 HALO modeling group meeting
6/30/06 3.5 Update Southold HALO map, create charts for meeting
7/5/06 2 HALO modeling group meeting
7/6/06 0.5 Update Southold HALO modeling map
~t '/19/06 0.5 Review Leslie Weisman's draft HALO document
7/27/06 2.0 Planning & Zoning meeting
8/8/06 2.0 Town Board work session
8/8/06 ' 2.75 HALO modeling Mattituck & Orient
8/9/06 2.25 HALO modeling
8/14/06 1.0 Discuss HALO modeling with Mark Terry
8/16/06 1.0 HALO modeling group meeting
8/16/06 1.5 Planning & Zoning meeting re HALO modeling for Mattituck & New Suffolk
8/21/06 1.0 Update Mattituck HALO modeling
8/22/06 1.25 Work on HALO modeling
8/23/06 1.75 HALO modeling group meeting
8/23/06 1.75 Update Southold HALO modeling
8/24/06 1.0 HALO modeling
8/28/06 0.5 Update Orient HALO modeling
8/30/06 1.5 Update HALO modeling for Cutchogue & East Marion
8/30/06 2.25 Planning & Zoning meeting re Cutchogue & East Marion HALOs
8/31/06 3.0 Update Peconic & Greenport HALO modeling
9/7/06 1.0 Town Board hamlet meeting
10/10/06 1.0 Discuss HALO modeling with Mark Terry & Leslie Weisman
I0/11/06 1.0 Update HALO modeling
10/12/06 1.75 TDR workgroup meeting
j10/31/06 1.25 Print HALO maps for Planning Board
· 1/2/06 1.5 PDD/TDR work group meeting
1/8/06 2 Individual PDR/TDR meeting
1/9/06 1.5 Work on HALO maps, individual PDR numbers
1/17/061.5 TDR/PDR work group meeting
1/20/062 Planning Board work session - discuss HALO boundaries
1/28/061 SCDHS meeting re TDR
1/29/061 Discuss HALO boundaries with Mark Terry
13o.5 ~ '-I~,'~il ~52~ I, o~5
Travel/Mileage Record
Date Mileage Destination
Supplies
D~te Item Itemized Cost Total Cost
Town of Southold
Employee Time Record for Grants
Employee
Name: John Sepenoski
Employee Title: Technical Coordinator
Grant Contract
Number: C059933
Grant Title/Development and Implementation of Town of
Description: Southold TDR Program
Budget Amount: ~21600
Date Description of work accomplished Hours
12/12/2006 RiD/Partial TDR group meeting 1.5
1/12/2007 TDR meeting 2.5
1/17/2007 TDR workgroup meeting 2
1/24/2007 TDR workgroup meeting 2
1/26/2007 HALO meeting 1.5
1/26/2007 TDR meeting 1.75
· ~. 1/30/2007 Work on HALO maps ?
q · 2/2/2007 TDR meeting 2
2/15/2007 HALO modeling 2
211612007 TDR meeting 2.5
2/28/2007 TDR statistics 0.5
3/9/2007 TDR meeting 2.25
3/15/2007 TDR statistics 2
311912007 TDR meeting 1.75
312112007 TDR meeting 2.5
3/23/2007 TDR sending area statistics 1
3/27/2007 Town Board work session 1
4/4/2007 TDR meeting 2
4/12/2007 TDR SEQRA meeting 2.75
4/19/2007 HALO meeting 2
4/27/2007 iTDR SEQRA meeting 1.75
5/9/2007 TDR SEQRA meeting 2
5/14/2007 Review TDR report 1
5/15/2007 Review TDR report 2
5/30/2007 TDR SEQRA meeting
5/30/2007 TDR statistics 1 ..~
6/13/2007 HALO TDR mapping & statistics
6/14/2007 TDR SEQRA meeting
6/19/2007 Work on HALO TDR methodology
6/20/2007 HALO TDR statistics and maps 5.."
6/21/2007 HALO TDR statistics and maps 1
.- 6/25/2007 Discuss TDR SEQRA report with Mark Terry 1
~ P 6/26/2007 Review NPV TDR report, prep meetin~l for Town 1
Total Hourly Rate Hourly Rate
$ 62.79 $ 41.85
$ 108.57 $ 43.43
$ 86.85 $ 43.43
$ 86.85 $ 43.43
$ 65.14 $ 43.43
$ 76.00 $ 43.43
$ 86.85 $ 43.43
$ 86.85 $ 43.43
$ 86.85 $ 43.43
$ 108.57 $ 43.43
$ 21.71 $ 43.43
$ 97.71 $ 43.43
$ 86.85 $ 43.43
$ 76.00 $ 43.43
$ 108.57 $ 43.43
$ 43.43 $ 43.43
$ 43.43 $ 43.43
$ 86.85 $ 43.43
$ 119.42 $ 43.43
$ 86.85 $ 43.43
$ 76.00 $ 43.43
$ 86.85 $ 43.43
$ 43.43 $ 43.43
$ 86.85 $ 43.43
$ 86.85 $ 43.43
$ 65.14 $ 43.43
$ 173.71 $ 43.43
$ 86.85 $ 43.43
$ 21.71 $ 43.43
$ 238.85 $ 43.43
$ 65.14 $ 43.43
$ 65.14 $ 43.43
$ 65.14 $ 43.43
6/26/2007 TDR meeting with Town Board 2
6~29~2007 Green ort HALO meetin , u date
statistics
2
7/3/2007 TDR SEQRA meetin~l with Dan Ross & Louisa 1
7/9/2007 Discuss Supervisor's concerns with TDR report 1
7/10/2007 Discuss Supervisor's concerns with TDR report 1
7/11/2007 Meeting with Supervisor
7/11/2007 Update TDR sending list and map
7/12/2007 Town Board special meeting] re TDR
7/17/2007 Work on Greenport HALO map 0.7.~
8/13/2007 Greenport Stakeholders meeting
8~27~2007 Print HALO maps and statistics
3/27/2008 Send updated TDR numbers to NPV
4/1/2008 Work on TDR methodology 0.7.~
41912008 TDR DGEIS meetings with Town Board
4/11/2008 TDR Group meeting ,-
4/14/2008 Review TDR report 2
412212008 Town Board work session re TDR report 1
51612008 Update TDR sending list and map 2
712312008 1'DR meeting 2
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
86.85
86.85
65.14
43.43
65.14
43.43
43.43
86.85
32.57
21.71
43.43
45.06
33.79
135.17
90.11
90.11
45.06
90.11
90.11
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
43.43
43.43
43.43
43.43
43.43
43.43
43.43
43.43
43.43
43.43
43.43
45.06
45.06
45.06
45.06
45.06
45.06
45.06
45.06
Date
8/3/05
8/9/05
8/17/05
8/24/05
9/16/05
9/26/05
9/28105
10/20/05
PATRICIA FINNEGAN'S TDR TIME
Meeting Detail
TDR Meeting w/Melissa, Mark & Anthony
TDR Meeting w/Melissa
TDR Meeting w/Mark & John Sepenoski
Attend Code Committee Meeting re: TDR
TDR Meeting w/Melissa, Mark & Anthony
TDR/HALO Meeting w/Dan Ross & Melissa
Attend Code Committee Meeting re: TDR
TDR Meeting at SCDHS wNito Minei
Total 2005 Hours:
Hours
2.00
1.00
2.00 _
2.00 '~
2.50 -'~'~'~'
1.50
2.00
2.50
15.50
2/3/06
2/15/06
5/24/06
6/21/06
10/12/06
11/2/06
11/17/06
11/28/06
TDR Work Group Meeting
TDR Work Group Meeting
Attend Planning & Zoning Committee Meeting
re: TDR
Attend Planning & Zoning Committee Meeting
re: TDR
TDR Work Group Meeting
TDR-PDD Work Group Meeting
TDR Work Group Meeting
TDR Work Group Meeting wNito Minei from
SCDHS
Total 2006 Hours:
3.00
2.00
1.50
1.50
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.50
13.60
1/12/07
1/17/07
1/26/07
3/9/07
3/19/07
3/21/07
3/26/07
4/4/07
5/9/07
5/18/07
5/30/07
6/14/07
6/26/07
6/26/07
TDR Work Group Meeting
TDR Work Group Meeting
TDR Work Group Meeting
TDR Work Group Meeting
TDR Work Group Meeting
TDR Work Group Meeting
TDR-PDD Meeting w/Mark
TDR Work Group Meeting
TDR Work Group Meeting
TDR Work Group Meeting
TDR Work Group Meeting
TDR Work Group Meeting
TDR Work Group Meeting
TDR Work Session w/Tom Wickham and
Bill Edwards
1.50
2.00
2.50
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.00
2.00
2.50
2.00
Date
6/26/07
7/3/07
7/12/07
Meeting Detail
TDR Work Session w/Scott, Dan Ross &
Al Krupski
TDR Work Group Meeting
TDR Special Town Board Work Session
Total 2007 Hours:
3/14/08
4/9/08
4/9/08
4/8/08
4/26/08
5/6/08
5/27/08
7/23/08
TDR Work Group Meeting
TDR Meeting w/Bill Edwards & Louisa Evans
TDR Meeting w/Scott, Vincent Orlando &
Al Krupski
TDR Work Group Meeting
TDR Work Group Meeting
Attend Town Board Public Information Session
on review of DGEIS re: TDR
Attend Town Board Public Hearing on DGEIS
re: TDR
TDR Work Group Meeting
Total 2008 Hours:
TOTAL HOURS 2005-2008: 80.5
Hours
1.00
1.50
2.00
34,50
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
17.00
CONTRACT #C059933
Products and Supporting Documents
Prepared By:
Town of Southold Planning Department
Mark Terry, Principal Planner
54375 State Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
CONTRACT #C059933
Products and Supporting Documents
Prepared By:
Town of Southold Planning Department
Mark Terry, Principal Planner
54375 State Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
DOCUMENTATION FORMS
Quality Communities Grant Program
CONTRACT # C059943
Expenditures Incurred During the Period 4 / 1
/05 through 8 /31 /08
SUMMARY SHEET
I. BUDGET/EXPENDITURE DATA ( Total Project Costs, Appendix B, Budget Summary in the Contract)
Cumulative
Current Expenditures Expenditures Available
Budget Documented Documented Balance to
Amount this Report to Date Document
(1) (2) (3) (1-3)
A. Salaries, Wages and Fringe _$19,100.00__ __$19,100.00
$19,100.00_
B. Travel
0
0
0
C. Supplies and Materials
Equipment
E. Contractual Services
_$55,900.00__ __33,268.66__ __$33,268.66_ __$22,631.34__
TOTAL $75.000.00 $52.368.66 $52.368.66 $22.631.34
II. CLAIM TYPE
X Interim Claim Final Claim
III. CERTIFICATION
By signature on the attached voucher, I further certify that:
1) the amounts claimed accurately represent the expenses as recorded in our accounting records;
2) we are in compliance with all applicable provisions of the above-referenced Contract;
3) the attached narrative report (if required) accurately represents project accomplishments;
funds received are being used solely for the purposes of the "Project" as described in Appendix D of the
above-referenced Contract.
FORM 1
PROJECT NARRATIVE DETAILING PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS FOR THIS
CLAIM ONLY; INCLUDE COSTS AND DATES THAT GOODS WERE RECEIVED
AND SERVICES WERE COMPLETED
12/19/06 Task I - Project start up and preparation of Full EAF Parts I and II
12/19/06 Task II - Project classification and issuance of determination ofsig.
12/19/06 Task IV - Preparation of Draft DGEIS
12/19/06 Supplies
3/07- 6/07 All tasks see NP&V Proposal (Attached)
To 5/07/08 Task V - Revise DGEIS
5/7/08 Video Recording of Town Board meeting TDR
5/27/08 Task VII - Dept./staff/town board meet. DGEIS public heating
To 5/01/08 Task VIII - Report reprod. 13 copies etc...
5/7/08 Supplies
TOTAL
$1250.00
$25O.OO
$7,500.00
$321.50
$16,900.00
$1,875.00
$308.00
$2,100.00
$2,750.00
$14.16
$33,268.66
SEE ATTACHED BILLING HISTORY
FORM 2 - Expenditure Detail for this Payment Request. Be descriptive and specific.
A. SALARIES~ WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS REQUEST
TITLE
1. Patricia Finnegan, Town Attorney_
2. Mark Terry, Principal Planner
3. Anthony Trezza, Senior Planner
4. Melissa Spiro, Land Preservation Cord
5. John Sepenoski, Technical Cord.
6.
PAY PERIODS
FROM - TO
8/3/05 - 7/23/08
7/29/08 - 11/2/08
7/29/08 - 11/2/08
12/12/06 - 7/23/08
AMOUNT CHARGED
TO THIS PROJECT
$ 5338.82
$ 6959.49
$
$ 2687.98
$ 4 113.71__
$
SUBTOTAL
$__.19,100.00
B. TRAVEL (include name of traveler, date, destination and purpose and costs)
FORM 3
C. SUPPLIES/MATERIALS (describe and include dates received and costs)
SUBTOTAL $ 0
D. EQUIPMENT (describe and include dates received and costs)
SUBTOTAL $ 0
FORM 4
E. CONTRACTUAL SERVICES (include name of any contractors/consultants,
describe services, dates received, and costs)
Contractor: Nelson Pope and Voorhis LLC (See Attached Billing Statements)
SUBTOTAL $
.33,268.66
TOTAL OF ALL CATEGORIES ............................................. $
(SAME AS TOTAL SUMMARY SHEET COLUMN #2)
$52,368.66
AC 92 (.er. ~ ~TAN DAI~D
VOUCHER
Originating Agency Orig. Agency Code
DEPARTMENT OF STATE 19000
Payment Date (MM) (DD) (YY) OSC Use Only
,,~ 4 PayeeName(Limitto3Ospaces)
Interest Eligible (Y/N)
~ P-Contract
Liability Date (MM) (DD) (YY)
Payee Amount MIR Date (MM) (DD) (YY) ]
IRS Code IRS Amount
Payee Name (Limit to 30 spaces)
Stet. 1~pe Statistic Indlcator-Dept. Indlcator-Stetewide
Address (Limit to 30 spaces)
Ret/Inv. No. (Limit to 20 spaces)
Address (Limit to 30
City (Limit to 20 spaces) (Limit to 2 Spaces) Zip Code
Ret/Inv. Date
(MM) (DD) (YY)
Claiming reimbursement of expenditures incurred pursuant
to Quality Communities Contract # (_ O S °l ~1 ~-~ as detailed on the attached
Documentation Forms.
A. Total Summary Sheet Column #2
B. Less Local Share- circle 10%oK~
C. Total This Claim
'~'7
Payee Certification:
[ certify that the above bill is just. true and correct; that no part thereof has been paid except as stated and that
the balance is actually due and owing, and that taxes from which the State is exempt are excluded~
Payee's Signature in Ink ~- Title
Total
Discount
%
Net
FOR AGENCY USE ONLY
Authorized Signature
Date Title
STATE COMPTROLLER'S PRE-AUDIT
Venfied
Cer[ifisd for Payment
of
Net Amount
By
Expenditure
Liquidation
Cost Center Code
Dept. I Cost Center
I
Unit
Accum
Dept.
O~ject
Orig. Agency PO/Contract
Line F/P
DOCUMENTATION FORMS
Quality Communities Grant Program
CONTRACT # C059943
Expenditures Incurred During the Period 4 / 1 /05 through 8 /31 /08
SUMMARY SHEET
I. BUDGET/EXPENDITURE DATA ( Total Project Costs, Appendix B, Budget Summary in the Contract)
Cumulative
A. Salaries, Wages and Fringe
Current Expenditures Expenditures Available
Budget Documented Documented Balance to
Amount this Report to Date Document
(1) (2) (3) (1-3)
_$19,100.00__ __$19,100.00 $19,100.00_ 0
B. Travel
0
0
0
C. Supplies and Materials
D. Equipment
E. Contractual Services
_$55,900.00__ __33,268.66__ __$33,268.66_ __$22,631.34__
TOTAL $75.000.00 $52.368.66 $52.368.66 $22.631.34
II. CLAIM TYPE
X Interim Claim Final Claim
IlL CERTIFICATION
By signature on the attached voucher, I further certify that:
1) the amounts claimed accurately represent the expenses as recorded in our accounting records;
2) we are in compliance with all applicable provisions of the above-referenced Contract;
3) the attached narrative report (if required) accurately represents project accomplishments;
4) funds received are being used solely for the purposes of the "Project" as described in Appendix D of the
above-referenced Contract.
FORM 1
PROJECT NARRATIVE DETAILING PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS FOR THIS
CLAIM ONLY; INCLUDE COSTS AND DATES THAT GOODS WERE RECEIVED
AND SERVICES WERE COMPLETED
12/19/06 Task I - Project start up and preparation of Full EAF Parts I and II
12/19/06 Task II - Project classification and issuance of determination ofsig.
12/19/06 Task IV - Preparation of Draft DGEIS
12/19/06 Supplies
3/07- 6/07 All tasks see NP&V Proposal (Attached)
To 5/07/08 Task V - Revise DGEIS
5/7/08 Video Recording of Town Board meeting TDR
5/27/08 Task VII - Dept./staff/town board meet. DGEIS public hearing
To 5/01/08 Task VIII - Report reprod. 13 copies etc...
5/7/08 Supplies
TOTAL
$1250.00
$250.00
$7,500.00
$321.50
$16,900.00
$1,875.00
$308.00
$2,100.00
$2,750.00
$14.16
$33,268.66
SEE ATTACHED BILLING HISTORY
FORM 2 - Expenditure Detail for this Payment Request. Be descriptive and specific.
A. SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS REQUEST
TITLE
1. Patricia Finnegan, Town Attorney
2. Mark Terry, Principal Planner
3. Anthony Trezza, Senior Planner
4. Melissa Spiro, Land Preservation Cord __
5. John Sepenoski, Technical Cord.
6.
PAY PERIODS
FROM - TO
8/3/05 - 7/23/08
7/29/08 - 11/2/08
7/29/08 - 11/2/08
12/12/06 - 7/23/08
AMOUNT CHARGED
TO THIS PROJECT
$ 5338.82
$ 6959.49
$
$ 2687.98
$ 4,113.71__
$
SUBTOTAL
$__.19,100.00
B. TRAVEL (include name of traveler, date, destination and purpose and costs)
FORM 3
C. SUPPLIES/MATERIALS (describe and include dates received and costs)
SUBTOTAL $ 0
D. EQUIPMENT (describe and include dates received and costs)
SUBTOTAL $ 0
FORM 4
E. CONTRACTUAL SERVICES (include name of any contractors/consultants,
describe services, dates received, and costs)
Contractor: Nelson Pope and Voorhis LLC (See Attached Billing Statements)
SUBTOTAL $
33,268.66
TOTAL OF ALL CATEGORIES ............................................. $
(SAME AS TOTAL SUMMARY SHEET COLUMN #2)
__$52,368.66
'roject Status Form
Project Status Form
RECIPIENT
PROJECT TITLE
Town of Southold CONTRACT # CO59943
Development and Implementation of Transfer of Development Rights Program
Status Report Date:
August 21, 2008 (Updated
November 17, 2008)
Task Date of Percent of
# A/T Completion Completion
1 6/07 100
2 6/08 100
Task Description./Task Accomplishments
Creation of TDR Work Group
TDR Work Group was established. The group
continues to meet.
Program Foundation
Product Submitted to DOS
Note: That the DGEIS includes all the products
identified within Task 2.
Town of Southold Transfer of Development
Rights Program Report to Town Board (June
25, 2007 Revised March 26, 2008
ii. April 11, 2007 (Draft)
iii. May 8, 2007 (Draft)
iv. May 12, 2007 (Draft)
v. May 18, 2007 (Draft)
vi. May 26, 2007 (Draft)
vii. June 13, 2008 (Draft)
viii. June 25, 2008 (FINAL DRAFT)
ix. March 26, 2008
2. Report on the Delineation and modeling of
Sending Areas (Included in Product 1, Section
4.1)
3. Report on the Delineation Modeling and
Design on Receiving Areaq~t'(Included in
Product 1, Appendix G, Section 4.2).
1.21.08 Status Report.doc
3 0
4
4a
100
Draft Local Law
State Environmental Quality Review Act
Completion of Full EAF Forms 1 & 2
Report on the value and Allocation~l~Fransfer
of Development Rights (Included in Product 1 )
Analysis and Implications of a Transfer of
Development Rights Program on Current Town
Preservation Plans and Current Town Zoning
(Included in Product 1, Section 4.0)
None: This product will be sent upon
completion of the SEQR process and linked to
the Findings of the process.
Complete EAF Forms I & II included as
Appendix C, DGEIS.
4b 100
4c 100
Project Classification and SEQRA Issuance
of Significance
SEQR Scoping Process
Positive Declaration included as Appendix D, DGEIS
Draft and Final Scope
4d 100
Preparation of DGEIS
DGEIS "Town of Southold Transfer of Development
Rights Program Report as a Supplement to the GEIS for
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy"
April 2008
4e 65 Processing of DGEIS and Final None
Supplement EIS
4f 0 Preparation of Findings Statement None
~DJUSTMENTS - Please indicate proposed adjustment(s) to work program/schedule, reason(s) for the proposed adjustment(s), and any other problems
ncountered during, this reoortin~ oeriod:
~.21.08 Status Report.doc
Person to cont~fwe have questions about the information provided on this form:
Name: Mark Terry Email Address: mark.terry~southold.town.ny.us
Title: Principal Planner Affiliation: Town of Southold
Phone: 631-765-1938 Fax: 631-765-3136
1.21.08 Status Report.doc
Guidelines for completing the Proiect Status Form
lease fill out all items in the top section - Recipient, Contract #, Project Title, and Status Report Date. In the next section, list each task from the work plan of the
,grecment and provide corresponding information for each.
~.21.08 Status Report.doc
Task # and Brief Task Description should agree with the tasks listed in the work plan of the Agreement.
AFl' should indicate if Date of Completion is the Actual completion date or the current Target Date for completion of the
task.
Percent of Completion is the percentage that the task is complete as of the Status Report Date.
Task Accomplishments should be brief, but describe specific accomplishments for each task.
Product Submitted should be "Draft" if the draft product has been submitted to DOS (or is being submitted with this
report), "Final" if the final product has been submitted to DOS (or is being submitted with this report), "None" if product
has not yet been submitted, or "N/A" if not applicable. Alternatively, the specific product(s) submitted may be listed.
Important things to consider when filling out this section of the Status Report Form:
Tasks should match those in the work plan of the Agreement with DOS (not a subcontractor agreement).
All tasks (including subtasks) in the work plan of the Agreement must be listed on each report submitted.
All columns must be completed for every task.
A task cannot be considered 100% complete until the required product is submitted to and approved by DOS.
Task accomplishments should be as specific as possible (but brief). Status reports submitted with generic
accomplishment entries will take longer to review by DOS and may not be accepted. Here are some tips on how
accomplishment entries can be improved:
Generic accomplishment entry: Specific accomplishment entry:
Advisory committee established. 8 person advisory committee was established and has met (6) times to date.
RFP issued.
RFP was released through local papers and NYS Contract Reporter.
Consultant Selected.
5 responses were received and ABC Construction Company, Inc. was selected.
Certification of procurement procedures have been provided to DOS.
Final designs.
Final Design & Construction Drawings (incorporating DOS comments of
11/5/05) were approved by DOS.
Permits.
Permit applications have been submitted to DEC and COE, copies are included
with this report.
In the ADJUSTMENTS section - Indicate proposed adjustments to the budget, work program, or project schedule, and the
reason why the adjustment is necessary. If any problems have been encountered during this reporting period, they should also
be indicated here. Keep in mind that the information listed in this section should refer to this reporting period only.
If an extension is requested on this form, the reasons provided should be detailed and specific. For example, requesting an
extension to "complete the project" or "allow time to finish remaining tasks" is not acceptable. The information provided in
this section should indicate specific reasons that tasks were delayed and/or problems were experienced.
On the bottom of the sheet, please provide the Name, Affiliation, Email Address, Phone Number, and Fax Number of the
person to contact if we have questions on the information provided on this form.
If you submit this form by fax or cmail, there is no need to forward the original by mail. We only need to receive one copy of
the report.
If you have any questions, please contact Laurissa Parent at (518) 474-5559 or your DOS project manager at (518) 474-6000.
APPENDIX X0
Agreement Modification Form
Agency Code 19000
Contract Period 4/1/05 - 3/31/09
Contract Number C059943
Funding for Period $ 60,000
This is an AGREEMENT between THE STATE OF NEW YORK, acting by and through the New York
State Department of State, having its principal office in Albany, New York (hereinafter referred to as the
STATE), and the Town of Southold (hereinafter referred to as the CONTRACTOR), for modification
of Contract Number C059943, as amended above.
All other provisions of said AGREEMENT shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT as of the dates
appearing under their signatures.
Scott A. Russell
STATE AGENCY SIGNATURE
By:
(print name) (print name)
Title: Southold Town Supervisor Title:
Date: 9[17/08 Date:
State Agency Certification: "In addition to the acceptance of this Contract, I also certify that original copies of this
signature page will be attached to all other exact copies of this Contract."
STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK )ss:
On this 17thday of September
Scott A. Russell
Supervisor
of
, in the year 20 08, before me personally appeared
., to me known and known to me to be the
Town of Southold ,the
unincorporated association described in and which executed the a~fove agreement; and who acknowledge
to me that (s)he executed the foregoing agreement for and in behalf of said unincox~orated association.
v - (_~TARY PUBLIC
Thomas P. DiNapoli
State Comptroller:
MELANIE DOROSKI
NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New Ym'k
No. 01D04634870
Oualified in Suffolk County
Commission F.~ires ~eptembw ~0.
By:
Date:
Appendix Al, Attachment 4
Certification of Grantee to New York State Department of State that all State and Local and Private
Procurement Requirements Have Been Met.
(Complete the certification in the paragraph that applies and strike out that which is not applicable)
· I he~reby certify that the (County) (City) (2To3~a~ (Village) (Other ) of
, awarded the contract appended hereto pursuant in whole or in part to NYS
Department of State Contract No.~ accordance with all requirements of law and Article 5A of the
General Municipal Law, as follows: (place check mark where applicable)
Contract for professional services, public works contracts involving not more than $20,000 or
purchase contracts involving not more than $10,000, procured according to the policies and
procedures of the municipality adopted pursuant to General Municipal Law{} 104-b.
Contract for public works contracts involving more than $20,000 or purchase contracts
involving more than $10,000, procured pursuant to the bidding requirements of General
Municipal Law§ 103.
Print name /
Title
Date