Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Correspondence
September 19, 2008 Heather Lanza, Director of Planning Town of Southold Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 RE: Overdevelopment of Southold Town To The Town Board: The Heritage at Cutchogue could forever change and potentially rain the real heritage of Cutchogue. Although it is no longer pristine and what is left is increasingly threatened by overdevelopment. The North Fork is still a great place. We are proud to raise our children here. It is unlike other areas of Long Island. Let it remain that way. Please help protect, and try to improve on, what is left. My family lives in direct view of this amazing natural landscape. We are in awe of the beauty that surrounds us. The flora and fauna that exist in this exceptional area are beautiful and we'd prefer to keep it that way. If no action is taken, it is almost certain that the proposed development named "The Heritage at Cutchogue" will forever damage the character of Cutehogue. The character of Cutchogue, if lost, can never be replaced. -- .. PLEASE help protect the real heritage of Cutchogue. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Yours Truly, . Submission Without a Cover Letter Sender: Subject: SCTM#: 1000- Date: -~ /~2~-4 Cmm~ents: dUI_ 2 4 2008 Ms. Heather Lanza, Director Southold Town Planning Department P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM No.: 1000-102-001-033.003 Dear Ms. Lanza: July 21, 2008 Please read this letter into the record at your next meeting and include it in The Heritage file. Using the Suffolk County tax maps for Southold and Riverhead, I located most of the major condo developments in both towns. The purpose of this exercise was to determine what state, county or town roads were the entry and exit points for each of these condo developments. The Village of Greenport was excluded. The chart attached shows that all of these condos have access points off of major highways and roadways. Some have multiple access points off these major roads, but most have single access. NONE of these condo developments have any access into or through residential neighborhoods. None have access points that empty out on roads in already congested hamlet centers such as Griffing Street and Schoolhouse Lane in Cutchogue. The Heritage proposals involve connecting Highland Road and Crown Land Lane via Spur Road and Bridle Lane in Cutchogne. It should be noted that within this area, 189 residents, 65 of which are children under 18, will suffer serious impacts to their health, safety and welfare as large numbers of vehicles bypass downtown Cutchogne into their neighborhood, which currently is closed to outside traffic. A "NO OUTLET" sign has stood near the comer of Crown Land Lane and Main Road for as long as I've lived here - fifteen years. Obviously, the Town and Highway Department knew years ago that out- of- town and local drivers would be looking for a shortcut to avoid downtown Cutchogne on heavy traffic days. I hope you find this information as enlightening as I have and conclude that the proposed access points to The Heritage fi'om Spur Drive, Bridle Lane, Griffmg Street and Schoolhouse Lane will totally destroy EXISTING residential areas. The developer has rights, but he does not have the fight to inffinge on existing homes regardless of the resources he has and may try to use to persuade the Town to approve his project as proposed in the revision. If he insists on building this complex in this area, then the developer should find other access - namely, to Depot Lane - and be willing to pay the adjoining property owner more than 80 thousand dollars for one acre, according to the appraisal presented in the revised DEIS. 80 thousand dollars for an acre of farmland is one thing; 80 thousand dollars for an acre of land vital to build a condo community that will be valued over 80 million is quite another point. This "negotiation" illustrates that the developer is not serious about doing the fight thing for Cutchogue; rather, he is "going through the motions" to gain final approval as quickly as possible. Striking a balance between the developer's rights as a property owner and the rights of existing residents is a no-brainer. I hope that the most stringent standards will be imposed by the Planning Board as the process unfolds. Sincerely, Barbara McAdam Condominiums Planned Communities Founders Village Cove at Southold North Fork Beach Sea Breeze Village Pheasant Run Cleaves Point Peconic Landing Maidstone Landing Willow Ponds Bluffs at Baiting Hollow Knolls at Fox Hill Baiting Hollow Highlands Silver Village Sunken Pond Estates Wading Woods Mid Road Saddle Lakes # of Units 92 33 2O 16 6O 62 NA 82 222 124 188 38 62 78 76 36 126 170 Hamlet Southold Southold Southold Southold Southold East Marion Greenport Jamesport Riverhead Baiting Hollow Baiting Hollow Baiting Hollow Aquebogue Aquebogue Riverhead Baiting Hollow Riverhead Riverhead Town Southold Southold Southold Southold Southold Southold Southold Riverhead Riverhead Riverhead Riverhead Riverhead Riverhead Riverhead Riverhead Riverhead Riverhead Riverhead Street Access Youngs Ave Main Bayview Soundview/North Rd Main Rd Moore's Lane Shipyard Lane Main Road Sound Ave Sound Ave Oakleigh/Sound Ave Oakleigh/Sound Ave Oakleigh/Sound Ave Sound Ave West Lane Middle Road Sound Ave Middle Road Middle Road 1370HghandRd ,LO'~ ISL~,tlqD ~'4Y 117 i i971+0"~ h,dh,,llhh,h,,h,,lllh,,hh,,hhhh,h,,Ihh,,,hll Southold Town Plan Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 July 7, 2008 We are residents of Crown Land Lane in Cutchogue and are deeply concerned about the Heritage Project. One of our concerns the impact on our precious water table. Please mad this letter of concern out loud at your next public hearing and to be included in the Heritage file. Thank you, Ginny & Jerry Surozenski 1525 Crown Land Lane Cutchogue Southold Town Plan Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 June 27, 2008 We are residents of Crown Land Lane in Cutchogue and are deeply concerned about the Heritage Project. One of our concerns the impact of traffic and safety of our neighborhood children. Please read this letter of concern out loud at your next public hearing and to be included in the Heritage file. Thank you, Ginny & Jerry Surozenski 1525 Crown Land Lane Cutchogue EPHEN T. TETTELBA I"I Biology Department C.W. Post Campus of Long Island Unive~~ Emall: StephemTqttelbach~liu.edu 720 Northern Blvd. ~ - ~: , , Brookville, New York 11548 (.-\~ ~7~ - Experience ' 2005-present Professor of Biology, Lohg ~lan~l University, Broo~ville, NY 2002-2005 Professor of Marine Sci ~e~ ce 8~Biology, Long Island University Southampton, NY 1992-2002 Associate Professor, Lon~drsitY, SoU~?_..~.~, ~NY 1986-1992 Assistant Professor, Long Is.~~0111W-ampton, NY 1979-1980 Biologist, Pathobiology~l~'~ti0nal Marine Fisheries Service Laboratory, Milford, CT, 1980; Biological Laboratory Technician, 1979-80 Education Ph.D. M.S. B.S. - magna cum laude - 1986 University of Connecticut (Ecology) 1979 University of Washington (Fisheries Biology) 1976 University of Miami (Biology) Recent Grants 2005-2009 2006-2007 2004-2006 2000-2002 "Restoration of Peconic Bay Scallop Populations and Fisheries", Principal Investigator, Suffolk County, NY ($1.75 million) "Effects of Habitat on Survival of Free-Planted Bay Scallops", Principal Investigator, US Environmental Protection Agency ($80,000) "Bay Scallop Spawner Sanctuary Evaluation Study", Principal Investigator, NY State Wildlife Program ($150,000) "Relationships Between the Timing of Reproduction, Fecundity, and Egg Composition to Declines in Hard Clam Recruitment", Co-Principal Investigator, New York Sea Grant Institute ($83,000) 1998-2000 "Bay Scallop Stock Restoration Project". Principal Investigator. National Marine Fisheries Service ($40,000). Selected Publications Tettelbach, S.T. and A.Weinstock. 2008. Direct observation of bay scallop spawning in New York waters. Bulletin of Marine Science 28(2): 213-219. DeSanctis, P.N., K. Tetrault and S.T. Tettelbach. 2007. Effects of photoperiod manipulation on reproductive condition of the northern bay scallop, Argopecten irradians irradians (Lamarck, 1819). The Veliger 49(1):15-18. Tettelbach, S.T., C.F. Smith, P. Wenczel and E. Decort. 2002. Reproduction of hatchery-reared and transplanted wild bay scallops, Argopecten irradians irradians, relative to natural populations. Aquaculture International 10:279-296. Tettelbach, S. T., P. Wenczel and S. W. T. Hughes. 2001. Size variability of juvenile (0+ Yr) bay scallops, Argopecten irradians irradians (Lamarck, 1819) at eight sites in Eastern Long Island, New York. The Veliger 44(4):389-397. Tettelbach, S. T., C. F. Smith, R. Smolowitz, K. Tetrault and S. Dumals. 1999. Evidence for fall spawning of northern bay scallops Argopecten irradians irradians (Lamarck, 1819), in New York. Journal of Shellfish Research 18(1):47-58. Smith, C. F. and S. T. Tettelbach. 1997. Restocking Bay Scallops. Final report submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service. 76 pp. 2 Tettelbach, S. T., C. F. Smith and R. Smolowitz. 1997. Effects of the 1995 'Brown Tide' on bay scallop reproduction. Final report submitted to New York Sea Grant Institute. 33 pp. Smith, C.F. and S. Tettelbach. 1996. Bay Scallop Restoration - Western Peconic Bay. Final report submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 44 pp. Wenczel, P., C. Smith and S. Tettelbach. 1994. Planting bay scallops: results of reseeding bay scallops in the Peconic Bays, New York, 1986-1992. Final report submitted to the New York State Urban Development Corporation. 36 pp. Tettelbach, S. T. and P. Wenczel. 1993. Reseeding efforts and the status of bay scallop Argopecten irradians (Lamarck, 1819) populations in New York following the appearance of "brown tide" algal blooms. Journal of Shellfish Research 12(2):423-431. Tettelbach, S. T. 1991. Seasonal changes in a population of northern bay scallops, Argopecten irradians irradians, pp. 164-175. In: Shumway, S. E. and P. A. Sandifer (eds.) An International Compendium of Scallop Biology and Culture. World Aquaculture Society, Publ., Baton Rouge, LA. Tettelbach, S. T., C. F. Smith, J. E. Kaldy III, T. W. Arroll and M. R. Denson. 1990. Burial of transplanted bay scallops Argopecten irradians irradians (Lamarck, 1819) in winter. Journal of Shellfish Research 9(1): 127-134. Tettelbach, S. T. 1986. Dynamics of Crustacean Predation on the Northern Bay Scallop, Argopecten irradians irradians. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Connecticut. 229 pp. Tettelbach, S. T., P. J. Auster, E. W. Rhodes and J. C. Widman. 1985. A mass mortality of northern bay scallops, Argopecten irradians irradians, following a severe spring rainstorm. The Veliger 27(4):381-385. Tettelbach, S. T., L. M. Petti and W. J. Blogoslawski. 1984. Survey of Vibrio associated with a New Haven Harbor shellfish bed, emphasizing recovery of larval oyster pathogens. pp. 495-509. In.'. R. R. Colwell (ed.) Vibrios in the Environment, John Wiley & Sons, NY. Tettelbach, S. T. and E. W. Rhodes. 1981. Combined effects of temperature and salinity on embryos and larvae of the northern bay scallop, Argopecten irradians irradians. Marine Biology 63(3):249-256. Honors and Service Past President, Vice President, Treasurer of the National Shellfisheries Association, 1991-1997. Cited in Who's Who Among America's Teachers, 2000, 2006. David Newton Award for Excellence in Teaching, Long Island University, 1998. Thurlow C. Nelson Award for Best Student Paper, 78th Annual Meeting of the National Shellfisheries Association, 1986 Recent Published Abstracts Tettelbach, S.T and C. F. Smith. in press. Bay scallop restoration efforts in New York. J. Shellfish Res. Tettelbach, S.T. and A.Weinstock.. in press. Direct observation of bay scallop spawning in New York waters. J. Shellfish Res. Goldberg, R. and S. T. Tettelbach. in press. The history and status of bay scallop, Argopecten irradians irradians, populations in Connecticut and New York. J. Shellfish Res. Tettelbach, S.T. and D. Bonal. in press. The importance of fall recruitment in New York bay scallop populations: variability in size of annual growth rings and total shell size of adult scallops collected over an 18 year period. J. Shellfish Res. Carroll, J., B. J. Peterson, C. F. Smith, D. Bonal, A. Weinstock and S. T. Tettelbach. in press. A bay scallop's brave new world: can the introduced Codiumfragile act as an eelgrass surrogate? J. Shellfish Res. Tettelbach, S.T., D. Bonal, A. Weinstock, D. Barnes, G. Rivara, C. Fitzsimons-Diaz, and J. Carroll. 2007. Comparison of different deployment strategies for bay scallop spawner sanctuaries in New 3 York. Journal of Shellfish Research 26(2):670. Tettelbach, S.T., A. Weinstock, D. Bonal, C. Fitzsimons-Diaz, R. Ames and K. Newman. 2006. Evaluation of suspended ADPI© bags vs. bottom planting for use as bay scallop spawner sanctuaries. Journal of Shellfish Research 25(2):783. Tettelbach, S.T., Smith, C.F., and Wenczel, P. 2003. Selection of appropriate habitats/sites for bay scallop restoration. Journal of Shellfish Research 22(1):357. Tettelbach, S.T., R.I.E. Newell and C. Gobler. 2003. Linking hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria) reproduction to phytoplankton community structure: I. Clam growth and reproductive cycles. Journal of Shellfish Research 22(1):357-358. Newell, R.I.E., C. Gobler and S.T. Tettelbach. 2003. Linking hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria) reproduction to phytoplankton community structure: II. Phytoplankton community structure and food composition. Journal of Shellfish Research 22(1):347. Tettelbach, S.T., C.F. Smith, R. Smolowitz, S. Dumais and K. Tetrault. 1999. Evidence for fall spawning of northern bay scallops Argopecten irradians irradians (Lamarck, 1819), in New York. Journal of Shellfish Research 18(1):311. Tettelbach, S. T., C. F. Smith and P. Wenczel. 1997. Bay scallop stock restoration efforts in Long Island, New York - approaches and recommendations. Journal of Shellfish Research 16( 1 ):276. Recent Conference Addresses, Lectures Special Session Co-Organizer and Contributor, Status of Bay Scallop Stocks in the United States, 100th Annual Meeting of the National Shellfisheries Association, Providence, RI, 2008. Contributor, Biennial Meeting of the Northeast Aquaculture Association, Groton, CT, 2006. Contributor, 98th Annual Meeting of thc National Shallfisheries Association, Monterey, CA, 2006. Invited Speaker, 97th Annual Meeting of thc National Shellfishcries Association, Philadelphia, PA, 2005. Planning board member and invited speaker, Bay Scallop Restoration Workshop, Manchester, NH, 2004 Invited Speaker, 95th Annual Meeting of the National Shellfisheries Association, New Orleans, LA, 2003. 800 Crown Lend Lene Cutchogue, NY 11935 June 22, 2008 Mr. Kenneth Edwards Southold Town Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM #1000-102-1-33.3 Revised DEIS Dear Mr. Edwards: Please rem this letter into the record at your next meeting end include it as a ~.------~-.~-- · permanent part of The Heritage file. I would like to make the following comments on the Revised DEIS submitted by the developer. These comments specifically refer to the developer's response to items noted by KPC in their initial review of the DEIS in terms of the Traffic Study. In response to Item #12, the consultant for the developer compares traffic studies conducted in October 2005 end October 2007. The consultant contends that the 2007 study showed a decrease in traffic growth on both Main end Middle Roads east end west of Depot Lene. The "decrease" is thc result of the 2007 study being conducted during the rainiest week of the fall season. The inclement weather kept meny cars offthe mM! If you recall, the Planning Board received letters from my neighbors end me pointing to this flaw in the study. Nelson end Pope is perfectly capable of checking weather forecasts before they embark on a study. Besldcs, eny resident of the North Fork will tell you that the traffic has increased everywhere you go, especially in downtown Cutchoguc. Item # 15 discusses the Spur RoM and Bridle Lene access points. First, it is the contention of the residents of Highlend Rd., Bridle Lene end Crown Land Lane that our roadways remain closed - that the "No Outlet" signs on our streets retain their meaning. A recent count of this neighborhood's residents revealed that 189 people - 124 adults and 65 children under the age of eighteen - live in the 57 homes in our area. Emergency access with crash gates is unacceptable to us because we know that these roms will become fully opened at some point in the near future. Similarly, emergency access points will invite trespassers to enter The Heritage property, since crash gates might only discourage vehicular traffic. With 65 kids in our neighborhood alone, it is a certainty that some will be walking or tiding their bikes through the exclusively senior community. Seniors like me who live in a heterogeneous neighborhood appreciate having young people in our midst; homogeneous communities don't like any "outsiders." Sadly, I've observed 55 and over communities in Florida and in Brookhaven physically barring local kids from Halloween trick or treating on their property. Cultural clashes may be an unintentional but tragic consequence for our hamlet. In Item #15 B, the developer's consultant states that two-way traffic on the Spur Road access will "not have significant adverse impacts." This access "would allow traffic to "cut-through" the site from the adjacent neighborhood and potentially from the Main Road on the occasion when downtown Cutchogue experiences traffic congestion, this equivalent traffic would be by-passing downtown, further reducing traffic in the downtown area." The consultant goes on to state that "cut-through traffic is likely to be performed by local traffic familiar with the area. Bypassing downtown traffic by way of Highland Rd., Spur Rd., Schoolhouse Rd, and Depot Rd, is not likely to be used by traffic not local to the area." These statements are contradictory and patently absurd! Our neighborhood (where 124 adults and 65 children reside) already has a flow of"traffic not local to the area" whenever events occurring in downtown Cutchogue cause gridloek. Impatient motorists currently ignore the "No Outlet" signs and fly anxiously down our streets seeking the shortcut that doesn't exist. Can you imagine if the shortcut is created? Non-locals will use their GPS devices, which will give them the shortest route through Cutchogue - and our neighborhood! A line of cars will be stacked up southbound on both Highland and Crown Land waiting to turn onto Main Road. Spur Rd., Griffing Rd., and Schoolhouse will be emptying cars onto Main Road and Depot, which is already an intersection with a Level of Service rated "F,' according to the developer's own traffic study. Traffic signals at Crown Land and Highland won't help when Main Road is in gridloek! In fact, traffic signals will build traffic at each of these two comers, exacerbating an already dangerous situation. Item # 16 states that the applicant does not own the property to the east to provide access to Depot Lane. A letter fxom realtor Andrew Stype (pages 533-534) appraises a 67' x 635' parcel (approximately one acre) of land owned by Barbara Grattan at $80,000. Elsewhere the developer states that this owner has "no interest" in selling the property. Was a fair offer made by the developer to purchase this parcel? $80,000 appears to be what the going rate is for unimproved brush land or farmland. This one acre lot is rather unique, insofar as Ms. Grattan (and everyone else in Southold) knows of the developer's intended use and need; therefore, the value should be much greater. Was the owner interested in selling the property at all or was it lacking a meeting of the minds? Or did the developer of The Heritage just "go through the motions" to say that he had satisfied one of your requirements in revising his DEIS? As you can see, just the "Traffic" section of the revised DEIS poses enough questions and inaccuracies to warrant additional studies and drafts. The Southold Town Planning Board should ensure that a sub-standard project does not result, in light of the fact that The Heritage is the largest project of its kind ever to be considered in Southold. Please send the developer and his consultants back to the drawing board with the clear understanding that Southold Town will not accept inferior and slipshod work. Given our infrasla'ucture of roadways in Cutchogue, it is quite possible that traffic might be an impact that cannot be mitigated. Finally, the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Cutchogue should remain uppermost in your minds as you render your decisions pertaining to this project. Sincerely, Barbara McAdam 800 Crown Land Lane Cutchogue, NY 11935 June 22, 2008 Ms. Jeri Woodhouse, Chairperson Southold Town Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM #1000-102-1-33.3 Revised DEIS Dear Ms. Woodhouse: Please read this letter into the record at your next mee~ting .~a~l~ include it ~ a permanent part of The Heritage file. I would like to make the following comments on the Revised DEIS submitted by the developer: Greenman-Pedersen letter to Southold Union Free School District dated May 12, 2008 · The report states that The Heritage property is located in the Southold School District. It is not - it is located in the Mattimck-Cutchogue School District In addition, Our Lady of Memy Elementary School borders The Heritage property, and there is no indication that they were asked about the anticipated impacts of this development.· p. 49 - School District - paragraph 06 The paragraph is inconsistent and contradictory. It states that a 55 and over community will not negatively impact the school district. Then it states that the increase in population will result in increased school taxes. Heritage at Cutchogue Wildlife Inventory - Appendix D Of the 41 species of birds catalogued on site at The Heritage, 25 species nest on- site and 7 species possibly nest on-site. The cleating and destruction of this eco- system will therefore disrupt, at best, or destroy, at worst, the habitat of least 32 species of birds. On the table for Mammals, deer are not listed. These animals are common to the North Fork and can be seen entering and exiting The Heritage property at all hours of the day and night. Deer should be included in the catalogue for Mammals. page 49 - Fire In March 2008, Cutchogue Fire District held a bond referendum that was rejected by the Cutchogue Fire District taxpayers. The purpose of the bond issue was to construct a new 5-bay firehouse on Cox Lane. One of the major reasons put forth by the Fire Department for the need for such a large firehouse was the anticipated development of The Heritage. Since this bond was voted down, can the Cutehogue Fire Department handle The Heritage with its existing facility? Specifically in reference to fire, school and police services, the report requires these entities to respond within 2 weeks or assumes that there is no impact. Given the scope of the services provided by these entities, a 2 week deadline is unreasonable. A non-response leads the consultant to assume that there will be no negative impact, which is fallacious reasoning. page 49 - Police The report states that no impact on the police force is anticipated. However, it is a fact that the number of police officers is directly related to the numbers in terms of population, its characteristics and incidents. With nearly 300 senior residents at The Heritage, police will be the first responders in health-related emergency calls. Clearly, this will impact police services. page 49 - 3.3.3 Mitigation Measures - last paragraph The consultant is assuming that The Heritage is an enclosed gated community. There is no proposal for a fence surrounding the property, keeping non-residents from entering and exiting the community to cause trouble and commit crimes. Therefore, there will be impacts on the police force. page 49 - Utilities Specifically, electricity provided by L1PA - How will power be brought to the site? Will more unsightly electric poles outside the site be erected to service The Heritage, or will streets in adjoining neighborhhoods that have underground electric be tom up to extend service to The Heritage? page 69 - impact to local wells The consultant states that there will be no impact to water quality or quantity recharged to groundwater and to the aquifer. However, according to the Final Scoping Document under "Water Resources," the following items have not been addressed or proof thereof provided: Item # 2 - measure depth to groundwater in key locations Item f4 - use on-site test wells to measure existing groundwater quality Item #10 - measure change in hydrology of site Item #11 - SCWA water consumption estimate Additionally, in his letter to the Planning Board on June 10, 2008, Dr. Stephen Tettelbach, a Professor of Biology at LIU, mentions the presence ora former gas station at the southeast comer of the Heritage property, next to the trailer park. The potential presence of toxins in the soil and groundwater needs to be assessed. 9. pages 76 through 78 - no need for Sewage Treatment Plant Prudent planning would necessitate an examination of the build out model for the entire Griffing St/Downtown Cutchogue/Halo Dislrict area to effectively gauge the effectiveness of STPs. Looking at the total 80 acres, including the 47 that comprise The Heritage, "smart growth" might include a network of STPs that each property owner could buy into as development occurs. 10. page 9 - Soil samples Elevated levels of memury and arsenic were found in soil samples from the site. How will these contaminants be contained if the developer proposes to remove the top layers of soil? Won't they be dispersed into the air? What mitigation will thc developer use to protect people and properties in thc vicinity of the construction during the clearing phase? 11. p. 67 - Roads-construction access/exit at Schoolhouse Lane & Griffmg This point is also proposed as the main entrance after construction is done. The status of Spur Rd. remains unclear, though. In several site plans it is shown as a second access point, fully opened to connect The Heritage with the adjoining neighborhood on Highland Road, creating a bypass through to Griffing and Depot Lane, and it is stated as such in the Traffic Study by Nelson & Pope, Nov. 2007. Elsewhere in the DEIS, however, Spur Rd and Bridle are referred to as emergency access enhances with crash gates. The status of Spur and Bridle needs to be clarified. As you can see, the revised DEIS poses enough questions and inaccuracies to warrant additional studies and drafts. The Southold Town Planning Board should ensure that a sub-standard project does not result, in light oftbe fact that The Heritage is the largest project of its kind ever to be considered in Southold. Please send the developer and his consultants back to the drawing board with the clear understanding that Southold Town will not accept inferior and slipshod work. Please be cognizant of the health, safety and welfare of Cutchogue residents as you render your decisions. Sincerely, Barbara McAdam Please have my letter read into the minutes of the next Planning Board meetin ...g.~.~ Ms. Heather Lanza, Director of Planning Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 10 jUne 2008-\! Dear Ms. Lanza: I am writing, as a resident of Cutehogue and as a professional biologist,~t~'~ss my grave concerns over the proposed 'Heritage at Cutehogue' project. While I have not yet seen the revised DEIS that the developers recently submitted to the Town of Southold, I would like to comment on the first DEIS, the plans for the Heritage project, and the serious impacts this project would have on Cutehogue and the entire North Fork if it is approved. In general, the DEIS minimizes or trivializes the potential impact of the proposed development on the Hamlet of Cutehogue and its residents. Let's be clear - this is a huge project, the largest of its kind on all of the North Fork. The proposed units are large-very large (many > 3000 sq. fl) and, at the planned density of 3 per acre, this development will be totally out of character with the rest of Southold. Unless the proposed landscaping is >30 ft high, it will stick out like a proverbial sore thumb. The Heritage DEIS states over and over that the proposed development will not have any real impacts on the people and the character of Cutchogue. I can't believe that anyone would agree with this statement - I don't, and neither do the >1100 local residents who have signed the petition to stop the development from proceeding. While it is customary for a developer to hire an environmental consulting firm to prepare DEIS and EIS reports, the troth is that these contracted agencies are hired to help the developer gain approval of the proposed development - therefore the potential impacts are often understated and the alternatives to the development being given full, unconditional approval are not very creative. The Town of Southold has taken the appropriate step by hiring an independent consulting group to review the DEIS. This independent group rejected the first DEIS quickly, noting the generally poor quality of the document. I urge you and other members of the Town Board and the Planning Board to take the next step and require that the data gathered for the DEIS (e.g. Irattic studies, analyses of vegetation and wildlife species present on the property) be conducted by independent organization(s) that have expertise in these respective areas. For example, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) should be contacted and designated as the agency to do a thorough assessment and analysis of the flora and fauna of the property to determine what is there and the ecological significance of the existing species. Another agency should be designated to do the traffic studies in Cutchogue as the one p~ for the first DEIS, which was based on a few rainy days in October, was undeniably flawed. The December 2007 DE1S is filled with outrageous statements that are blatantly incorrect, contradictory to those made elsewhere in the same document, and/or misleading. For example: "there will be minimal removal of vegetation from the site, as only a small amount of vegetation exists at the site (pg. 51). There are 2 problems with this statement: (l) the property is covered with vegetation: "the suecessional old field now rapidly transitioning to suecessional shrubland" (pg. 21) and (2) all of the "existing successional vegetation will be removed and replaced with the planned development" (pg. 9). Other absurd statements include: "the waters below the Town of Southold contain only saltwater" (pg. 16) (and I thought I was drinking freshwater from my well all these years) and "there will be no impacts to the groundwater from this project" (pg. 20). The proposed mitigation plan for groundwater recharge (pg. 20) suggests that the development will be better for groundwater than if the site was left alone because recharge to groundwater will occur faster due to all the vegetation being removed. The DEIS also contends that the topsoil of the property should be completely removed to protect the residents of Cutchogue from high levels of pesticides and heavy metals: "This cleanup will protect the neighbors from continued exposure of these chemicals in the drinking water and in the soils around the site" (pg. 45). In fact, the opposite is probably tree - that by disturbing soils during construction there exists a greater likelihood of local residents being exposed to soil contaminants when they are introduced into the air. Furthermore, the standard way of"disposing" of soils with the noted levels of contaminants is to blend them with subsurface soils and to leave them on site, not remove them. Thus, the proposed "mitigation" measures would do nothing to reduce the eventual movement of contaminants into the groundwater. An additional concern is the purported presence of ~ fon3__e_r g~__.s~ati~on _at the. SE comer o.f the property proposcd for the Heritage development, i.e. next to the current trailer park. This area does not appear to have been adequately sampled and thus may not have even been included in the DEIS. The potential presence of toxins in the soil that may be associated with this former gas station, and their potential for dispersal, also need to be assessed by a qualified, independent agency such as the DEC. As a professional biologist, I take issue with the way in which the vegetation and wildlife on the site were assessed and the conclusions which were drawn in the December 2007 DEIS. This land is portrayed as dangerous to the local area because it is a "regional invasive seed bank" (pg. 3) and has other non-native species. This train of thought is very misleading. Undoubtedly there are many desirable native species on the property and very likely these far outnumber the non-natives in terms of biomass and diversity. Native wildflower species were very likely underestimated in the DEIS survey because they don't flower in October, the only time at which surveys were conducted for the DEIS. The methods of assessment are not described in any detail. How are we to trust the conclusion that there are no Federal or State-listed Threatened, Endangered, or Special Concern species on the property? Replacement of existing vegetation with landscaping and non-native ornamentals is not desirable from an ecological standpoint. The statement that "it is expected that all existing species will remain and continue to use the landscaped portions of the site" is patently absurd. When you destroy an organism's habitat the animals either leave and/or die. A 10 ft wide buffer is not equivalent habitat to a 47 acre tract of fields and woods. Some species have very specific habitat requirements (food, shelter, etc.) and so would not be expected to mtom to a high-density housing development, even if they survived the destruction of their ecosystem. The statement that after high density development the site's biodiversity will remain at an equivalent or higher level than under existing conditions is completely unfounded. Natural ecosystems take time to develop. This is exemplified by the much greater ecological value and high biodiversity of old-growth forests versus rows of trees planted for timber production. Removal of all natural vegetation and replacement with "landscaping" does not mean that the area will serve the same ecological function to native animal and plant species. It is more likely that the opposite will occur. Only those species which are highly tolerant of humans can be expected to thrive there; some of these, incidentally, ate introduced species such as house sparrows and starlings. The argument that the ponds on site will attract wildlife is somewhat defensible but often these types of ponds are heavily treated with algicides and other chemicals to reduce growth of'nuisance' algae - thus, they are not likely to teem with a "plethora" of life or "myriad wildlife species". This is a beautiful piece of land in its present state, it is not dangemns or undesirable; it will not be improved by a massive housing development. It currently is a functioning ecosystem that supports native wildflowers and ferns, cedars and aspen trees, rabbits, deer and fox, and owls, bobwhites, merlin and hawks. This is a piece of property that seriously deserves consideration for saving so that all residents of Cutehoguc and the North Fork can enjoy its natural beauty. The calculations of projected water usage, sewage flow, and nitrogen loading from the project are suspect because of the implicit assumption that only seniors (55+ yrs) will be living in the development. It is never unequivocally stated in the DEIS that families interested in living there would be turned away if they have children or if there are more than 2 occupants per unit. The fact that nearly ½ of the proposed units are 3-bedroom houses (many of which are >3000 sq. ft, with full basements) suggests that the stated maximum number of people for most units (2) may well be exceeded. If in fact more than the minimum number of projected occupants should live in the 139 unit development this would have several important impacts above and beyond those that have already been raised. First, if more people than the projected number of occupants live in the development, the amount of wastewater generated will be higher than is currently projected. Since the projected amount of generated wastewater is barely under the minimum at which an on-site sewage Ireatment facility would be necessitated, even a slight increase in the number of projected occupants may require that a sewage treatment facility be built on site. This would degrade the quality of life in downtown Cutchogue for obvious reasons. If school age children live within the proposed 'Heritage at Cutchogne', then they would add to the student population while their parents are paying reduced taxes because the units are designated as "condominiums". This would be completely unfair to those of us who pay full taxes and would further add to a heavy tax burden for current, local residents. I don't believe for I second that the proposed Heritage development will have minimal or no impact on the quality of life in Cutchogne and the Town of Southold, as is s~_atcd continually in the DEIS - it will have an enormous impact. If the proposed development opens on to Spur and Bridle Roads, as is currently planned, this will put the 50 children who live in the Highland Road/Crown Land Lane neighborhood at risk. It doesn't take too much imagination to realize that these access roads will become thoroughfares to bypass traffic in downtown Cutchogne. There is no doubt that this will threaten the health and safety of our children. This can not be permitted. I implore you to "Save What's Left". Approval of the mega-development that would be the 'Heritage at Cutehogue' will forever change the landscape and the quality of life in Cutchogue and all of the North Fork. Please uphold the wishes of the majority oftbe residents of the Town of Southold - who are against this development. Please require an independent, professional assessment of the existing flora and fauna on the property, at all seasons of the year, and require that a well-designed and thorough assessment of existing txaffic and realistic impacts to local neighborhoods be done at multiple time points throughout a full year. Please work towards the goal of having the Town of Southold purchase this land, all of it, so that it will be spared from development and available for all to use and enjoy. Sincerely yours, Stephen T. Tettelhach, Ph.D. 1530 Crown Land Lane Cutehogne, NY 11935 and Professor of Biology C.W. Post Campus of Long Island University Brookville, NY 11548 Apfi127,2009 Dear Planning Board Members, Imagine, if you will, standing on your fror~porch looking out onto the street in front of your home. Your children stand next to you because they are afraid to go outside and play. They are afraid because as you stand there wave after wave of heaw trucks pass by your home. The procession begins around 6:30 in the morning as lumber trucks, cement trucks, pay loaders carrying bulldozers and heavy machinery pass by. This is followed by dozens of individual cars and trucks as the construction workers arrive at the job. More heavy traffic continues throughout the day as does the constant noise of saws and nail guns and heavy machinery as the construction goes on. This continuous traffic and noise will persist for the next 3-5 years from sun up to sun down as it interrupts your safety, your sleep and the quality of your life. Once the construction ends your new problems just begin as an additional 200-300 vehicles travel your small road when the new residents of this small town go about their daily lives. Of course, there will be daily/weekly service vehicles that also speed up and down your small sidewalk-less street to support this new adult community. So, there we will stand, wondering what happened to our once quiet existence and what we could have done to keep Schoolhouse Rd from turning into Heritage Highway. Ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Board, this is the reality that awaits my family and my neighbors if the Heritage project is allowed to proceed. We are small in numbers but we are loyal, upstanding citizens of this town and are just heartsick over what could happen to our neighborhood and our town if the Heritage is approved. Schoolhouse Road is a narrow side street with no sidewalks. Traffic has already increased over the years what with the post office, the school and now people who use it to pass through when they find turning offofDepot Lane or offof Griffing Street onto the Main Road difficult. If you consider what could happen if the property on either side of Grilling Street, which is zoned for business, is sold and developed and the Heritage is allowed to go through- it would turn our neighborhood into a freeway and destroy any of the quality of life we hold so dear. I applaud what the citizens in the Crownland and Highland neighborhoods have done by organizing and keeping the pressure on in regards to the opening of their neighborhood to the nightmare that is the Heritage. It appears that their voices have been heard by the Planning Board and the Town - it appears their neighborhood will only have to put up with emergency access only as it pertains to Heritage traffic. This is as it should be given the children and the narrow roads in that area. However, is it fair that one neighborhoods benefit should lead to neighborhoods demise? Should we believe that the people of Schoolhouse Road are not worthy of the same considerations? Is the safety of my children somehow less important than theirs? Surely, if this project is to be permitted there must be a way to limit or deny access through both our neighborhoods from the traffic that the construction and use of this project will cause. Perhaps an entry onto Depot Lane that has been discussed should not only be considered but demanded so as to alleviate the crush of traffic onto our small neighborhood roads that will inevitably endanger our safety and the tranquility we now enjoy. Members of the Planning Board, I understand that you have a difficult job to do. I ask that as you consider what is legal and not legal in regards to the Heritage project you also consider what is right and wrong. People flock to our small town to see a glimpse of what a close knit, farming community looks like. They come to see not only what we have but also what we don't have. That is, eyesore developments like the Heritage in place where open space and farm land used to be. The citizens of Southold Town have spoken to you and they have clearly stated that a project of this size is wrong for our town. The only thing that will come from the approval of this project is another one just like it because once one has been approved more will surely follow. Our quaint community will then be lost forever. Thank you for your time and consideration and I graciously ask that this letter be read into the minutes of the Planning Board meeting as it considers the Heritage of Cutchogue. Sincerely, Michael Evers April 27, 2008 Dear Planning Board Members, I am writing this letter to you in regards to the proposed Heritage Condominiums and my strong opposition to this development. There are many reasons why this project should not be built in this neighborhood, but my biggest concerns are traffic and safety. I am a mother of four who lives on Schoolhouse Road in Cutchogue. The intended entrance to this development is located a few feet from my front door. This seems to be the only entrance that is planned in which all traffic will enter and leave through for all 139 condo units. The people of Schoolhouse Road do not deserve to serve as the driveway for this development. This development would ruin the lives that we live today. This is too big of a price to bestow on the people of Schoolhouse Road. The traffic problems would begin immediately. It has been estimated that the building process would take three years to complete. That means three years of heavy industrial trucks driving nonstop up and down our street. Waking us up in the morning and then endangering our families throUghout the day. After the residents start moving in we will have to contend with the pollution generated in our ground water. We live in an area in which public water is not available. We would be forced to drink the waste products of our new neighbors. The people of Schoolhouse Road have not been offered public water hookup. We seem to be the only neighbors that this has not been offered to. Once the development is completed, we could have in excess of an extra 1200 cars diving up and down our street. With nearly 300 parking spaces allotted this could easily happen. If each car left the development and returned two times per day we would reach this number. Many people, even 55 and older, make more than two trips per day. This number would probably be much higher. I would no longer be able to walk my own children in their stroller, this would be too dangerous. I would no longer be able to go on my daily run through the neighborhood, this would be too dangerous. I would no longer be able to back my car out of my driveway, this would be too dangerous. We could not ride our bicycles; this would also be too dangerous. In fact I cannot think of any outdoor activity that would not be too dangerous if this development is built. The Heritage project would jeopardize the safety of my family. I did not choose to buy a house on a busy and dangerous road, but this development would create this situation for my family and my neighbors. The residents of Schoolhouse Road are hardworking, taxpaying, honest people who take pride in their homes and do not deserve to have their quality of lives so grossly and negatively affected by this project. The people of Schoolhouse Road should not have to bear the burden of this development. The Board has the obligation to protect ALL the residents of Cutchogue; the young, the old, and the people of Schoolhouse Road. Is anyone looking out for us? I request that this letter be read into the minutes of the Planning Board meeting as it considers the Heritage of Cutchogue. Sincerely yours, Kelly Burke Evers Southold Town Plan Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 April 24, 2008 We are residents of Crown Land Lane in Cutchogue and are deeply concerned about the Heritage Project. One of our concerns is the congestion of traffic to an area that is already congested with traffic. Please read this letter of concern out loud at your next public hearing and to be included in the Heritage file. Thank you, Ginny & Jerry Surozenski 1525 Crown Land Lane Cutchogue April 27, 2008 Dear Planning Board Members,. lam writing this letter ¢ you')~n~Lre~gardS-to ~e~d Heritage Condominiums and my strong opposition to this developS, q~ere are many re~ason~s project should not be built in this neighborhood, but my bigge~st concerns afc traffic and safety. I am a mother of four wh$'~'vfi~'(~n Schoolhouse Road in Cutchogue. The intended entrance to this development is located a few feet from my front door. This seems to be the only entrance that is planned in which all traffic will enter and leave through for all 139 condo units. The people of Schoolhouse Road do not deserve to serve as the driveway for this development. This development would ruin the lives that we live today. This is too big of a price to bestow on the people of Schoolhouse Road. The traffic problems would begin immediately. It has been estimated that the building process would take three years to complete. That means three years of heavy industrial trucks driving nonstop up and down our street. Waking us up in the morning and then endangering our families throughout the day. After the residents start moving in we will have to contend with the pollution generated in our ground water. We live in an area in which public water is not available. We would be forced to drink the waste products of our new neighbors. The people of Schoolhouse Road have not been offered public water hookup. We seem to be the only neighbors that this has not been offered to. Once the development is completed, we could have in excess of an extra 1200 cars diving up and down our street. With nearly 300 parking spaces allotted this could easily happen. If each car left the development and returned two times per day we would reach this number. Many people, even 55 and older, make more than two trips per day. This number would probably be much higher. I would no longer be able to walk my own children in their stroller, this would be too dangerous. 1 would no longer be able to go on my daily run through the neighborhood, this would be too dangerous. I would no longer be able to back my car out of my driveway, this would be too dangerous. We could not ride our bicycles; this would also be too dangerous. In fact I cannot think of any outdoor activity that would not be too dangerous if this development is built. The Heritage project would jeopardize the safety of my family. I did not choose to buy a house on a busy and dangerous road, but this development would create this situation for my family and my neighbors. The residents of Schoolhouse Road are hardworking, taxpaying, honest people who take pride in their homes and do not deserve to have their quality of lives so grossly and negatively affected by this project. The people of Schoolhouse Road should not have to bear the burden of this development. The Board has the obligation to protect ALL the residents of Cutchogue; the young, the old, and the people of Schoolhouse Road. Is anyone looking out for us? I request that this letter be read into the minutes of the Planning Board meeting as it considers the Heritage of Cutchogue. Sincerely yours, Kelly Burke Evers Ms. Jerilyn Woodhouse, Chair Southold Town Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 800 Crown Land Lane Cutchogue, NY 11935 April 20, 2008 Dear Ms. Woodhouse and Members of the PlannifigA~oard:~- Please read this letter into the minutes of y~ur next meeting and include it in The Heritage file. The potential for development in the area north of the Cutchogue Hamlet is not limited to the proposed PRC The Heritage. There are several properties totaling approximately 81 acres that could be developed in the near future. Property Acreage SCTM# Status Heritage at Cutchogue 47.1 Acres Baxter Property 2.6 Nocro 5.4 Property east of Heritage 25.6 1000-102-1-33.3 Planning Board 1000-102-5-9.4 Planning Board 1000-102-1-33.4 1000-102-1-9.2 The DEIS for The Heritage required its developer to determine what the impacts would be on properties in the adjacent areas. IF, and I mean a big IF, The Heritage is approved, these adjacent business and residential properties would, like a set of dominos, fall to rapid development as well. This is an ideal opportunity, BEFORE any development occurs, to examine a wider scope of planning to include these properties and others. Instead of individual septic systems, sewage treatment facilities should be installed at the owner's expense. For example, The Heritage should be required by you, the lead agency, to utilize an innovative sewage treatment system/facility which can be increased in size as the nearby properties are developed. Those owners would pay the expense of connecting to and maintaining the system. Second, the SCWA should go on the record and indicate the quality and quantity of potable water that is available to all of these properties. Third, a traffic study should consider the impacts of all of these developments on transportation, health, safety and quality of life for residents of Cutchogue and surrounding communities. The stringent DEIS requirements put forth by the Southold Town Planning Board are on the right track. Since there is so much undeveloped acreage, planning for the Hamlet of Cutchogue should be comprehensive rather than narrowed to The Heritage. Developing more than eighty acres on such a fragile aquifer in an already developed area requires cognizance of the health, safety and welfare of the residents who already live in Cutchogue as well as future residents. Please look beyond the individual application submitted by The Heritage's developer; an opportunity exists for Cutchogue to "get it right." The next generation of Southold Town residents should look back on your decisions with pride and not regret. Sincerely, Barbara McAdam cc. Heather Lanza, Director, Southold Town Planning Dept. l~lizabeth Neville, Southold Town Clerk Scott Russell, Supervisor, Southold Town Southold Town Board Members April 18, 2008 Southold Town Planning 8oard Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM No. 1000-102-011-033.003 H.D. Ref #: C10-06-0013 Dear Sirs: I am a resident of Crown Land Estates in Cutchogu nd after reading and hearing of the proposed housing development (Heritage) of 139 homes on seventeen acres of property in our small hamlet I want to voice my deep concern. This project would add an average of three hundred people to our community in addition to the possibility of several hundred automobiles. Our roads, library, schools, emergency services, etc. are not equipped to handle the immensity of this proposal. In addition, the environmental impact will be devastating. To my alarm, I also just learned that there will be street lighting provided by halogen lamps. The North Fork to date has no street lighting of this magnitude. I am certain that all of us living here appreciate our sky vistas at nighttime. I beg you, do not let this happen. The lighting will not only impact Crown Land Estates but all of Cutchogue. Our small community of about forty homes was chosen by most of us because it is a cul-de-sac community and a quite, safe place for us to enjoy the North Fork. By funneling the Heritage traffic through this development, you will destroy the very reason we chose this neighborhood. If you set a precedent by allowing this project to go through as planned, you will be setting a precedent for the ruination of the North Fork. Please read this letter into the minutes of your next meeting and include it in the Heritage file. Sincerely, Suzanne Micelli Southold Town Plan Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 March 24, 2008 We are residents of Crown Land Lane in Cutchogue and are deeply concerned about the Heritage Project. One of our concerns is the change in Cutchogue's character that the project will threaten. Cutchogue's "Heritage" is farming and fishing- not housing projects. Please read this letter of concern out loud at your next public hearing and to be included in the Heritage file. Thank you, Ginny & Jerry Surozenski 1525 Crown Land Lane Cutchogue 800 Crownla~d Lane Cutchogue, I~Y 11935 March 24i 2008 .... Dr. Humayun Chaudhry, Commissioner Suffolk County Department of Health Services 225 Rabro Drive East Hauppauge, NY 11788 Re: Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM No.: 1000-102-001-033.003 H.D. Ref. No.: C10-06-0013 Dear Dr. Chaudhry: On Thursday, March 20th, I attended the Suffolk County Sewer Summit. Mr. Vito Minei of your staff presented a comprehensive overview of the problems associated with sewage treatment and groundwater. He and other speakers also described the studies that are being conducted as well as the status of federal and state aid. My neighbors and I here in Cutchogue are confronted with a proposed development called The Heritage at Cutchogue. It will be a 55 and over condominium development to be constructed on 46.17 acres adjacent to the hamlet center in Cutchogue. This new development will be bordered by existing homes on all sides, the vast majority of which are serviced by private water wells. The 139 condo units in the current proposal will be serviced by individual cesspools. I have been told by your department that this project's sewage will flow in a southeasterly direction, with its outlet into Peconic Bay. I am pnzzled by what seems to be a contradiction between Suffolk County's Sanitary Code and the message of the seminar. If an extensive sewer system is necessary to prevent groundwater contamination, then why does the Code allow 55 and over condominium developments, regardless of the number of units, to install individual cesspools? In the case of this development, the proposed units will actually sit on 20 of the 47 acres. The high concentration of sewage, plus the introduction of pharmaceuticals into the groundwater - another issue presented at the seminar - are major concerns for those of us who will live in the area of this development as well as the entire North Fork. As you know, the North Fork has a shallow aquifer which is already endangered by farming and residential use. In its Positive Declaration for SEQRA, issued in August of 2007 and its review of the developer's DEIS last month, the Southold Town Planning Board points to water and sewage issues, among many others, that require mitigation. I am aware that the Suffolk County Department of Health Services will need to approve this project. I strongly urge you to override the Sanitary Code and require on-site sewage treatment - such as Cromaglass - for this project. Any restrictions or limitations that will protect the area's ground and surface water should be imposed for the health, safety and welfare of all residents, especially the significant number of children who reside in areas adjacent to the project. It is my sincere hope that you will work in conjunction with the Southold Town Planning Board to mitigate the potential hazards that this project poses to the community at large. Very truly yours, Barbara McAdam cc: Vito Minei, Director - SCHS Environmental Quality Robert Farmer, Supervisor - SCHS Bureau of Drinking Water Jerilyn Woodhouse, Chairperson - Southold Town Planning Board January 24, 2007 Jerilyn B. Woodhouse Southold Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 54375 State Rt. 25 Southold, New York 1197£ Dear Madam Chairperson, I'm writing to you concerning the proposed deve~:~pment known as The Heritage at Cutchogue and my strong opposition to it. I live on Schoolhouse Rd in Cutchogue and this proposed project will be built right in my backyard. That being said, I beheve I have a very strong vested interest in what The Heritage will do to my neighborhood. My neighborhood is small and consists of salt of the earth, hard working people many of which have been here for 30-40 years. Putting a 150 trait condo complex in this neighborhood will be nothing short of disastrous for this qUaint I have been to the Planning Department and reviewed the specs for The Heritage. It calls for 150 units with Schoolhouse Rd bcmg one of~if not, the mare entrance. That is approximately 250-300 extra cars up and down this small fxde road not to mention the work trucks, bull dozers, dump trucks and delivery trucks that are going to be a daily nuisance during the building of this glorious project and for years to come. In addition, I read the State Environmental Quality Review for this proposal. One of the questions asked, "Will proposed action result in the generation of traffic significant above present levels", and the response was "No". Several hundred new cars on this small road and that is not a significant level? I have two 3 year old boys Madam Chanrperson, can you imagine the fear that this huge influx of vehicles on my road will put in me ff I ever happen to let my children go outside? To hear that someone decided that this new traffic will not affect my neighborhood is obscene and self serving. As an aside, ff you would allow me to be self serving, question #14 of the same Environmental QuMity Review asks if the present site includes scenic views known to be important to the community, the person who completed the form again checked "No". The individual, whoever he or she may be, that completed this review does not rye in my house or on this street because if they did they would know that every night the sun sets directly over the property in question and shines directly into and illtzmmates my home. This same person does not know that many mghts I have sat in my backyard and watched at dusk as the deer glide across the field into the same property to bed down for the mght. It's not Paris but the view is mine and is scenic to me. Madam Chan'Person, Southold Town is a unique community. It is unique because it is a glimpse into the past it is the last vestige of what Long Island used to be. It is why we have come hear and decided to call this town our home. Towns like Riverhead and Brookhaven continue to choke under the weight of so called progress. They have wiped out forests and acres of farm fields and replaced them with hundreds if not thousands of homes and condos. These towns are a shell of what they used to be. They are crowded, ugly and unlivable in my opinion. The reason people flock to our beautiful town on weekends is P.O. BOX 274 £UTCHOGUE, NEW YORK 11935 - 2 - January 24, 2007 to see what they don't have anymore, trees and farms and home grown produce and fresh air and quaint neighborhoods. What they don't need to see is high density houdmg and crowded roads and former wide open fields tamed into another unnecessary development. In conclusion, this project is grossly oversized and wrong for Southold Town. A monstrous development for 55 and over individuals is gratuitous and does nothing to address the community's need for affordable housing and certainly does not fall under the category of smart growth project. Its presence will destroy a neighborhood and cause increased congestion for our roads and offers no benefits to our town and its people. As an official of $outhold Town I feel it is your solenm duty to do what is in the best interests of its taxpaymg dtizeury. I and the rest of my neighbors on Schoolhouse Rd are Southold Town residents and taxpayers and I for one am telling you I do not want this project in my backyard. As a citizen I feel this should carry more weight with you than the wishes of a developer from IY~x Hills or the 1 $0 families from God knows where that is gcfmg to occupy this possible development. This should not be a decision based on who has the most money to throw around or who has the best lawyers or who has the most friends on the Planning Board or Town Government. If you are rn~king the decision based on what is best for your town and what the views of the people you represent want then you must reject this plan. Anything else smacks of a conflict of interest and back room politics. If you have a strong desire to go through with a project of this size put it somewhere else say like in the neighborhoods of the Town leaders and see how quickly its gets squashed. Keep Southold Town just the way it is--a sm~ll~ funnily oriented, rural community. Leave the big developments for the other towns and let us keep our peace and quiet. There is no place for a project of this size and it should stay just where it is-- on a blueprint on your desk. Thank you for your time and I look forward to seeing you at the Town Planning meetings. Respectfully, Michael A. Evers January 28, 2008 Supervisor Scott A. Russell Town of Southold PO Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Dear Supervisor Russell: '"t- ~ ~ ........... In recent weeks, it has been brought to our attention that a parcel of land adjacent to our neighborhood is currently under consideration for development ("The Heritage at Cutchogue"). According to our information, the Developer wishes to gain approval for the placement of a 139-unit development consisting of a mixture of"affordable" and "senior" (55+) condominium-style housing units on this 47-acre parcel, a private venture for the sole purpose of developmant-for-profit. It is also our undemtanding that this parcel falls under the guidelines of quarter-acre residential zoning, with egress points connecting to our quiet, fumily-oriented and child-dense (nearly 50 children reside here) neighborhood. As you can well imagine, the prospect of developing this parcel according to the above guidelines has become a cause of sudden and great concern for the residents of our neighborhood, most notably in terms of impact not only to our community, but also with regard to the impact upon the character of the Hamlet of Cutchogue as well. While we are aware that we, by law, have no specific right to demand that this development not take place, as it is within the legal right of the parcel's owner and developer to make use of the land as permitted, we are nevertheless contacting you in the hopes that our concerns will be addressed, and remedial actions explored to the satisfaction of both parties in these, the early-stages of this proposed development. Many of our concerns appear to be in-line with the proposed development's adherence to the provisions of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), which imposes a procedure for considering environmental impacts, including those the public urges is considered. According to our research, if the decision-making body fails to address the impacts it has been notified about in writing, then the procedure has been violated and can be challenged in court. According to SEQRA, environmental impacts which must be considered by the decision-making body include "the physical conditions which will be affected by a proposed action, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise, objects of historic or aesthetic significance, existing patterns of population concentration, distribution, or growth, and existing community or neighborhood character." ECL §8-0105 [6]. All of those areas are considered 'environmental impacts', and the aforementioned definition encompasses three distinct areas: (1) physical impacts, (2) impacts on population patterns and (3) impacts on community character. SEQRA also requires a review of impacts related to the proposed activity, even if they are likely to occur only afier the proposed activity is completed, and even if they are indirect. These include cumulative impacts, that is, impacts that add to those already caused by other related activities. Also included in the environmental review are long-term impacts that will occur if one development is likely to lead to another. In that case, the combined impacts of all related developments must be reviewed. See Part 617.7(c). It is these areas that we would like to call to you attention to, in brief, for consideration. In addition, given our time constraints and our desire to move quickly in addressing our concerns, please consider this a preliminary document that may be modified later. Overview: The High]and Road/Crown Land Lane neighborhood is a quiet, family-oriented community with no thru-traffic accessed only by its residents and, on occasion, by maintenance or delivery-type vehicles. With nearly 50 children under the age of eighteen residing here, the street is oi~en populated by these children at play, as well as by parents walking to town with their children in strollers. As a rule, we are careful about the way in which we drive here, and in many cases purchased property here specifically because of the neighborhood's safety and family appeal. Page 2 of 9 Traffic: According to our information, the proposed development plans to access the Highland/Crown Land area from both Spur Road and Bridle Lane, with potential egresses at the midway point and end of the eastern side of Highland Road. As a neighborhood, we feel that unrestricted access to a population-danse development from what is currently a quiet residential street would have a significant, and disastrous, impact upon the character of the community, especially in terms of child-safety. Additionally as there are no sidewalks in oar neighborhood, we have no choice but to use out streets for pedestrian traffic, pet walking and recreation for both adults and children. The direct and open vehicular linking ofonr neighborhood to a small, residentially dense area would increase the traffic on our street tremendously, in terms of not only the vehicles of the residents themselves, but also just as importantly, the high number of maintenance and support vehicles that would service such a development on an ongoing and year-round basis. Moreover, it is not unreasonable to foresee such a link quickly serving as a secondary conduit which would be used, in increasing numbers over time, by residents and non-residents alike in order to circumvent the village area during busy times of the year, much in the way roads north of Route 58 in Riverhead are now used to get around the busier main intersections. In other words, the traffic impact should be considered not only in terms of the addition of 139 additional residences, but in a larger sense carrying with it a larger exponential impact. In short, we feel that such a proposed open linkage would compromise both the safety of our children and the aesthetic character of both our neighborhood and the Hamlet of Cutchogue as a whole. We understand that emergency access points for such a dense residential area may well be a necessity and, taking a page from the solution implemented at Laurel Links, would be open to considering access via "crash barriers," so that no one's safety is at risk during an emergency. This potential solution in large part would preserve the character and safety of our neighborhood, as it exists today, and would have the added benefit of channeling traffic toward the retail and commercial areas of Cutchogue via the proposed main gatehouse on Griffin Street, which would be of banefit to our local shopkeepers. Further, we feel that if necessary, an additional emergency egress could be developed with an outlet onto Depot Lane, logically a better solution as it is a North/South road connecting the North Fork's two main arteries, and is already heavily trafficked. Again, we would be open to any additional solutions that you might propose. Water Quality Issues: As this area was formerly agricultural in nature, many of the residents of the Highland/Crown Land neighborhood have made the investment in private water-treatment and filtration systems in order to protect our families fi.om the various chemicals and pesticides once used on these lands. The proposed development raises concerns in this area as well. One of the most striking discoveries we have made during the course of our initial research, is that prescriptive medications, especially - but not limited to - lipid-based treatments (such as Lipitnr), are not removed from the groundwater by any current filtration methods, and remain a health-risk for a long period. With the proposed development, being restricted to senior (55+) individuals; it is inevitable that the concentxation of these toxins in our groundwater will rise considerably, via either innocent disposal or excretion. Having spoken with experts, including Dr. Bronawell of Stony Brook University, concerning groundwater toxicity issues, we have learned that there is an increased risk of nitrate toxicity with the placement of high-density development, a danger magnified by the property in questions past agricultural usage. This type of toxicity is known to be especially dangerous to pregnant women and young children, which our neighborhood has in considerable numbers. In addition, given the density of the proposed development, there is concern regarding the ability of the natural water cycle to penetrate the ground effectively in order to recharge and dilute accumulated toxins within the aquifer. We still do not have public water, and some of our residents have chosen not to participate in the opportunity to gain access to the proposed public water lines. Again, for the safety ofonr families, we feel that this is a point requiring considerable further research. Regarding chemicals and pesticides necessary to maintain the appearance and grounds of the proposed development, we would like to know if an Integrated Pest Management Plan (like those used by golf courses and other private gated communities) has been proposed, is considered or approved. We Page 3 of 9 realize that this is not a New York State requirement, but that it is strongly recommended by both the DEC and EPA. Please advise us if this has been considered. There are septic concerns as well, and we would like to be made aware of the proposed placement of septic systems, especially in terms of their proximity to the residential wells at the eastern edge of the Highland homeowner's properties. We do know that there are laws in place that define a specific safe distance, depending on well depth and placement, and once again would appreciate more information on terms of septic placement and its impact on our community. Density: While more of an aesthetic issue, the issue of a high-density residential area placed squarely in the midst ora quaint, historic community is one which should at least be made mention of. Again, while we understand that we have no legal recourse in terms of demanding that fewer than 139 units be approved, we do ask that you consider the network of impacts that such a sudden, high-density development would have in terms of the overall guidelines delineated in the SEQRA requirements. Moreover, we ask whether the Town feels in good conscience whether this development, in its current form, serves the greater interest of the North Fork community. Citing the Town of Southold Hamlet Study, we feel that this development in many ways incongruent with the study's findings. Please bear in mind the following excerpts from that study as you consider the impact of the proposed development: · "Cntchogue's Hamlet Center...retains a distinct, small-scale intimate character." · "Cutchogue's historic character is also a vital aspect of the area's 'sense of place' and should be reinfomed." · "Larger scale commercial development is clearly inconsistent with the Hamlet Center's character. Large scale, in this context, not only refers to the square footage ora given facility, but also to the intensity of use, the volume of traffic generated, the nature of the intended market... {and} the extent of site improvements, like off-street parking lots or sewage disposal systems, etc." · "Preserve the small scale nature of the Hamlet Center as the focus of community life." · "Cutchogue's commercial activity must be characteristic of, and take place within a small scale context that is in keeping with the Hamlet's traditional setting." Other Concerns, Issues and Requests: The following are a few other salient points that have arisen over the course of oar neighborhood meetings which we would like to bring to your attention for consideration: · It is our anderstanding that the proposed development is to take place in stages. Given the increased noise and traffic associated with construction projects of this magnitude, we would like to know i fan 'end-date' has been established within the parameters of the project's timeframe. · Given the nature of real estate development for investment purposes, it is possible that the developer will not be fmancially successful in his efforts to build and sell all of these properties in a timely manner, thus leading to the possibility of bankruptcy, the cessation of further development, etc. Given this possible scenario, would it be possible to have the first wave of units built at the northernmost and/or easternmost edge of the parcel, thus minimizing impact to the Highland Road & Crown Land Lane neighborhood in the event of failure? · While a buffer zone or green-space has been proposed, we would appreciate serious consideration of the placement of a landscaped berm between the westernmost area of the development and our neighborhood. This would benefit both parties, as the development residents would not be subjected to the noise of children at play, and would provide an aesthetic benefit that may slightly diminish the detrimental impact the proposed development will have on property values in the Highland/Crown Land neighborhood. · Additionally, we would like to increase the proposed setback of the development substantially, as Page 4 of 9 it appears on the plans that we have seen to place residential structures very near to the property lines of Highland Road homeowners. · We would like to know whether the plans incorporate any deviations from the senior (55+) residency requirements, specifically whether there are built-in stipulations allowing for a percentage of sub-senior residents now or at any time in the future? · It is our understanding that a traffic study was completed in connection with the proposed development. It is also our understanding that this study concentrated on main roads, and took neither Highland Road nor Crown Land Lane into account. We would appreciate information of when the study took place, what criteria were used, and what conclusion drawn. Additionally, ifa specific environmental impact study has been undertaken, we would appreciate information on those findings as well. Again, we would like to thank you for taking oar thoughts and concerns under consideration. We appreciate the opportunity to open a dialogue in the hopes of finding amicable solutions to these issues - a considerably favorable alternative to the resolution of this matter through administrative relief. As this is a community effort, we have attached a signature sheet to this document. Sincerely, The Concerned Residents of Highland Road & Crown Land Lane, Cutchogue, New York (Signatures Attached) CC: Members of Southold Town Board Members of Southold Town Planning Board Concerned Residents of Highland Road Crown Land Lane, Cutchogue, NY January 28, 2007 Print Name Street Address Signature Concerned Residents of Highland Road Crown Land Lane, Cutchogue, NY January 28, 2007 Print Name Street Address Signature Concerned Residents of Highland Road Crown Land Lane, Cutchogue, NY January 28, 2007 Print Name Street Address Signature Concerned Residents of Highland Road Crown Land Lane, Cutchogue, NY January28,2007 Print Name Street Address Signature Concerned Residents of Highland Road Crown Land Lane, Cutchogue, NY January 28, 2007 Print Name Street Address Signature January 25, 2008 Bryan C. Knipfing 64 Bums Road/P.O. Box 3015 Shelter Island Heights, NY 11965 Heather Lanza, Director of Planning Town of Southold Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 To Director Lanza: I am writing to express my deep concern for and opposition to the 139 condominiums, the "Heritage at Cutchogue," planned to be developed within the Town of Southold. I believe that the Town of Southold is one of the final locations on Long Island where the beauty and quality of life of rural living has been maintained. I believe that Cutchogue, in particular, has been saved from overdevelopment, commercialization, and land corruption that has become so widespread in surrounding areas. As Director of Planning you have the ability to ensure that open-space, environmental protection, and a rural atmosphere is continued for future generations within the Town of Southold. We have come to a point where preserved, undeveloped land is becoming obsolete on Long Island, and so I hope that you take this opportunity to save and protect one of the final parcels of open land to be enjoyed for our children and grandchildren. In my estimation, the "Heritage at Cutchogue" is in fact a contradiction. Because once that land is built upon and 139 condominiums sit where acres of open space once existed, our heritage, our tradition of farming and rural living will forever be lost. Please take into consideration these thoughts and all of the thoughts expressing concern over the threat to the quality of life posed by this developmental endeavor. Please keep Southold rural! Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Bryan C. Knipfing 800 Crown Land Lane Cutc~hogue, NY 11935 November 13, 2007 Ms. Amy Thiel Southold Town Planning Dept. Southold, NY 11971 Dear Ms. Thiel: Please read this letter into the minutes of your next meeting, g:,,~ ~, ~ During the week of October 22, 2007, a traffic study was conducted in Cutchogue related to the proposed development of The Heritage. Both human and mechanical counters were on our streets. However, for four of the days on which traffic was counted - October 24, 25, 26, and 27 - heavy rain and high winds prevailed. I have included the weather history fxom The Weather Channel's official site. These inclement weather conditions kept many people - local residents and tourists alike - offthe roads, preventing an accurate traffic count for this time of year. Members of both the Planning Board and Town Board vowed at the Town Board work session on Sept. 11, 2007 that they would make The Heritage developer do the Cutchogue traffic study to their satisfaction rather than have the Town pay to do its own traffic study. Since Nelson and Pope and Dunn Engineering are in the business of conducting traffic studies and surely have access to long-range weather forecasts, the Town should make them conduct the study again to record more reliable data. The study also needs to reflect the same seasonal amount of traffic that the end of October usually generates here in Cutchogue. I would submit that the end of May would be a comparable and appropriate time to gauge the traffic in Cutchogue in another study. Sincerely, Barbara McAdam cc. Planning Board Members Planning Dept. Members Monthly Weather Forecast for Cutehogue, NY (11935) - weather.eom 21 22 23 OBSERVED OBSERVED OBSERVED Hi 72°F Hi 71°F Hi 72°F Lo 49°F LO 51°F LO 65°F Piecip (irl) Precip (in) Precip Oin. Oin. Oin. 24 25 26 0 27 OBSERVED OBSERVED OBSERVED OBSERVED Hi 69°F Hi 57°F Hi 59°F Hi 68°F Lo S7°F Lo S2°F Lo 5:L°F Lo Sg°F Precip (m) Precip (in) Precip (in) Preop (in 0.45in. 0.10in. O.49in. 0,44in. 28 29 30 31 OBSERVED OBSERVED OBSERVED OBSERVED Page 2 of 4 Cutchogue Offers New York Resident? Get your college degree online. Get the facts started now. Lose 55 Lbs !n 5 Months Amazing Chinese Weight Loss Secret As See~ NBC & Fox News Save Up To 75% On Cruises Huge selection of discount cruises. All cruise destinations. Rent/Buy/Sell Condo Resorts/Timest~ares All top locations. Buy, rent, exchange from o less. Hi SI]OF Hi 52°F Hi 6'I°F Hi 63°F Lo 47°F Lo 36°F Lo 42'~F Lo 45°F PlecJp (ih) Precip (in) Pie.~p k,, Pf'ecip (in) Oin. Oin, Oin. Oin. FORECAST: Updated Nov 13 06:23 p,m, ET Leisure Travel Index: :[ = Poor Conditions, 10 = Very Good Conditions Details 1I Video li Text 1i Averages FREE Trial: Larger Radar Maps & No Ads ~ Learn More Today's weather news brought to you by ~_~ Suit up at the MLB corn Shop! From the Angels to the Yankees - one of the Jntemet's largest selections of MLB memorabilia and apparet right at your fingertips Month-to-Date Totals Temperatures Precipitation 82°F Record High Highest so far 81°F ~ ~ 63°F Avg. High Month ~ 48°F Avg. Low to Date 3,17 In. Lowest 36°F ~' ~ Average 3.72 in. Featured Finds Q, Which is not like the others? , 53 76 O1 This Week's Features Interstate Forecast Find driving cot interstate forec Allergies Best MPG Cars Find out where levels are high( These cars with save gas mone Deskt0pWeather http://www.weather.com/outlook/travel/vacationplanner/monthly/11935?month=- 1 11/13/2007 ~gn. thly~Weather Foreeaat for CutehogbNY (I 1935) - weather.eom Make thi~ my home page Local weather in 1-cl~ck I Put weather on my desktop Page 1 of 4 Customize weather, Localweather Enter zip or USllntl city Maps I Video I World I Mobile I Alerts Travel Home t Weather News Driving & Traffic I Healthy Uvlng I Home A Family I Sports & Recreation t The Weath ltaYeh V:~cati(~n & I raw:l Planner > Vacation Planner Forecast > MONTHLY WEATHER for Cutchogue, NY (11935) Yesterday .J T'?_~ _a_y ....... J. Tomorrow vacation Weather Planner for C,tchogue, NY (11935) [ English [ Hetric ] October Weather for your life Vacation & Travel Guide ~' Next Month t, Mort Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat ! 2 3 (~ 4 S 6 OBS;ERVED OBSERVED ORSERVED QRRERVED OI~SERVED OBSERVEI) I-II 65°F Hi 6gaf Hi 72"F Hi 75°F Hi 75°F Hi 74°F I.(~ 4q"F LO 49*F LC; 64"F LO 64°F lo 640F J.k~ 66aF Pr¢cil) (in) Precil: (in) Pr~dp (irl) Pr'm':ip (ill) Pr'.'.cip (Jr;) Predp (in) Oil. 01~. Oil. ~i~, Oie. x $ g 10 I1 ill 12 13 IR~[:RVE:D OB~ERVmFD OBSERVED OBSERVED OBSERVI~D OR~;ERVED O~E!RVEI3 Iii 77'1g !"ti 8I?F Iii 730F Hi 65'F Hi 66~F tti 62°F Hi 60OF 1~) 62~F ! o t~2'~F !_o ST~F [~; ST~F L.(3 60OF l.c~ 4fiOF I.t? 440F Pre'tip { } ~-m"). I, Il (it!) P!'ecip (in) PI'eciT) (i~) Pre(tip inl P'e(I), (ir'Il ~-h'eclp (in) O,04in, O.O4in, O, t6i,n. 0.20in. 0,20i., Oi.. Oir~. :~B~;E!I~,VED OE,$F~VED (')P,'.~FP. VEI) ()RSERVED OBSERVED ORFERVED OB.AERVEf~ Iii 6~;~'F: !-Il 64"F Hi 67°F Hi 680F Hi 700F Iii ?O°F Hi 72'r'F ] ~, ~1-7~C [o 44~'F Lc 47'~F I r> E;O"F I_0 540F Io 66aF I.(~ ~t e'r i? (ilQ hodI! (hi} P!'r.x:ip (in) 'Precip (in} Ple( I] ( Q fh'e£ip (in) Prec:ip (in) ~in- Oin, Oifl. O,02in. Oin. 1,00in, O.03in. ..... . ............. ,I. ..... I.....l..~.1. I. ....I/.,G,-at;,~n,~l.n.,-r/mnnthlv/110'~ ~;gmflnth=- 1 11 / 13/'2007 TO: PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS October 29, ,Teri Woodhouse ~/ George Solomon ,Toseph L. Townsend Kenneth L. Edwards Martin H. Sidor COPY: TOWN BOARD MEMBERS Scott Russsell Louisa P. Evans William P. Edwards Thomas H. Wickham Daniel C. Ross Albert `T. Krupski, .Tr. COPY: TOWN CLERK Elizabeth A. Neville COPY: SUPT OF HIGHWAYS Peter W. Harris FROM; .Tulia H. Rapuano 1140 Crown Land Lane, Cutchogue .. After attending numerous meetings of both the Planning and Town Boards~ pe_r~haps a new approach should be considered regarding the HER]~TAGE project. Inste~d'~'~'c~'nd~, there'¢~,'~ 2 alternatives - a park or a farmer's market. Following are details for I~.~.ject~i~uYbefore I go there ]~ do have questions that you may or may not have the answers to. Recently Mr. Scott Russell has been very outspoken regarding the HER]:TAGE project. At last week's public meeting he said the Town would purchase 25 of the 47 acres to be used as a buffer between the development end Highland Rd. ]~ originally thought that the offer by Mr. Russell to purchase the 25 acres was part of the bargaining to minimize the development of the property. Shouldn't the developer be required by the Town to design the buffers and use whatever land is necessary? ]~t sounds to me that some info is missing. Further, if Mr. Russell has t bility to use Town funds for hali the property, why not purchase the entire 47 acres and use it for the residents of 5outhold Town? Mr. Russell explained about the zoning and rezoning of said property and how the Town would be open to a lawsuit and the Town would lose. What amount of money ore we talking about? I did some research and it appears that in 1983, the purchase price was $277,000. According to tax records, the market value is almost $800,000. If my numbers are on target, why can't the Town purchase the entire property and develop it themselves? ~Tust doing o farmer's market which is so appropriate for this area would be profitable. A design that would include parking, thereby removing congestion off Route 25 (Main Rd), renting out parcels to be used as individual farm stands for fruit and vegetables, plants and trees. Why not ask Koran Catapano to sell goat cheese and goat products like her hand cream that is great, locally made jams and jellies - need I go on? Endless possibilities! Another comment from Supervisor Scott was the developer was in negotiation for a farm road. What road and where? :s the Planning Board aware of anything new that we the residents and you - the Planning Board - should be aware of? ]~ have mentioned to you that we have learned quite a bit by attending the meetings. What rattles me is I~lancy Sawastynowicz. has a lot of history on this project and it appears that we had slipshod politics. Tf this is true, and ~[ think it is, then there is a lot more here to be uncovered. ]~ live on Crown Land Lane. Since ]~ have been here I have battled to get the sump across the road from me cleared up - get rid of the rats, yes rats, get rid of the poison ivy, and take care of the rain water flooding. ]~t took 3 years for a new drain to be dug on our street. Mr. Harris had used Hampton Bays Pest Control for extermination but he stopped the contract. T have called his office numerous times, spoken to his secretary, have begged for some help and to no avail. ]~ pay Castillo Landscaping to mow by the sump. : hired Hampton to get the rodents under control on my property. Go and take a look at the sump. ]~ told Mr. Harris to leave the insides of the sump alone, just clean up around the sump; fix the gate that is crooked and unsafe; clean up and remove all the dead plants and debris. I offered to buy trees to replace what we had and now need in front of the sump to give a clean and healthy appearance - all he had to do was his job. Clean it up and T would replace what ]~ could to have it look nice. ,Tust for your info - his answer to me 2 years ago was "There is no time for sump cleanup. We do it when it really has to be done. You are not the only one complaining." 2 $o instead of spending mona deals for a project that is just , take the cash and spend it on the Hamlet of Cutchogue. Look at the dump! 1. brought over brush material and was shocked. l' told the fellows working the weigh station that day that their dump area was a whole lot better than the sumps on Crown Land. And do we get any help with our garbage? Never! There was only one man who helped the residents - and he was our Employee of the Year and his name is ,Tessie - so well-deserved. The workers at the dump walk around telling people how we cheat by tossing over an extra wastepaper bag. Does it matter that we pay for the sticker on the car, we p~y for the yellow bags THAT STILL FALL APART, we paid to build a new recycle center but we can't get rid of rats in our neighborhood! Again - instead of helping a developer build an unwanted community by negotiation, why not lose the suit, build a park or market, take care of what we have and make it last. Thank you 3 PROPOSAL FOR A ¢OMMUNZTV PARK Replacement for HERZTA~;E Condominium Project Submitted by ~Tulia Rapuano 1140 C~own Land Lane Cutchogue, N. ¥ The Hamlet of Cutchogue does not have an area like the Peconic Recreation Center or Mattituck (Strawberry Fields) for events. Taking into consideration all residents, seniors, teens, children and all in between, the following would provide recreation year round. A pro~ect with the right design, organization and supervision, would also provide ~obs and income. We are dealing with almost 48 acres. ]~ am not a draftsman but Z am putting forth what should be considered and T am sure there probably is more. First would be parking. Depending on design parking could be around the outside perimeter or separate parking field. The "park" should be parceled out to include: SWZMMZN6 POOL The pool should be domed so it could be used in the winter. The pool would be surrounded by an elevated platform to hold exercise equipment. This same platform could be separated so classes could be held for exercise programs such as yoga, aerobics, dance, etc. TENNZS/&OLF Tennis and/or golf could be planned for outside use. However, tennis could also be designed as the pool, enclosed. This would depend on cost and space. Tf miniature golf is included that would definitely be outside. Zf o small golf course is considered we would need instructors end would charge a fee. RECREATZON BUZLDZN6 This area should include tables for games such as table tennis, children's games, pool table, computers and large screens for educational programs. This area could be made available, AT A FEE, for use by local residents for birthday, graduation or any celebration party. OUT$'r bE F'rELD We need a field for baseball, football, basketball, hockey, soccer, whatever. We could rent out this area for fairs as well. bo we have room for a man-made ice skating/roller skating rink? How about a man-made mountain for skiing and sledding? These are some suggestions. 3; am sure we could do more - 3; and many other residents want you to consider this as a great alternative to condos. You and we can make it work. Tf money is needed we can charge for many of the uses. Rent tennis courts by the hour; lessons for swimming, golf, tennis; fees for fairs; we would need instructors, coaches, front desk info; whatever. Thank you. 5 PROPOSAl. FOR A FARMER'S MARKET Replacement for HERZTA~E Condominium Project Submitted by ,Tulia Rapuano 1140 C~own Land Lane Cutchogue, N. Y A Farmer's Market would be so approl~iate in our area that is filled with huge as well as roadside p~oduce. We could set it up the same way as we would a Recreational Park but this would probably be open. Not only should product be sold, we should also design the market to include trees, plants, flowers, fresh cheese (Catapano ~oat Farm), baked goods and breads. Visit any local farm like Bayview, or pumpkin outlet like I(~upski's, or Wickham's apple orchard and imagine centering this in one outlet. Again we would parcel out areas to whomever and they would pay a fee. Po~king would be around the perimeter or create a parking field. Year round or seasonal would be incorporated so if the market is closed during the winter it can.be used for other ~easons. Foods, crafts, local business could use the market for their outlet. This is another great alternative to the HERiTAgE. Please consider the alternatives. Thank you. 6 Edmond D. Franco 15919 Main Road East Marion, NY 11939 September 27, 2007 Amy Thiel Senior Planner Town of Southold Planning Board P.O Box 1179 54375 State Route 25 Southold, NY 11971 (631) 765-1938 RE: Heritage at Cutchogue To Southold Town Planning Board: We don't need studies to tell us that urban sprawl is ~g Southold Town. It is ourjob to protect what is left, and to try to improve on it. The cumulative negative impacts of the proposed development extend to the core characters of Cutchogue Hamlet and Southold Town. PLEASE pass this reminder on to the other people in the Planning Department and to the Officers of the Planning Board, to please do everything we can to prevent, or at lease to dramatically mitigate those impacts. Please do what you can to prevent the commercial development called Heritage at Cutchogue from ruining what is left of the real heritage of Cutchogue. Thanking you very much for your anticipated courtesy and cooperation. Sincerely; ~'~ ..~.~-~ ~ ~ Edmond D, Franco.' 800 Crown Land Lane Cutchogue, NY 11935 Sept. 25, 2007 Jeri Woodhouse, Chairperson Southold Town Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Ms. Woodhouse: Please read this letter into the minutes of your next meeting. A heliport currently exists on Sterling Rd. in Cutchogue, behind the King Kullen Shopping Center, listed as North Fork Helicopters, Inc. This facility is located within one mile of the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue condominium complex. According to the Suffolk County Planning Commission regulations - Chapter 9 Section E - some type of notification by the developer to potential buyers is required, alerting them to their proximity to a helipordflight path. I have attached a copy of these regulations. Sincerely, Barbara McAdam cc. Planning Board Members COMMIS~ION POLICIES ~VD GUIDELINF. S. REIMT1VE TO SUBDIVISION OF IdaVD material onto adjacent properties and highways and into tidal wetland areas and adjolnint bodies of water. All stormwater runoff resulting from the development and improvement of a subdivision or any of its lots should bo mtsinad on sit~ by adequate drainage structures eo that the stormwater runoff will not flow ~ the right-of-way cfa county or stat~ road into any body of water, or into any county, sta~ or federal property. In a major subdivision it i~ felt flint, from the m*~utenan~o and stora~ uapa~ity poims of view, a r~hargo basin is preferable to cash basins with lea~hing pools for the dispo~l of stormwator runoff. In tho design of a comm~ial or an ~ subdivision ~on should b~ given to tho manner of s~ornge and dispo~ of ~nmercial and imiu~al wasa, a~ wall as stormwater, from impervious sm~ These westin materials and tho stonnwater r~ carrying deleterious substance can have an adverse impact upon the aquifer and upon wetlands, shorelinc~ streams and oth~ bodies of water. Where there is a high groundwater table or an adverse soil condition and it is necessary to dischargo., stormwa~, runoff into a tidal or freshwater body of wat~ a retention basin with a m~mmum storage capacity of 2 inches should be provided, In lieu of a retention basin E. IN VICIIVlTY OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE AIRPORTS AND HELIPORTS 1. G~m-al StatemontofPolicy Whea an airport is.established it is usually located in a sparsely develol~d are~ A~ the vacant lands surrounding an airpo~ become more valuable there is pre~sur~ to develop th~m. If these surrounding land~ are developed in r~idential uso, pmasum from the ~id~as is soon brought to boar m either olos~ ~he airport or curtail ifs a~iviti~, This hes fro' machine regiol~l ~onomig and ~o~ial ramific~ons. It would bo ideal if tho lands anrrounding en ah~ort ~ould h~ loR un~ek~o~t. Since this is not practical in most cas~, allomafives must I~ utilized. The following guidelines am felt to he & means whereby the lands surrounding an airport can be developed with some degree of compatibility between the difforont land uses. 2. Guidelines Where poasible, the land surrounding an airport, particularly those ar0as within the landing and takeoff zone, should bo industrially zoned. ~ r~idential land use is permitted, it should be the lowest density possible and clustered away from the most commonly used flight paths. In industrially zoned areas, these industries most ~mpafible with airport oporadoes, such as indoor storage facilities; vertically unobtrusive building suucmres; transportation hubs, should bo encouraged. Uses that are incompatible in terms Pm~o BY ~m solacer Coom~ ~ D~Arnva~r 35 36 CHAPTER of safety and noise, such as activities that attract birds; livestock farming riding stables or noise sensitive uses: schools, hospitals, outdoor recreational facilities should be discouraged. There may be an impact in areas extending beyond one mile b. Tim final nmP °~a ~ rezidentinl subdtvtsien st~om~ ~ following no~,: (t~ This subdivision is located within on~ mile of an Airport or Heliport and may be subject to noise bom the operation overflights, of that facility and noise fixun almmR ($) All residential structures tlmt are arect~ within fl~is subdivision are to be e. onstmcted ' · nsmg materials and techniques that w/Il reduce interior houan noise levels in accordance with recommendations 0fthe Fed~al Aviation R~gulation Part 150- Noise Abetomen~ ~nce: US Department of T~ Federal Avin~n Administration, Part 150. Noise Corarol and Comp~oility Planning for Aitpom Advisory Circular AC 150/5020-1 August 5, lg~J). ,~., o~a major atrport facility should be notified g-- :,~- ~'~'-,~-~ wnam oun mile and LDN with ' .~ oy me ouuae~s, contractors and d~velopen a s~gned a~imowiedlpnent; that they may be subject to aircraft ov~fli~ and resultant noise. ~ for purposes of~hese guidelines shall be an a/rport w/th an excess orS0,000 plane movements per year and having scheduled carrle~ or military sarvice operations or tha capability of an instrument be a faoility d~sigued prim~rn~ for ~:.~_~' . .?dmg.syst~_. noise measurement over a y-e~,Lev~l.'~)ay_W~igg~t. ~0anl aircraft. LDN & In lieu of an acknowledgment, the local municipality may elect to require the filing cfa ~.enera} a~lvisory covenant and restriction to run with the land similar in wording to 2a and F. FARMLANDs AND OTHRR KNV/RONM~NTALLy SEN$/TIVg LANDs 1. General Statement of Policy .The creation of a conventional subdivision layout on a prime farmland tract or othar enwronmantally sensitive lands will result hi the loss cfa valuable ee, onomio resource and open space. It is also possible that the loss of the farmland feature of the landscape may have an tmpa~t upon the tourist industry. tt is the objective of the Commission to encourage the Preservation of Suffolk County's prime farmlands and other environmentally sensitive lands through innovative subdivision design. 2. GUidelines Usc of the "cluster" and "transfer of development rights" concepts should be encouraged to save prime farmlands bom total development. ClUster rrmps which preserve farmland should be designed such that the farm reserve be of ~ufficient size to permit a homesite, farm structures and an economically viable agricultm-al Ju~ 3, 1998 . SEP - 6 2007 September 4, 2007 $~. To the Southold Town Planning Board: Hello. Please add i~'v~oice to thc record on the as "Heritage at Cutchogue". RECEIVED Southold Town Clerk development referred to Twenty four years ago essentially this same proposal was rammed through the back doors of Southold Town government. All the impacts of Heritage at Cutchogue are no different than the impacts of the development proposed on the same site well over twenty years ago referred to as "Seacrof¥'. Oversized impacts, with negative effects on everything, traffic, water supply, cesspools, character and architectural integrity ora village that has stood for 300 years. The original development public hearing for the change of zone was done in the middle of winter on February 1~ 1983. Despite that the planning board recommended denial of the zone change "Seacrof¥' got a zone change fi.om the Good 'Ole Boys on the Southold Town Board on July 19~, 1983. The Suffolk Times reported that the developer said everyone was in favor of the project. Everyone I knew strongly opposed it. After getting over 900 signatures on a Petition, I handed it in to the Town Board. They refused to let me speak and would not accept the Petition. When this was reported in the Suffolk Times, I was overwhelmed by support, including legal assistance by environmental lawyer Robert D. Pike and encouragement from many local residents. In 1984 Southold Town Planning Board required an Environmental Impact Statement. The developers stalled, and the Planning Board denied their site plan application. The developers sued Southold Town in the Supreme Court and lost. Our current Town Supervisor, Scott Russell, quoted in The Suffolk Times Feb. 5~, 2007, said rezoning and other Town Board actions could be considered if the developers don't meet the needs of the town and no significant investment is made on the property. Undoing the spot zoning applied to this property is simply common sense. Please include rezoning in the final scope. The proposed "Heritage at Cutchogue" is bigger than the hamlet of Cutchogue. It will change the historic character of our town. There is already a traffic problem in the village. The landfdl is in Cutchogue, it brings traffic fi.om all over Town. King Kullen always has a traffic jam. All the wineries in Cutchogue bring in traffic. What about the sewage from such an oversize development. What impacts will that have on our town? Greenport's sewage treatment plant is already maxed out. Is the development going to have a Cromaglass system? Lighting with such a large project would obliterate any views of our Town's night sky. This development's is considerably larger than an average adult retirement community. Developers like to use the promise of an adult retirement community to get a tax break, but will the impacts of this development be less, will thek tax break raise taxes for regular taxpayers? A 5,000 square foot clubhouse in a gated community will not be accessible to the townspeople of Cutchogue, yet the residents of this development will use all the amenities in the neighborhood. They will use our roads but not allow us to use theirs, It's not fair and should not be legal. How will water quality be protected? This project will be over the most shallow aquifer on the North Fork. The Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA) commented on December 12th, 2006, "Southold Town's drinking water supply is limited." This is a big red flag for Southold~ Who will monitor the water in this development? The SCWA strongly urges that the town of Southold impose conditions on this project permitting the irrigation of only 15% of the area of any single lot. Who will enforce, and who will pay for enforcement of such "conditions". Also SCWA suggests adopting methods to reduce the potential of degraded water from recharging to the aquifer. Do you really expect me to believe that "luxury, high-priced" condos will care about protecting the aquifer. When the water runs out they just move to another "luxury, high-priced" place to live or go to their second homes. Traffic signals are not the answer. There is not enough room to fit all the cars between the traffic signals. W'dl our Volunteer Fire Depadment be able to handle the volume of emergency calls from a "senior community". The calls to G-reenport Volunteer Fire Department never stop from "Peconic Landing". Who will be the volunteers for the Fire Department when Cutchogue is a town of all senior citizens? Not that I'm prejudiced, as I too am a senior citizen. The whole project is not what Cutchogue needs or wants. A new 47 acre private neighborhood should not be built in the heart of Cutchogne. The proposed uniform architectural style with little village-type insignias on lamposts presuming to honor our village will in reality be contemptuous and disastrous for the authentic country ambiance Cutchogue presently enjoys. The ordina~ residents of Southold need our Planning Board to step forward to represent us and plan for us, rather than the real estate interests. How is it that developers with ink, paper, and a little cash overnight can completely change the character, nature, and architectural integrity of a village that has stood for 300 years? Please, say no to this development. Sincerely, Nancy Sawastynowicz 1845 Fleetwood Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 (631) 734-5093 CC: Southold Town Board To~ From: Re: Jeri Woodhouse Chairperson Southold Planning Board Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 Southold, NY 1 t971 Thomas Hall 2985 Highland Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 "The Heritage at Cutchogue" Sept. 4th,2007 The purpose of this memo is to request that the ~outhold P!~a~_ing Board ir~c!~!d~ ..... in the draft scope for DEIS the following additions to S~xti'~h-'~l-~a~r~.l'~nvir0nmental Resources, Soils: 2.1.1 Existing Conditions Soil sample from each acm of this property should be taken and tested for Arsenic (organic and inorganic) and any other hazardous materials. This property was former farm land and is adjacent to existing farm land where pesticides, insecticides and fertilizers which contain Arsenic were used. 2.1.2 Anticipated Impacts Excavating this land for development will cause Arsenic, if present in the soil, to become airborne with the dirt and dust which will create a serious health hazard for everyone in the area. 2.1.3 Proposed Mitigation To be determined based on soil samples tested and levels of Arsenic and other hazardous materials present in the soil. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) classify arsenic as a human carcinogen. Epidemiological studies have shown that inhalation exposure to inorganic arsenic increases the risk of a variety of forms of lung cancer. Page 1 of 2 Epidemiological studies have also shown that ingestion of inorganic arsenic increases the risk of developing skin cancer, most commonly squamous and basal cell carcinomas. In addition, evidence exists that ingestion of arsenic may also increase the risk of certain internal cancers, including tumors of the bladder, kidney, and liver. For these reasons, the US EPA regulates arsenic as a carcinogen and has developed a variety of toxicity values for use in setting remedial objectives for arsenic. While the US EPA has not established a national regulation regarding arsenic in soil, its generic soil screening level (SSL) for arsenic in soil is 0.4 mg/kg, corresponding to a cancer risk level of one-in-one-million (denoted lx10-6) for exposure through soil ingestion (US EPA, 1996). Environmental regulators and professionals across the country are currently struggling with how to address arsenic in soil, a natural occumng compound in the environment that is commonly found above risk standards. Typically, State Site Redemption Programs calculate their soil criteria using the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund risk model. Using these assumptions, the standard for arsenic in soil is computed to be 0.43 ppm. However, reported background concentrations of arsenic in soil range from 1- 40 ppm, with an average value of about 5 ppm. Currently section 2.0 of the scope drafl only addresses soil type and impact to soil. This section does not address any hazardous materials that are most likely contained in the soil. I would greatly appreciate a written response to my request by September 18~, 2007. Thank you Thomas Hall cc: Joseph L. Townsend cc: Kenneth L. Edwards cc: Marin H. Sidor cc: George Solomon cc: Mark Terry cc: Anthony Trezza cc: Bruno Semon cc: Scott Russell Page 2 of 2 To: Ms. Geri Woodhouse, Chairperson Southold Town Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue proposal DEIS Document and Comments Ms. Woodhouse: 8,E? - 5 2007 ..... 09/IM/07 My name is Larry Mannino. My family and I live'on Highland Road, and I have a business in Cutchogue. As a concerned resident of not only the neighborhood adjacent to the proposed development, but of the North Fork, I wanted to take a moment to comment on the DEIS document, and also add a few additional insights which I believe to be relevant. I have also attached a draft of a letter which I wrote last January, and which was submitted along with signatures of residents of Highland and Crown Land Roads, as well as the surrounding areas. I have been told that this document may or may not still be in the official project folder, so I have included it on the off chance that you have not seen it. I think it is important to have a bit of back story about my family and I, so that you might have a better sense of where these comments are coming from. My wife and I both grew up on the South Fork, and our families still live there. When we grew up, the South Fork was in many ways not unlike the North Fork, yet over time it became transformed into the transient, traffic-ridden and overbuilt mess that it is today. Moreover, we didn't want to raise our family (one daughter, now three, and another child due this January), in an environment which had lost its sense of community, and whose standard for normalcy involved owning a Range Rover and a McMansion. Knowing that we wanted to start a family, we began looking for a good place to live, both in-state and out, and about six years ago chanced upon a tiny house on Main Bayview that we could afford. We made the leap, had a beautiful daughter, and I started a modest advertising and marketing business. When our daughter Olivia became more mobile, 1 no longer felt safe living on a road which had become so busy, so we looked for a safer, more family-oriented neighborhood where we could really set down roots and raise a family. By chance we found a modest ranch house on Highland Road, managed to sell our own house on Bayview, and moved in. Although the neighborhood might not meet the tastes of the more affluent types looking for the 'New North Fork' concept, it is a terrific, and safe place to raise a family - as evidenced to the nearly 60 children who currently reside there. In fact, it is populated by the very people who with to remain on the North Fork, rather than looking for greener pastures elsewhere. Business owners, teachers, policemen - the types of people who are necessary for a community to exist, and the very people who have been driven from the South Fork, causing problems like the 'trade parade' on Route 27 every morning, and the inability of many area fire department to properly staff themselves. There is a need for any community to have these core neighborhoods which keep areas from becoming second-homeowner communities bereft of character, and empty after Labor Day. And, in keeping with this, 1 think that it is important to bear in mind how seemingly innocuous decisions tend to have a ripple effect, which cause unintended consequences over time. While I realize that no one necessarily has a right to tell someone what to do with their property within the parameters set by law, I do ask that you consider the following scenario: let's say that Spur Road is opened up as a traffic flow area, thus allowing for a traffic conduit between depot Lane, around the congestion of Cutchogue village, and to points west. Perhaps a traffic study says that there will only be the smallest bump in traffic volume, as surely no one would use that road for anything other than access to The Heritage. Well, as I write this, Middle Road in Riverhead is putting in a huge traffic circle, and most of the properties are now for sale because it has become such a highly- trafficked alternative to the Route 58 gridlock. The same scenario applies to the opening of Spur or Bridle. But it doesn't end there. If the street loses it's appeal to the families who live there, and serve as the backbone of the community, perhaps they decide that with the increased traffic, it is time to move on. And that once that decision has been made, perhaps alternatives to living on the North Fork seem that much more appealing. Soon, the community - the people - who define this remarkable place are gone, save for a few die-hards. Businesses who rely on a strong community close, or become the seasonal playthings of the wealthy. Schools populations shrink, diversity goes out the window. Suddenly, the Fire Departments and Police force no longer have people to fill slots vacated by retirement, as the young families have moved on. Hospitals, service-industry businesses -just about everyone is unable to find people to staff these places. Soon, the traffic coming from up-island to fill these needs becomes unbearable. The North Fork loses the source of its character and strength; the people and the community they create. All this from a decision to placate a developer, or because it seems to make sense on a map. And then, years later, people say "...well, it used to be so nice." Or "...it's really nice in the winter.". I would be the first to say that the above scenario seems a bit drastic - had I not already lived through it. I implore you, and the member of the planning board, to look at the Heritage proposal in these terms, not those merely dictated by the laws on the books, when making this and other decisions, l've been witness to what happens when the sum of many seemingly minor decisions are tallied. Having said this, 1 believe that commenting on the DE1S document would be redundant, especially in light of the attached document which already addresses the issues. Moreover, I ask that you pass both documents around, to other members of the Planning Board, in order to insure that they be considered before final decisions are rendered. I realize, of course, that your tasks are difficult and time-consuming, and that you are always looking out for the best interests of the community. I thank you for taking the time to read, and consider, these documents. On a personal note, the Board has been terrific in listening to our needs, and we thank you for your efforts. Also, I apologize for any oversights in grammar or punctuation. This is first-draft theater, l've got a business to run. Best, Larry Mannino 800 Crown Land Lane Cutchogue, NY 11935 September 1, 2007 Ms. Jeri Woodhouse, Chairperson Southold Town Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Members of the Planning Board: I am writing to comment on the Draft Scope DEIS for "The Cutchogue." Project Design and Layout: #13 - Access to The Heritage is currently proposed through Spur Rd and Bridle from Highland Road. The access at Spur Rd. will create a bypass for Main Rd. through a residential area of 60 homes with a population including 50+ children. Traffic accessing The Heritage will also travel on Griffing and Schoolhouse Rd., already heavily trafficked by cars, school buses and pedestrians, due to a parochial school and the Cutehogue Post Office. This traffic will also enter Spur Rd to travel Highland/Crown Land/Bridle Lane. Both of these access points are unaceeptable. # 16- The lighting of the proposed development should be directed downward and not flood adjacent areas. #17 - The use of 139+ individual cesspools in an area that is designed to be built on approximately 20 of the 46 acres; surrounded by single-family dwellings with private wells; located over a shallow aquifer, according to SCWA; is totally unacceptable and unbelievable! As Lead Agency in this project analysis, The Southold Town Planning Board should impose more stringent conditions beyond those mandated by the Suffolk County Health Dept.: Regarding the supposed sanitary flow, SCDHS allowable flow is 22,625 gallons per day per unit. The project's proposed sanitary flow is 21,615, a difference of only 1010 gallons per day. { 139 units x 150 gpd = 20,850 ; how is the 765 gpd difference accounted for, considering that there is an 8840 sq.f~ clubhouse, a 2400 sq. fl. maintenance garage and an 1160 sq. ft swimming pool? The swimming pool alone has an excess of 45,000 gallons of water which requires fn:quent backwashing and occasional emptying; where does this chemically-treated water go?} With these amenities and the size of each unit - 2000 sq. ft., more than the 2 residents per unit will be on-site, particularly from May - October, or half the year. The actual gpd will certainly exceed what is allowable during this time, and we must assume that all units will be occupied year- round. Water Resources: #6,7,11 - Ina July 24, 20071etter, a eopy ofwhich was presented to each of you at the Scoping Session on Aug. 20, 2007, Robert Farmer, Supervisor of the Bureau of Dripking Water for SCDHS states that a review will be undertaken by his Bureau to identify the areas with private wells that will have their water impacted by this project. He states that "this information will be presented to the project developer and that project approval is contingent upon public water being made available to private well owners that could potentially have their water quality impacted." The Planning Board should also have access to this information from the Bureau of Drinking Water. - As Lead Agency, the Southold Town Planning Board should require the developer to pay for the installation of public water to all homes adjaeeut to the project - Highland Rd., Schoolhouse Rd., Crown Land Lane, Bridle Lane, Bridle Ct., Depot Lane and Evergreen Ct. since these areas are carrenfly serviced by private wells and mn the risk of future impact from this project As Lead Agency, the Southold Town Planning Board should heed the warnings of SCWA's Steven Jones in a letter to Ms. Woodhouse dated Dec. 16, 2006 regarding quality and quantity of water this public agency can provide along with stringent conditions that should be imposed upon this development by the Planning Board. #8 & 9 - and Laud Use #3 & 14: Again, Mr. Robert Farmer states in his July 24th letter that "sewage from this project will move southeasterly towards Wickham Creek and Cutchogue Harbor." Not only does the impact on both the public and private water supply need to be evaluated, but the impact on these 2 water resources needs to be evaluated in light of the fragile nature of the Peconic Bays in our arem Human Resources - Transportation: #~2 - As Lead Agency, The Town Planning Board should press the Town Board to initiate a new traffic study for the hamlet of Cutehogue. #6 - The traffic study should set its parameters to include Alvah's Lane as its ~'estem boundary, extending through to Cox Lane in the east, Route 48 to the north and Rte 25, Main Road, to the south. Community Facilities and Services: #8 & 9 - Bridle Lane and Spur Rd. should be removed as possible emergency access mutes. Both The Heritage and the Highland/Crown Land neighborhoods should be kept separate. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources: Given the uncertainty of the real estate market and the expanding mortgage crisis, what assurance does the Town of Southold and its residents have regarding the economic viability of such a large-scale development? What recourse does the Town have if the development is not completed and the developer abandons the project due to financial problems? Will the Town be burdened with incomplete and/or unsold properties and structures that will be a threat to public safety, an eyesore or a tax drain? What will be the economic impact on neighboring property values? Please consider adding these points to the scope of your report in studying the environmental impact of The Heritage at Cutchogue. Thank you. Sincerely, Barbara McAdam RE: "Heritage at Cutchogue" September 4, 2007 Dear planning Board: In 1983, Southold Town Board, except for then Councilman, Joseph L. Townsend, gran~l a zone change for a development proposed at the location of "Heritaga at Cutchogue'. Despite that re-zoning, Southold Planning Board denied site plan approval for that proposal. In 1983, there were no hamlet studies, there was no Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan, the rezoning did not involve any significant public participation. I believe the zoning was granted specifically for the proposed development. By all appearances this is "spot zoning" and now it should be re-zoned. As the Planning Board, you do not have the power to zone, but as the planning Board you should recognize spot zoning and lake a hard look at any related development proposals. To the contrary, your actions have given me the impression that the 24 year old zoning is written on stone tablets received from a higher authority. Regardless of the zoning, the Heritage at Cutchogue docsn't fit into Cotehogue anymore than a big round peg will fit in a small square hole. The idea that this development is deserving of higher density because it is close to the hamlet center is false. The senior residents of Herhage at Cutchogue, described by the developer as people who want "an easier lifestyle" will pay less taxes but they will most likely use more resources and require more services, except for schools which they are likely to vote against funding. In my youth the hamlet center included a food market, now that building is occupied by a Real Estate Agency. But the new Heritage folk are unlikely to walk anywhere let alone to town to buy a house. Will they have sidewalks and bike / electric scooter paths inside the development? # 1. Please require assessment of a range of alternative development proposals includin~ plans that provide for preservation of significantly sized contiguous portions of the subject property and a nmge of residential volumes that will mlnimi?~ potential traffic, sewage and community character impacts associated with the applicant's #2. I understand that you do not have the authority to re*zone, but why you will not even discuss re-zoning and why you refuse to include it as an alternative to be included in the Environmental Impact Statement is mysterious and worrying to me. #3 Has the Planning Board already decided to approve the Heritage at Cutchogne? The Positive Declaration requiring an Environmental Impact Statement recognizes that there will be many significant negative impacts. However, it also indicates that these can all be mitigated. Will mitigation change the impacts to positive? g4 What about cumulative impaets? The enormous size of the proposed development will not only multiply the individual negative impacts, there will be a cumulative negative impact. If the character of Cutchogue Hamlet and Southuld Town is changed for the worse, do we have to accept that?. 1845 Fleetwood Rd. Catchogue, NY 11935 (631) 734-5093 PS: Please read this into the record of the development proposal for "Heritage at Cutchogne". CC: Southold Town Board ! i" '~':~ http ://concemedcitizens.homestead.com/SEQRA_Prime"~.htmi From The Concerned Residents of the Hi hl : ' g anu ~xuatu brown t~ana Koaa m~ghborhood To Whom it May Concem, It has, in recent weeks, been brought to .our attention that a parcel of land adjaoent to our neighborhood is currently under consideration for development ('The Heritage'). According to our information, the Developer wishes to gain approval for the placement of a 139-unit development consisting of a mixture of'affordable' and 'senior' (55+) condominium-style housing units on this 47-acre parcel, a private venture for the sole purpose of development-for-profit. It is also our understanding that this parcel falls under the guidelines of quarter-acre residential zoning, with egress points connecting to our quiet, family-oriented and child-dense (nearly 50 children reside here) neighborhood. As you can well imagine, the prospect of developing this parcel according to the above guidelines has become a cause of sudden and great concern for the residents of our neighborhood, most notably in terms of impact not only to our community, but also with regard to the impact upon the character of the Hamlet of Cutchogue as well. While we are aware that we, by law, have no specific right to demand that this development not take place, as it is within the legal right of the parcel's owner and developer to make use of the land as permitted, we are nevertheless contacting you in the hopes that our concerns will be addressed, and remedial actions explored to the satisfaction of both parties in these, the early-stages of this proposed development. Many of our concerns appear to he in-line with the proposed development's adherence to the provisions of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), which imposes a procedure for considering environmental impacts, including those the public urges be considered. According to our research, if the decision-making body fails to address the impacts it has been notified about in writing, then the procedure has been violated and can be challenged in court. According to SEQRA, environmental impacts which must be considered by the decision-making body include "the physical conditions which will be affected by a proposed action, including land, a/r, water, minerals,//ora, fauna, noise, objects of historic or aesthetic significance, existing patterns o£ population concentration, distribution, or growth, and existing community or neighborhood character.' ECL §8- 0105 [6]. All of those areas are considered 'environmental impacts', and the aforementioned definition encompasses three distinct areas: (1) physical impacts, (2) impacts on population pattems and (3) impacts on community character. SEQRA also requires a review of impacts related to the proposed activity, even if they are likely to occur only after the proposed activity is completed, and even if they are indirect. These include cumulative impacts, that is, impacts that add to those already caused by other related activities. Also included in the environmental review are long- term impacts that will occur if one development is likely to lead to another. In that case, the combined impacts of all related developments must be reviewed. See Part 617.7(c). It is these areas which we would like to call to you attention to, in brief, for consideration. Also, given our time constraints and our desire to move quickly in addressing our concerns, please consider this to be a preliminary document which may be modified at a later date. Overview: The Highland Road/Crown Land Road neighborhood is a quiet, family-oriented community with no thru-traffic accessed only by its residents and, on occasion, by maintenance or delivery-type vehicles. With nearly 50 children under the age of eighteen residing here, the street is often populated by these children at play, as well as by parents walking to town with their children in strollers. As a rule, we are careful about the way in which we drive here, and in many cases purchased property here specifically because of the neighborhood's safety and family appeal. Traffic: According to our information, the proposed development plans to access the Highland/Crown Land area from both Spur Road and Bridle Lane, with potential egresses at the midway point and end of the eastern side of Highland Road. As a neighborhood, we feel that unrestricted access to a population-dense development from what is currently a quiet residential street would have a significant, and disastrous, impact upon the character of the community, especially in terms of child-safety. The direct and open vehicular linking of our neighborhood to a small, residentially dense area would increase the traffic on our street tremendously, not only in terms of the vehicles of the residents themselves, but just as importantly, the high number of maintenance and support vehicles that would service such a development on an ongoing and year-round basis. Moreover, it is not unreasonable to foresee such a link quickly serving as a secondary conduit which would be used, in increasing numbers, by residents and non- residents alike in order to circumvent the village area during busy times of the year, much in the way roads north of Route 58 in Riverhead are now used to get around the busier main intersections. In other words, the traffic impact should be considered not only in terms of the addition of 139 additional residences, but in a larger sense carrying with it a larger exponential impact. In short, we feel that such a proposed open linkage would compromise both the safety of our children and the aesthetic character of both our neighborhood and the Hamlet of Cutchogue as a whole. We understand that emergency access points for such a dense residential area may well be a necessity and, taking a page from the solution implemented at Laurel Links, would be open to considering access via 'crash barriers', so that no one's safety is at risk during an emergency. This potential solution would in large part preserve the character and safety of our neighborhood as it exists today, and would have the added benefit of channeling traffic toward the retail and commercial areas of Cutchogue via the proposed main gatehouse on Griffings Avenue, which would be of benefit to our local shopkeepers. Further, we feel that an additional egress could be developed with an outlet onto Depot Lane, logically a better solution as it is a North/South road connecting the North Fork's two main arteries, and is already heavily-trafficked. Again, we would be open to any additional solutions which you might propose. Water Quality Issues: As this area was formerly agricultural in nature, many of the residents of the Highland/Crown Land neighborhood have made the investment in private water- treatment and filtration systems in order to protect our families from the various chemicals and pesticides once used on these lands. The proposed development raises concerns in this area as well. One of the most striking discoveries we have made during the course of our initial research, is that prescriptive medications, especially - but not limited to - lipid- based treatments (such as Lipitor), are not removed from the groundwater by any current filtration methods, and remain a health-risk for a long period of time. With the proposed development being restricted to senior (55+) individuals, it is inevitable that the concentration of these toxins in our groundwater will rise considerably, either via innocent disposal or excretion. We do not, as yet, have public water, and a number of our residents have by rights elected not to participate in the opportunity to gain access to the proposed public water lines. Again, for the safety of our families, we feel that this is a point requiring considerable further research. Regarding chemicals and pesticides necessary to maintain the appearance and grounds of the proposed development, we would like to know if an Integrated Pest Management Plan (like those used by golf courses and other private gated communities) has been proposed, is considered, or approved. Please advise. There are septic concerns as well, and we would like to be made aware of the proposed placement of septic systems, especially in terms of their proximity to the residential wells at the eastern edge of the Highland homeowner's properties. We do know that there are laws in place which define a specific safe distance, depending on well depth and placement, and once again would appreciate more information on terms of septic placement and its impact on our community. Density: While more of an aesthetic issue, the issue of a high-density residential area placed squarely in the midst ora quaint, historic community is one which should at least be made mention of. Again, while we understand that we have no legal recourse in terms of demanding that fewer than 139 units be approved, we do ask that you consider the network of impacts that such a sudden, high-density development would have in terms of the overall guidelines delineated in the SEQRA requirements. Moreover, we ask whether the Town feels in good conscience whether or not this development, in its current form, serves the greater interest of the North Fork community. Citing the Town o£SouthoM Hamlet Study, we feel that this development in many ways incongruent with the study's findings. Please bear in mind the following excerpts from that study as you consider the impact of the proposed development: · "Cutchogue's Hamlet Center...retains a distinct, small-scale intimate character." o"Cutchogue's historic character is also a vital aspect of the area's 'sense of place' and should be reinforced." · "Larger scale commercial development is clearly inconsistent with the Hamlet Center's character. Large scale, in this context, not only refers to the square footage of a given facility, but also to the intensity of use, the volume of traffic generated, the natureof the intended market... {and} the extent of site improvements, like off-street parking lots or sewage disposal systems, etc." · "Preserve the small scale nature of the Hamlet Center as the focus of community life." · Cutchogue's commercial activity must be characteristic of, and take place within a small scale context that is in keeping with the Hamlet's traditional setting." Other Concerns, Issues and Requests: The following are a few other salient points which have arisen over the course of our neighborhood meetings which we would like to bring to your attention for consideration: · It is our understanding that the proposed development is to take place in stages. Given the increased noise and traffic associated with construction projects of this magnitude, we would like to know if an 'end-date' has been established within thc parameters of the project's timeframe. · Given the nature of real estate development for investment purposes, it is possible that the developer may not be financially successful in his efforts to build and sell all of these properties in a timely manner, thus leading to the possibility of bankruptcy, the cessation of further development, etc. Given this possible scenario, would it be possible to have the first wave of units be built at the northernmost and/or easternmost edge of the parcel, thus minimizing impact to the Highland/Crown Land neighborhood in the event of failure? · While a buffer-zone or green-space has been proposed, we would like appreciate serious consideration of a landscaped berm to be placed between the westernmost area of the development and our neighborhood. This would benefit both parties, as the development residents would not be subjected to the noise of children at play, and would provide an aesthetic benefit which may slightly diminish the detrimental impact the proposed development will have on property values in the Highland/Crown Land neighborhood. · Additionally, we would like to increase the proposed setback of the development, as it appears on the plans which we have seen to place residential structures very near to the property lines of Highland Road homeowners. · In the event that a 'crash gate' solution is approved, we would be happy to consider the placement of sidewalks allowing for foot and bicycle traffic between the two communities. · It is our understanding that a traffic study was completed in connection with the proposed development. We would appreciate information of when the study took place, what criteria were used, and what conclusion drawn. Additionally, if a specific environmental impact study has been undertaken, we would appreciate information on those findings as well. Again, we would like to thank you for taking our thoughts and concerns under consideration. We appreciate the opportunity to open a dialogue in the hopes of finding amicable solutions to these issues - a considerably favorable alternative to the resolution of this matter through administrative relief. As this is a community effort, we have attached a signature sheet to this document. Sincerely, The Residents of the Highland Road/Crown Land Road Neighborhood September 4, 2007 Jeri Woodhouse, Chairperson Southold Town Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Ms. Woodhouse and Members of the Planning Board: As a resident of the Crown Land Lane/Highland Road community in Cutchogu~e, I am writing.~o ask you to investigate several issues which are not addressed fully or at all in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed "Heritage at Cutchogue." These issues fall under section 3.0 of this document "Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts". · Traffic The traffic studies that have been done to date are grossly inadequate. A more comprehensive and meaningful traffic study needs to be done to determine traffic volume and patterns in and around the proposed 'Heritage' project area, including Depot, Schoolhouse, Griffing, New Suffolk, Highland, Crown Land, and Bridle, as well as Main Rd. between Depot and Alvah's Lane. The study should be done at several times of the year and several times during respective days to accurately assess traffic conditions as they exist now. Then, a modeling study should be done to assess the impacts of traffic in the area from 3+ years of construction related traffic and, following this, the 300+ new automobiles of new residents and staff of the 'Heritage' project. This modeling study should include the effects of increased traffic on response times of fire and emergency vehicles, a risk-assessment of the potential for increased vehicular accidents, and anticipated impacts on parking and businesses in Cutchogue hamlet. The proposed cut-through from the 'Heritage' to either Spur Rd. or Bridle Lane in the Highland Rd./Crown Land Lane neighborhood is utterly unacceptable. There are over 50 children who play and ride their bicycles in this neighborhood. A cut-through will unquestionably become a thoroughfare for impatient motorists who are seeking the fastest bypass of the already congested Cutchogue hamlet traffic. Is the planning board willing to put at risk the lives of its youngest citizens so that speeding motorists can reduce their driving times by a few seconds? If so, then a thorough modeling study of the change in vehicular traffic through the Highland/Crown Land Lane neighborhood will have to be conducted, including assessment of the additional risk of injury to children and adults who use these roads for walking, playing and bicycling. · Water The potential impacts to drinking water used by current residents in areas adjacent to the proposed 'Heritage' project as well as those to the South and Southeast (the predominant direction of flow of groundwater according to Suffolk County Health Department data) are severely underestimated. Additional loads of sewage effluent as well as pharmaceutical products that are commonly used by senior citizens, who will make up the majority of the residents of the proposed 'Heritage' project, will find their way into the well water of existing Cutehogue residents. The chronic impacts of excess Nitrogen and prescription drugs on the health of humans and wildlife are being uncovered by scientists with consistent and alarming frequency. As a resident who has already spent upwards of $4000 on water treatment systems for my home I do not want to be forced into paying to hook up to city water because of the imminent threat of inferior drinking water quality that will be brought on by the installation of the 'Heritage' project. I therefore urge the planning board to initiate an independent study of the impacts of the proposed "Heritage' project on drinking water quality, including anticipated loading of Nitrogen and pharmaceutical products on the long-term quality of drinking water in Cutchogue neighborhoods, as well as a risk assessment study of the anticipated threats to the health of current Cutchogue residents. This should be preceded by a thorough study of the existing quality of water and the health of current residents in these areas. · Light No streetlights currently exist in the Highland Rd./Crown Land Lane neighborhood, except at Main Rd. As a resident of this neighborhood, I greatly value the relative absence of light pollution - it is one of the reasons I bought a house in this neighborhood. I highly value being able to look at the stars at night with my son and in teaching him the names of the planets and constellations which are clearly visible. The proposed 'Heritage' development, with its extensive system of streetlights and other lighting fixtures will undoubtedly introduce a high level of light pollution to Cutchogue. The impacts of the proposed 'Heritage' development on ambient light levels in Cutchogue need to be modeled and assessed in detail. This assessment should include a thorough study of existing light levels in Cutchogue in all major housing developments, in all directions, to a radius of at least 1 mile from the proposed 'Heritage' property. · Natural Environment/Wildlife A thorough assessment of the existing natural resources (including vegetation and animal species) on the property where the 'Heritage' development is proposed to be built needs to be done to determine if there are any species and/or habitats of special significance. While it is typical for many environmental assessments to be done during the winter, when there is little emergent vegetation or wildlife to be seen, it is imperative that a series of comprehensive assessments be done by qualified personnel (such as staff of the NY State Dept. of Environmental Conservation) during the most meaningful and pertinent times of the year, including: early-mid spring (when wildflowers bloom but before leaves emerge on trees and bushes); mid-late spring (i.e. mid-May to mid-June) when many native birds are nesting and when migratory songbirds travel through our area; and summer-fall when different species of plants and animals are clearly evident. In addition to a comprehensive assessment of natural resources on the aforementioned property a modeling study of the impacts of the proposed 'Heritage' development should be done to assess the impacts to extant species, including dispersal of such species as deer. An assessment also should be made of the potential for the dispersal of disease vectors such as ticks - which on Long Island are most commonly associated with deer, cottontail rabbits and white-footed mice; all of these species are likely found in abundance on the property and the majority of these will either die or be displaced if the proposed 'Heritage' project goes through. In early summer 2007, we found a Lone Star tick in our backyard at 1530 Crown Land Lane for the first time in our 8 years as residents. I don't believe that this sighting was coincidental to the first appearance of deer on our property during this same time period: I believe that these deer were displaced by the removal of large numbers of trees from the proposed 'Heritage' property during the last year. This disruption to their native habitat likely has caused them to disperse to a wider area. This process will only get much worse if the proposed 'Heritage' project goes forward. · Community Character The nearly unanimous opposition to the proposed 'Heritage' project which has been voiced by the volumes of current residents of Cutchogue who have attended various meetings with the Town of Southold planning board and town board, the Cutchogue stakeholders, and with Supervisor Scott Russell, speak to the concern and anger of the community over the threat of the 'Heritage' project to the character and quality of life in Cutchogue. The area for the proposed development is utterly wrong for Cutchogue. All potential impacts of the proposed 'Heritage' project on the character and quality of life in Cutchogue and the North Fork need to be envisioned and assessed. I thank you and all the members of the Southold Town Planning Board for your serious and diligent consideration of the points that I have raised in this letter and which many others have raised in response to the proposed 'Heritage' project. Stephen Tettelbach 1530 Crown Land Lane Cutchogue, NY 11935 September 4, 2007 To the Southold Town Planning Board: Hello. Please add my voice to the record on the proposal for the development referred to as "Heritage at Cutchogue". Twenty four years ago essentially this same proposal was ~'~ed t~gh the back doors of Southold Town government. All the impacts of Heritage at Cuic[~['"~e no different than the impacts of the development proposed on the same site well over twenty years ago referred to as "Seacrofr". Oversized impacts, with negative effects on everything, traffic, water supply, cesspools, character and architectural integrity of a village that has stood for 300 years. The original development public hearing for the change of zone was done in the middle of winter on February 1'~ 1983. Despite that the planning board recommended denial of the zone change "Seacroft" got a zone change from the Good 'Ole Boys on the Southold Town Board on July 19*, 1983. The Suffolk Times reported that the developer said everyone was in favor of the project. Everyone I knew strongly opposed it. At, er getting over 900 signatures on a Petition, I handed it in to the Town Board. They refused to let me speak and would not accept the Petition. When this was reported in the Suffolk Times, I was overwhelmed by support, including legal assistance by environmental lawyer Robert D. Pike and encouragement from many local residents. In 1984 Southold Town Planning Board required an Environmental Impact Statement. The developers stalled, and the Planning Board denied their site plan application. The developers sued Southold Town in the Supreme Court and lost. Our current Town Supervisor, Scott Russell, quoted in The Suffolk Times Feb. 5~, 2007, said rezoning and other Town Board actions could be considered if the developers don't meet the needs of the town and no significant investment is made on the property. Undoing the spot zoning applied to this property is simply common sense. Please include rezoning in the final scope. The proposed "Heritage at Cutchogue" is bigger than the hamlet of Cutchogue. It will change the historic character of our town. There is already a traffic problem in the village. The landfill is in Cutchogue, it brings traffic ftora all over Town. King Kullen always has a traffic jam. All the wineries in Cutchogue bring in traffic. What about the sewage from such an oversize development. What impacts will that have on our town? Greenport's sewage treatment plant is already maxed out. Is the development going to have a Cromaglass system? Lighting with such a large project would obliterate any views of our Town's night sky. This development's is considerably larger than an average adult retirement community. Developers like to use the promise of an adult retirement community to get a tax break, but will the impacts of this development be less, will their tax break raise taxes for regular taxpayers? A 5,000 square foot clubhouse in a gated community will not be accessible to the townspeople of Cutchogue, yet the residents of this development will use all the amenities in the neighborhood. They will use our roads but not allow us to use theirs, It's not fair and should not be legal. How will water quality be protected? This project will be over the most shallow aquifer on the North Fork. The Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA) commented on December 12~, 2006, "Southold Town's drinking water supply is limited." This is a big red flag for Southold. Who will monitor the water in this development? The SCWA strongly urges that the town of Southold impose conditions on this project permitting the irrigation of only 15% of the area of any single lot. Who will enforce, and who will pay for enforcement of such "conditions". Also SCWA suggests adopting methods to reduce the potential of degraded water from recharging to the aquifer. Do you really expect me to believe that "luxury, high-priced" condos will care about protecting the aquifer. When the water runs out they just move to another "luxury, high-priced" place to live or go to their second homes. Traffic signals are not the answer. There is not enough room to fit all the cars between the traffic signals. Will our Volunteer Fire Department be able to handle the volume of emergency calls from a "senior community". The calls to Greenport Volunteer Fire Department never stop from "Peconic Landing". Who will be the volunteers for the Fire Department when Cutchosue is a town of all senior citizens? Not that I'm prejudiced, as I too am a senior cif~wn. The whole project is not what Cutchogue needs or wants. A new 47 acre private neighborhood should not be built in the heart of Cutchogue. The proposed uniform architectural style with little village-type insignias on lamposts presuming to honor our village will in reality be contemptuous and disastrous for the authentic country ambiance Cutchogue presently enjoys. The ordinary residents of Southold need our Planning Board to step forward to represent us and plan for us, rather than the real estate interests. How is it that developers with ink, paper, and a little cash overnight can completely change the character, nature, and architectural integrity of a village that has stood for 300 years? Please, say no to this development. Sincerely, Nancy Sawastynowicz 1845 Fleetwood Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 (631) 734-5093 CC: Southotd Town Board Lisa P. Tettelbach 1530 Crown Land Lane Cutchogue, NY 11935 (631) 734-2337 September 1, 2007 Jeri Woodhouse, Chairperson Southold Town Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Ms. Woodhouse and To Members of the Planning Board: I am a resident of the Crown Land Lane/Highland Road and Bridle community in Cutchogue. I attended the Scoping Meeting on August 20, 2007 and would like to submit a written statement in reference to the Draft Scope for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed "Heritage at Cutchogue." There are several things I would like to address that haven't been mentioned in this scoping document. They are listed in order found in the Draft Scope. 5.0 - Extent and Quality of Information Existing and Needed Description of the Proposed Project Background and History I ask, that in addition to the very important, brief deseription of the site and application history, the planning board have included the existing historical documentation of the rezoning of this parcel. This information is available from Nancy Sawasty (sawasty~gmail.com). Public Need and Municipality Objectives I would like to ask that the background of the proposed project be considered in terms of the following Town goals for any development site. I understand that these planning and environmental studies are ones the Town has felt should be addressed in other development projects. I insist that the DEIS that is developed for the Heritage project, clearly demonstrate how the development of the Heritage, is consistent with these applicable planning documents that have been adopted by the Town. Parks, Recreation & Open Space Survey (1982) Town Master Plan Update (1985) Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan (1992) Town Affordable Housing policies and program (1993) Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Study (1994) Peconic Estuary Program (1995) Economic Development Plan, Town of Southold (1997) Community Preservation Project Plan (July, 1998) Southold Township: 2000 Planning Initiatives County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study (1999) Town Water Supply Management & Watershed Protection Strategy (2000) Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (2001) North Fork Travel Needs Assessment (2002) Blue Ribbon Commission for a Rural Southold, Final Report (July 14, 2002) Town of Southold Hamlet Study (2005) Community Preservation Project Plan (2006 Update) Some basic goals of these referenced plans include the Town's goal to preserve land including open space, recreation and farmland; preserve rural, cultural and historic character of the hamlets and surrounding countryside; to preserve its natural environment and prevent further deterioration of resources; and to increase transportation efficiency and create alternatives to automobile travel, while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of the Town, State, County and local roadways. I would like to request that the Planning Board ask that the DEIS include and describe the specific guidelines of the development's "55 and over" plan and to include any exceptions or exclusions that might be allowed. I am concerned that some percentage of homeowners will be less than 55, which will increase the probability of having young children using our local school resources. Something that the renovation and addition didn't plan for. I am concerned that relatives of the homeowners with Elementary/Jr. and Senior High school age children could live with the homeowners for an indefinite period of time and again, use resources that weren't accounted for. I would like to know that the "55 and over" community is expected to be enforced for the life of the development. Benefits of the Project The DEIS is supposed to include a discussion of the community benefits expected to accrue from the proposed project. I would like to recommend that this discussion include the benefits, if any, to the communities of Crown Land Lane, Highland Road, Bridle Lane, Schoolhouse Lane and Griffin Street. Location and Site Conditions In addition to being included in the Background and History section, the historical documentation of the zone change of this parcel should be included in this section as well. Project Design and Layout The proposed cut through to Spur Road and Bridle Lane is unacceptable on any level. I would like to stress that the DEIS address in depth how the proposed cut through will affect the quality of life for the residents and 50+ children that live in the community of Crown Land, Highland and Bridle. This neighborhood will not be safe to ride bikes, walk or play in if those roads are cut through. I urge the Planning Board to do all they can to prevent this from happening. In relation to services, the DEIS needs to go into detail and address the stress that an additional 278 residents, plus employees of the development, maintenance and landscaping workers and visitors of the residents will have on the local police, the fire department and emergency medical services. In relation to the volumes of soil excavated and removed from the site, the developer will need a mining permit from the New York State, Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC); required if more than one acre of land is disturbed. I did not see this mentioned in the list of State and Local permits required for the project. Construction and Operation I urge the Planning board to ensure that this section be specific in detailing how the construction of this project will affect the quality of life for those in the neighborhoods of Crown Land Lane, Highland Road, Bridle Lane, Schoolhouse Lane and Griffin Street. These homeowners are going to be adversely affected by the day to day operations of the project and deserve to know exactly how they will be living out those next three years. These are quiet, clean and safe neighborhoods. The introduction of construction, and the traffic of construction equipment and supplies will attack the unique characteristics of these communities. Natural Environmental Resources I'm not sure the Planning Board is aware of the hundreds of trees and shrubs that have been removed from the property, starting at the end of 2006 and continuing through spring 2007. I would like to see that this section address the impact of loss of agricultural soils as a result of the removal of this vegetation. Water Resources I would like the Planning Board to ensure that more than five depth to groundwater sites be selected on the site and that they continue to drill until they hit water. Otherwise no information is gained. I viewed some earlier site plans that showed drill wells, but they didn't drill deeper than 25 feet, whether or not they reached groundwater. Knowing the depth of groundwater in relation to the proposed separate and combined septic systems will give the local landowners and information on the potential impact these septic systems will have on their well water drinking. Vegetation and Wildlife Again, I would like to stress the hundreds of trees and shrubs that have been removed from the property prior to the approval of the project and its impact on the destruction of habitat. The inspection of the site by a qualified biologist/ecologist, to determine the vegetation, wildlife and general habitat character, will not be accurate. It is not possible to properly inventory the flora or fauna for this section of the DEIS after the destruction and removal of habitat. It is possible that the developer has already removed an endangered, threatened or special concern plant species or the possible habitat of an endangered, threatened or special concern animal. I would like to request that the Planning Board ask that the DEIS list all the trees and shrubs that have been removed from the property, since the fall of 2006 to the spring of 2007. The NYSDEC and the NYS Natural Heritage Program (an impartial and expert source) have historical records of two threatened plant species found on this property and they should be noted: Lespedeza stuevi - Velvety Bushclover Helianthemum dumosum -Bushy Rockrose (http://plants.usda.gov/iava/profile?symbol=HEDU ) I recommend that the Planning Board hire an impartial party to survey and identify these threatened plant species. This should be done to determine the natural history/habitat and establish the requirement of the species. If the site contains suitable habitat or conditions, a qualified botanist should be engaged to survey the site for these species and any other endangered, threatened or rare plant species. I feel this is critical to the project and should be included into the DEIS. In the spring of 2007, a 15'X15' area of standing water was observed on the property. It is possible that this area could contain some freshwater wetland plant species. No construction should occur until a freshwater wetland expert can inspect the land in the spring of 2008. It would be wise to request the expertise of the DEC, Division of Freshwater Wetlands to do this inspection. They are the party responsible for identifying and mapping freshwater wetlands in New York State. I would like to request that this information be included in this section of the DEIS. Human Resources Transportation In relation to traffic, I strongly suggest that the new traffic study for the Hamlet of Cutchogue include all the area of NYS Route 25, from Cox Lane west, to Alvah's Lane (east to west) and the entire north to south roads found in between Cox and Alvah's. I would also like to suggest that the traffic study include the existing conditions found on Crown Land Lane, Highland Road, Schoolhouse and Griffin Street. All these areas should be included in the new traffic study and should be looked at during several peak and non-peak times of the year. Lane Use, Zoning and Plans This section of the DEIS should include the historic documentation (N. Sawasty) of the rezoning of this parcel and how it was possibly "illegally" changed to high density in the 1980's. It is uncharacteristically zoned for this or any portion of Cutchogue and if left at this density, the Town will be working against its goal to preserve the scenic and historic attributes of the Town, State, County and local roadways. Lastly, I would like to suggest that a copy of the Scoping document be sent to the Sacred Heart Catholic School on Main Road, so they are aware of the potential impacts that this development will have on them throughout the school year. They should also be included in the list to which future copies of Heritage documents are sent. In this same list, it should be noted that the Commissioner of the NYSDEC is not in Stony Brook, but in Albany, New York. Could the Planning Board please make sure that a copy is sent to that address. I would not assume that the copy will be forwarded to him. Thank you. His correct address is: Alexander B. Grannis Commissioner NYSDEC 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233 I would like to thank the Southold Town Planning Board for their support, especially to those who have attended the Planning Board meetings on a regular basis. Our commanity is going to be gravely affected by the "Heritage at Cutchogue" and we will do whatever we must to preserve what we have and keep our neighborhoods in character and safe. Thank you very much. Lisa Tertelbach Jeff Woodhouse, Chairperson Southold Town Planning Board P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 August 31, 2007 210 Bridle Court Cutchogue, NY 11935 To Members of the Planning Board: When requesting the new traffic study for the Hamlet of Cutchogue please Expand it to include the area f~om Cox Lane to Alvahs Lane (East to West) and Route 48 to Route 25 (North to South). Thank you, Sincerely, IF? - 4 2O07 Scott and Lauren Gambaiani 1305 Crown Land Lane Cutchogue, NY 11935 August 31, 2007 Ms. Jeri Woodhouse, Chairperson Southold Town Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 To Members of the Planning Board: Please expand the new traffic study for the hamlet of Cutchogue to include the area from Cox Neck Lane to Alvah's Lane (east to west) and Route 48 to Route 25 (north to south). Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, Scott Crambaiani Lauren C. Gambaiani August 30, 2007 Ms. Geri Woodhouse, Chairperson Southold Town Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 To Members of the Board: We have been coming out here for over 20 yrs~iS~tiiig family. Because we loved it so much we decided to move out here 5 yrs ago, despite having a 70 mile commute one way for my job. The proposed Iteritage plan would put more houses in closer proximity to my home than we had when I lived in Queens. This does not fit the Character of Cutchogue which is the reason why my family and I'm sure many others chose to live here. I feel that the builder does not care about the surrounding community. There could have been a decent greenbelt between adjacent houses. The proposed 50 ft. is a joke. This project should not even be considered without a minimum of ONE PLUS ACRE buffer zone on all bordering properties. Not to mention fewer nails. I spoke with the Health Dept. they stated that a real concern is Nitrates. Nitrates are a byproduct of Septic systenxq, Wltla the am~mut off proposed nnlls ou a small parcel of land, uitrate levels wmdd increase. I spent over Five ~ Dotlars on my water system 2 ycars ago. My water currently tests better than what Suffolk Water Authority is offering. The hi'--ware level in my water has finally dropped to the acceptable level. I made the decisions not to use public water should it become available for this reason. I cbo~ to use water that is not ~ated with all those chemicals that are needed to make it safe. Look at what Suffolk water has to do to make water acceptable. Therefore I am very concerned about the p ........... e~ntamluatiou of the grouud water. My gromad water. Pharmaceuticals in the water are another possible contaminate in the foreseeable future. Studies are in the early stages as to how drugs are affecting ground water. I am including two articles about this problem. If you go on the Intemet there are thousands of articles about this new issue. This just happened the other day, August 23, 2007 my mother died after a battle with cancer. She had Hospice care in the home. Upon getting a call about her death I immediately went to her residence ups~_~*_e~ By the time I got up there a few hours later, the Hospice Nurse had already disposed of all the medication that my Mom was on. She had just gotten a delivery of medication. All those pills were FLUSlt~D down the toilet. I'm saying hund~ of pills. I asked the nurse why she flushed the medication, she s~tated, 'That is what we are told. That's the way we've always dow it". This is the way that we were all taught, from nu~es to people in the home. As you can imagine that many units, the amount of adults taking and disposing of medication when the studies catch up THERE WII,I, BE A PROBLEM. I work fo~ Nassau County; I am a Police Officer the~. As pa~t of my job is responding to aided person how need help. Nassau County does have Ambulances ~o n~nd. We do the very same thinE the Volunteer Departments do. There are many similar senior developments where I work. The Volunteer Fire Dept. has become overburdened with calls to these Communities. As a result, Fire companies have to rely on Police Dept. Ambulances to answer emergency calls. This type of community has the potential oftyin§ up local Fire dept on a regular basis resulting in extended response times to other emergency calls. Th~s P.¢pe o.r n~:.~ua.~]c;~ it Vet3 eommnnlties. ! have not spoken to the local Fire Departmcms, but this is what haooens where I work. The Community as a whole does not r ~,,~d this. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, P~t~r 1 ~nk~ 2270 Highland Rd. Cuteho~ue Antidepressant drugs found in drinking water; pharmaceuticals have now become envi... Page 1 of 4 BROWSE SY CHANNEL: ENVIRONMENT TECHNOLOGY ENERGY LIFE HUMOR VIDEOS CARTOONS Antidepressant drugs found in drinking water, pharmaceuticals have now become environmental pollutants Thursday, August 19, 2004 by: Mike Adams Printable version Key concepts: water~ pharmaceuticals and drinking water. The battery charger How to prevent 100+ recommended by Adams diseases Save Yourself From Deadly Pharmaceuticals The guide that exl~ses the true !Pharmaceuticals are now being found in drinking water, according to a study conducted in England. The study looked at 12 pharmaceuticals thought to pose an environmental threat, including painkillers, antibiotics, and antidepressants, and it found traces of these pharmaceuticals in beth sewage waters and ddnking water It also found bases in the dvers downstream from the sewage treatment plants. This is chocking information - apparently we are dosing ourselves with such high levels of pharmaceuticals that we are now collectively polluting the rivers, streams and even the drinking water for the mass public, E'en though this study was conducted in the U.K., ti3ere's litSe doubt that much of the same stop/would be found here in the United States as well. Vchy? Because in the United States, these drugs are also being p~w~Cnbed at alarming ~s, and affer people take these drugs, they are, of course, entering the sewage b~sebnent centers and being dumped into the dvers and streams that later on are used to make ddnkieg water for poop~e downs~eam, (VVnich reminds me, check out a book entitled, "Living Downstream" if you want the details on what's really going on with our dyers these days..) All of this comes down to the mass medication of the public with trace amounts of prescription drugs. In anot~ words, if you're ddnking tap water that's tainted ~th these dtogs, you*re getting a little bit of Prozac whelhe* you like it or not. And FREE Subscription to the "News Target Insider" E-mail Newsletter · Learn inside information not reported in the mainstream media! · Receive articles on nutrition secrets, raw foods, pharmaceutical warnings and natural medicine. · Instant download of OVer 20 exclusive reports and interviews. · 1.00% free of charge, easy to unsubscribe. · Get breaking news alerts on natural health solutions, health freedom laws, climate change and more. · No spare! We don't rent or sell e-mails. Your EmaB Address; Security code: Enter the numbers you see above: since we now know that antidepressant drugs promote violent behavior, including suicides and homicides, there's justified alarm at the idea that we're going to medicate the entire country with trace amounts of antidepressant drugs in one grand expedmenb Maybe we'll just dump all of these drugs into the water supply, and step beck and see what happens. There's already been talk of dumping statin drugs into the water supply because they are presumably so good for your health that everyone should be taking them whether they like it or not. All of this brings up an issue that has been largely igm3red by the pharmaceutical companies, and that is: what is the environmental impact of the mass prescfiphon and mass consumption of their drugs? If millions upon millions of people are taking these drugs, then the environmental impact is potentially quite large, l~hese drugs are, of course, synthetically produced, highly toxic chemicals that not only impact the health of human beings, but also potentially compromise the health of fish and creatures in our oceans. This could be one of the reasons why ccean life is continuing to decline around the world, and it seems like it won't be very long at all before these prescription drug pollutants start showing up in shrimp, crab, lobsters and perhaps someday, even in seaweed. If you thought mefoup/ poisoning was bad, just wait until you hear the announcement that chdmp is contaminated with Prozac. Interestingly, moat pharmaceutical chemicals are not regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency, and thus Amazon Herb Company review Click to read FREE Reports: · The pH Nutrition Guide to Acid / Alkaline Balance · Pet Food Ingredients Revealed! (shocking) · Medicine From Fish · The Water Cure · The Healing Power of Sunlight & Vitamin D Related Cartoons Government of the Adventures of VRa- High Impact Stories: · The Amazon Herb Company! An http://www.newstargct.com/O01891.html 8/29/2007 Antidepressant drugs found in drinking water; pharmaceuticals h~ve now become envi... Page 2 of 4 there is no enforced limit of pharmaceuticals in the ddnking water, In fact, in the United States, there is no govemment agency that is even testing the level of pharmaceuticals in public drinking water on a regular basis. So it is puS~Me, and in fact likely that these levels will continue to rise in the years ahead without being defecfed or reported fe the public at all. Of course, as i've often said on this site, if you're drinking tap water, you're probably quite foolish to begin with. Most people reading this aren't dhnking tap water, and thank goodness for that, because prescription drugs are just one of the many potential toxic pollutants in tap water. You certainly don~ want to be consuming this stuff- instead, you want to be ddnking spriog water or ~temd water, using a quality water filter such as a carbon block filter or a reverse osmosis filter. Distilled water is also good for dhnking. If you're not drinking tap water, the potential for exposure to these toxic pharmaceutical chemicals in the water is remote. If you're showering in water that has some tiny amount of Prozac in it, for example, chances are you're not going to be absorbing a very high dose of Prozac, or at least not high enough to the point where it would be biologically active But sadly, most of the population is drinking tap water, and that's where this is a real concern. Just as America Online is now being increasingly questioned over the environmental irnbact of their tens of millions of flee CDS each year that are disbibuted all over the country, t think it is reasonable now for pharmaceutical companies to answer to the justified accusation that they are manufacturing and releasing toxic chemicals into the environment through human customers The fact that these toxic chemicals move through the bodies of human first doesn't make them any less toxic to our environrnent. They should be ff~gulated by the EPA, and they should not be allowed in our rivers and streams, and in a yeP/real sense, pharrnacaufical companies should be held financially responsible for the envimnrnental parnage caused by their chemical products Another interesting thought on all of this is that many plant fertilizer products and soil products contain treated biosludge, which also contains, of course, human waste. These biosludge sail and fertilizer products will also undoubtedly be found to contain levels of pharmaceuticals such as Prozac, Viagra, statin drugs, and antidepressant drugs. The question then becomes, what happens when you start growing crops in these soils? Are these drugs neutralized by the plants, or are they in some way absorbed by the plants where they once again enter the food chain when human beings consume those plants? Is there any regulation of the use of biosludge fertilizers that contain toxic pharmaceutical chemicals? Sadly, we are increasingly living in a world that is polluted not only by heavy metals, PCBs, and emissions fi`om gasoline engines, we are now living in a world where even our water is polluted with pharmaceutical chemicals which is a direct result of the reckless and widespread prescription of pharmaceuticals by practitioners of conventional medicine. Once again, it seems that as long as there are profits to be made, eye.body in the pharmaceutical industry is happy, regardless of the negative impact on the environment. In tact, I don't think you even hear much talk at all these days about pharmaceutical companies working to protect the environment. It's pretty much just, "Here, take this drug, pay us $100 a pill, and then flush it down the toilet. After that, we don't want to think about it anymore." About the author: Mike Adams is a consumer health advocate with a misoion to teach personal and planetary heafth to the public He is a prolific wtifer and has published thousands of articles, interviews, reports and consumer guides, reashing millions of readers with information that is saving lives and improving personal health around the wortd. Adams is an independent journalist with strong ethics who does not get paid to wrtta articles about any product or company In 2007, Adams launched EcoLEDs, a maker of super bnght LED light Pulbs that are 1000% mere energy efficient than incandescent lights. He also founded an env/ronmentally-fnendly onhne retailer called BefterLifeGoods cum that uses retail pro£~s to help support consumer advocacy p~ograms. He's also a successful software entrepreneu~ having founded e well known emad marketing software company whose technology cu/renity powers the News Target email news~fters. Adams also serves as th¢ executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a non-profit consumer protection group, and regularly pursues cycling, nature phofography, Capoeira and P/lafes He's also author of numerous health books published by Truth Pubhshing and is the creator of several consumer-odenfed grassroots campaigns, including the Spam Don't Buy ft/ campaign, and the free downloadable Honest Food Guide He also created the free reference sites HerbRefe~enca cum and Heal/ngFoodReference com. Adams believes in free speech, free access to nutritional supplements and the ending of corporate control over medicines, genes and seeds. The battery charger recommended by Adams Save Yourself From Deadly Pharmaceuticals 1he gui~e t~at exl)oses Fac tree Independent Review · Pet food revealed: Consumer WeUness Center posts nutritional review of 570 pet food ingredients · The sunscreen myth: How sunscreen products actually promote cancer · New research shows vitamin D slashes risk of cancers by 77 percent; cancer industry refuses to support cancer prevention IBS, and other health conditions · Mike Adams launches ecu friefld]y LED lighting technology with efficiency · NewsTarget secures reader discounts on top health and ecu friendly products · Americans fed up with drug industry influence, FDA corruption, reveals remarkable Consumer Reports survey · Health freedom action alert: FDA attemptiog to regulate supplements, herbs and juices as "drugs" · Health guru launches online Disease Mongenng Engine that instantly generates hilarious fictitious disease names · Natural health pioneer launches Consumer Wellness Center nonprofit organization · The big vitamin scare: American Medical Association claims vitamins may kill you {opinion) http://www.newstarget.condO01891.html 8/29/2007 Drags Found in Michigan Drinking Water - Associated Content Page 1 of 1 t~Jlnol~gy to tat ~ch I~ ~15 of re~dlcafion o~ly r~ became available. Perbecb ~a~i ~he hope~ theyll eventually be able to test the drug levele In the ~h. The study vail be used th a carnr-~gn launcl~ed by tbe U.S. Fish and V~ldl~ ,Sen4ee and Ihe Amed~an PbermecY~ ~. The carnbelgn, SMARxT DISPOSAL, encoum~ propa- dt~ d medlea~ons. SOURCES: 'Drugs Seep into ~ Weber," Gra~ Rap~ls Pm~s, Alxi114. 2007 URt.: htt FJ/w~w~.n~ive.=om~news/g~=~'eaaA'~ex.~t %~ase/nev,~k "Di'ug~ Seeping into Lake Mi=hlgan," Science Daily, April 14, 2007 URL: http:l/www.sc,~er~.~om./u~/index.php? http://www~ass~ciatedc~ntent~c~m/artic~e/2~684~/drugs-f~und-.m-michigan-drinking-~~~ 8/29/2007 Thousands of chemical traces found in drinking water - International Herald Tribune Page 1 of 2 Thousands of chemical traces found in drinking water Today in Health & Science http://www.iht.com/articles~2007/04/03/healthscience/snwater.php 8/29/2007 Thousands of chemical traces found in drinking water - International Herald Tribune Page 2 of 2 http://www.iht.com/articles/2OO7/O4/O3/healthscience/snwater.php 8/29/2007 ,Teri Woodhouse, Chairperson 5outhold Town Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 1140 Crown Land Lane Cutchogue, NY 11935 AUgUrS~ 30, 2007 TO Members of the Planning Board: When requesting the new traffic study for the Hamlet of Cutchogue please expand it to include the area from Cox Lane to Alvahs Lane (lEast to West) and Route 48 to Route 25 ( North to South). Thank you very much. Julia Rapuano FOR T~T END 2442 Main S~eet Tel: 631.537.1400 Fax: 631.537.2201 www.~oupfor~eeastend.org President Robert S. DeLuca Chairman Claudia Camozzi Vice Chairmen John Shea Mary Walker Board Members Harris A. Barer W. Marco Birch Wilhelmus B. Bryan Mark Burchill Ann Colley Andrew Goldstein Richard D. Kahn Ronald S. Lauder William S. McChesney Sandra R. Meyer Christopher Pia John M. Sartorius Peter Schellbach Alan Siegel Ellen Sosnow John C. Waddell Advisory Committee Mrs. James H. French Edward Gorman Sherrye Henry Arnold Leo Peter Matthiessen Muriel O. Murphy Lionel Pincus John Sargent James Trees Harold M. Wit August 28, 2007 Jerilyn Woodhouse, Chairperson Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Draft Scoping for Proposed Residential Site Plan for The Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Ms. Woodhouse, I am writing on behalf of Group for the East End to express our comments on the draft-scoping document prepared for Southold Town on The Heritage at Cutchogue Residential Development project. For the record, Group for the East End represents the conservation and community planning interests of some 2500 member-households, businesses, and individuals residing primarily in the five East End towns (Southampton, East Hampton, Shelter Island, Riverhead, and Southold). For three and a half decades the Group has made a full-time professional commitment to the protection and preservation of eastern Long Island's fragile natural resources. Over the years, the Group has developed, supported, and promoted the implementation of many conservation efforts, ranging from the creation of the Peconic Estuary Program to the recent extension of the Community Preservation Fund in all five East End towns. In regards to the Heritage at Cutchogue draft-scoping document we would like to see a more in-depth alternatives section developed. This should involve a larger range of alternatives, including one that fits more closely with the Town of Southold's Hamlet of Cutchogue Study (2005). This Town planning document lists recommendations for the future of the hamlet. These include protecting the agricultural character and small-scale nature of the hamlet. While we are aware that this parcel lies directly outside of the hamlet center and HALO boundaries it is still close enough to have a major impact on the sense of place within Cutchogue. A clustered reduced density alternative which preserves a large FIGHTING FOR THE QUALITY OF YOUR LIFE portion of natural space and agricultural soils would be an appropriate alternative to review in the DEIS. We would also like to highlight the importance of a few of the topics covered in the draft-scoping document. These issues are protection of agricultural soils, ground and surface water protection, avoidance of increased traffic issues, preservation of natural (open) space, and ensuring an appropriate fit with preserving Cutchogue's community character. In closing, we would like to commend the planning board for their decision to issue a positive declaration on this project, as well as thank the planning board for their close consideration of these and other comments. The thorough review of environmental and community impacts in a large-scale project such as this, is essential to protect the character of the hamlet of Cutchogue. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Jennifer Skilbred Environmental Advocate Group for the East End MICHAEL NICKICH 4297 Wells Road Richmond Creek Farm Peconic, NY 11958 631-734-8060 August 21, 2007 Town of Southold Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 54375 State Road 25 Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Members of the Planning Board, I attended the August 20th, 2007 meeting concerning "The Heritage at Cutchogue" proposed project. I listened to many speakers and their children as well. I heard many people express concerns about increased traffic, water pollution, light and noise pollution, loss of real estate values, businesses losing money, services like postal, fire, emergency and police vehicles being overwhelmed by the residents of this project. There were concerns about construction, safety on the Cutchogue roads due to maintenance vehicles after the project is completed such as landscape, cable and telephone services. There may also have been a concern voiced regarding our health care facilities also being inundated. Mine is only one opinion but I'd like to say many of these concerns are unfounded fears. I am certain the Planning Board has completed a feasibility study to analyze whether services such as the fire, police, post office, and library could handle the 139 residents of the proposed project. If my assumption is correct, why didn't the Board respond back to the audience? As for lower property values as a result of a new development in Southold, you are well aware of how wrong that assumption is. Just review all of the past developments and you will see they did not lower real estate values to their neighbors but rather increased them. Just look at Fairways and try to buy a home for under $750,000 to $1,200,000. Case's Lane has not suffered catastrophic traffic jams. Again we needed facts to dispel the fears. As far as I know none of the other projects over the years have created the kinds of vehicular mayhem that some attempted to portray. Again we have a database of factual information but I heard none that evening. Just to remind the individuals who oppose this project based on an emotional response, they were all newcomers at one time. I am sure residents of that era were also fearful and opposed construction of the beautiful homes that now occupy this area of Cutchogue. We watched a community declare the same "Michael Moore" outcomes as we contemplated destroying an old bowling alley with little life and install a new CVS store. No traffic mess. Many locals hired. Many of us are glad for the convenience this store has brought to us. Fast forward to today and it is clear that none of the expressed fears came to fruition. Instead the opposite has occurred. New Southold citizens embraced their town, volunteered their services and became major contributors in improving, not destroying the quality of life. And I dare say the pollutions have not occurred. My last thought concerns the actual applicants for this proposed project. I would suggest many already live in Southold and already avail themselves of the town's services, and there will be no further burden to the school district. Some may be Southold resident's grandparents, parents, brothers, sisters, or friends. The suggested revenue for the Town of Southold taxes will exceed $1,000,000. At a time when we are all concerned with the rising cost of living here, perhaps clear thinking individuals will prevail. For the record, I support this project. It is necessary to provide housing for this particular segment of our population and this project will accomplish this. Please communicate facts as well as allowing people a forum to vent. Very truly yours, To: Southold Town Planning Board From: Cutchogue Hamlet Stakeholders Jane Minerva Fred Carcich Georgeanna Fogarty Jack DiPaola Bill Gatz Gwynn Schroeder Paul Romanelli John Borzilleri Subject: Cutchogue Hamlet Traffic/Safety Concerns Proposal: We seek a fully-funded, independent, professional ev~!tth[ionof/~affic flow and safety issues in the Cutchogue Hamlet '~ ~ ' Key Issues/Concerns: 1) D~ng/erous Griffing Street/Route 25 intersection x~. Very poor visibility for making left turn (heading eastbound) due to cars parked in legal merchant spots on westbound side of Rte 25 b. High speed traffic through Hamlet makes all tums out of Griffing St potentially dangerous 'c/ Situation exacerbated by lack of east/west traffic light synchronization at the Rte 25/New Suffolk Rd intersection and bus stop 2) High speed traffic through the Hamlet on Route 25 creates safety issues ~ Creates danger for pedestrians and bicycle riders on Rte 25 k/' Heightens safety concerns for cars entering Rte 25 from other roads, especially those without traffic signals - i.e., Depot Lane and Griffing St 3) Bus stop in the Hamlet increases traffic congestion and safety concerns a. Westbound Hampton Jitney buses loading at the intersection of Rte 25 and New Suffolk Rd congest Hamlet traffic and worsen sight lines for both eastbound motorists on Route 25 and motorists exiting Griffing St b. Loading bus creates danger by enticing motorists to weave into oncoming traffic lane in order to pass x/t Lack of traffic light control of bus at Rte 25/New Suffolk intersection creates confusion/safety issues 4) Traffic/safety implications of pending Heritage senior citizen housing project '~. All of the above issues could be exacerbated by the addition of approximately 150-250 senior citizens (and their vehicles) into the Hamlet within the next few years {7~ Traffic density concerns on Griffing St and Schoolhouse Lane with the addition of l-Ieritage are a major concern Potential Solutions Discussed by Stakeholders: 1) Dangerous Griffing Street/Route 25 intersection a. Make Griffing St right turn only (westbound) when exiting onto Rte 25; could allow left turn during non-business hours to decrease inconvenience for residents living east of the intersection b. Inset parking spaces on westbound side of Rte 25 in order to improve visibility for turns out of Griffing St c. Establish a "No Parking Zone" at the southwest corner of Griffing St and Rte 25 (in front of Karen's Deli) to improve traffic visibility d. Synchronize the east and westbound traffic signals at the Rte 25/New Suffolk Rd intersection e. Make Griffing St one way, noah only; require exit via Schoolhouse Lane 2) High speed traffic through the Hamlet on Route 25 a. Install effect signaling around the Hamlet to slow traffic, such as blinking yellow lights, better speed limit warnings b. Potential full traffic light at Depot Lane c. Place several highly visible crosswalks in the Hamlet for pedestrians, especially one at the termination of the Hamlet's southside sidewalk (at the Library/Village Green corner on Case's Lane) d. Install a non-raised "traffic calming" median (brick, for example) on Rte 25 in the center of the Hamlet- if permitted by Fire/Police Depts e. Add bike lanes in Hamlet to improve safety; promote alternative travel 3) Bus stop in the Hamlet a. Move the westbound bus stop off Rte 25 to the west side of Griffing St, across from the Post Office; requires access via Depot Lane and Schoolhouse Lane b. Inset the westbound bus stop on Rte 25 in order to improve traffic flow/visibility - may not be possible with the eastbound bus stop c. Move the bus stop to an alternate site outside of the Hamlet, such as across from King Kullen or in front of the Catholic Church d. Make westbound bus stop at Craft Guild so traffic light governs bus 4) Heritage senior citizen housing project a. Install sidewalks on both sides of Griffing St and connecting to the Heritage development in order to improve walking safety b. As above, make Griffing St one way, north only to avoid excessive traffic from the complex; would require exit from Heritage via Schoolhouse Lane or alternate route c. As above, make Griffing St right turn only (west) on Rte 25 to limit potential traffic bottlenecks d. Restore the landscaped mediao on Griffing St to clearly dclineate opposing traffic e. Add new farmland road as an additional exil from Heritage Ford, Amy c~7~ ~ ~Page 1 ofl From: Benja Schwartz[eastcreek@gmail,com] Sent: Tuesday, August 21,2007 4:26 PM To: Ford, Amy Subject: [NEWSENDER] - Scoping Meeting of "The Heritage at Cutchogue" - Message is from an unknown sender Amy Thiel, Senior Planner Town of Southold Planning Board and CONTACT PERSON for Scoping Meeting of"The Heritage at Cutchogue" Two problems were apparent at the scoping meeting. The cummulative impact of these problems is that "The Heritage at Cutchogue" becomes an accomplished fact rather than a proposal for review. Southold Planning Board Chairwoman, Jeri Woodhouse, kept telling everyone there would be plenty of other opportunities to comment on the proposed project. This statement defeats the main purposes of a SEQRA scoping session, to determine the breadth and depth of subjects which the Environmental Impact Statement must cover. Only if all potentially significant impacts and reasonable alternatives are included does scoping lay a firm foundation for the rest of the decisionmaking process. Any issue that could be, but is not, raised at the scoping stage will be difficult and maybe impossible to include during later stages of the EIS process such as in the Draft and the Final Enviromnental Impact Statements, or if litigation ensues. Also, the Planning Board Chairwoman stated that rezoning and purchase of development rights are not within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board, and therefore these alternatives could not be included in the Environmental Impact Statement. Such a restriction on the scope of an EIS would defeat the main purpose of SEQRA, to provide for a single integrated review of all aspects of proposed projects, including alternatives which the implementation of is within the jurisdictions of agencies other than the Lead Agency. Do you agree? Be~a Schwartz eastcreek(~,gmail.com ~w.eastcreekweb~c.~_.m_ 631.734.5093 8/22/2007 Jeri Woodhouse, Chairperson Southold Town Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 ...... ..... To Members of the Planning Board: 140 Crown Land Lane chogue, NY 11935 ~'~ ust 20, 2007 The Heritage at Cutchogue, the proposed 47 acre development has many major concerns. After reading the Positive Declaration I can only ask the Planning Board to please consider every alternative to keep the Hamlet of Cutchogue safe for ail of us who live here as well the many visitors attracted to our beautiful North Fork for wineries, farm stands, street fairs and in general the beauty of Cutchogue, the sunniest place in Long Island. Highland, Crown Land and Bridle Lane, a neighborhood of about 60 homes and 50 children has 2 outlets to or from our neighborhood, making it a very safe place for young and old to live. The Heritage proposai to open and connect Spur Rd. with School House Lane and Griffing poses a danger of a significant increase in traffic. Further a parochial school borders the proposed development. Pedestrian traffic as the school children cross Main Road daily to use the Parish Hall will be endangered by the increase in traffic that will result from The Heritage. The tremendous impact that Heritage will have on our town, our resources, and our way of life is too significant. Please do ail that you can to protect our hamlet from this sizeable development. Once we give up the little we have left we cannot get it back. Thank you. Sincerely Julie Rapuano To: Southold Planning Board From: Thomas Hall 2985 Highland Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 Re: Traffic on Main Road Route 25 Today, Monday August 20t~, 2007 from 3:40pm to 3:55pm I sat just west of Highland Road on Route 25 to count motor vehicles traveling east and west. I also counted pedestrian traffic and motor vehicles entering and exiting Highland Road. My findings where as follows for just 15 minutes: :~.~;~: East Bound: Motor Vehicles 125 Bicycles 2 West Bound: Motor Vehicles 155 Bicycles 4 Illegal U-tum 1 Entering Highland Road 2 Exiting Highland Road 6 The car that made the illegal U-mm 300 feet west of Highland Road stopped at the plant stand directly across from Highland Road. Last week I witnessed an accident at this location when a senior driver was making and illegal U-turn at this same location to go to the plant stand. The driver pulled a U-turn in front of pick-up which was towing a 25 foot camper and totaled her Toyota RAV4. I was pretty amazed at how someone could pull a illegal U-ttLm in front ora vehicle that was like the size of a battleship coming down the road. The Village Green which is just east of Highland Road host many events during the year which also generates a heavy volume of motor vehicles and pedestrian traffic. Them is not sufficient amount of parking for these events and therefore people must park on the Main Road which creates major traffic hazards. This was not a weekend or lunch time or rush hour and these numbers are pretty staggering. Jeri Woodhouse, Chairperson Southold Town Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 800 Crown Land Lane Cutehogue, NY 11935 August 20, 2007 AUG 2 1 2007 To Members of the Planning Board: ~ '~ · "~g~-.~t~}of Over the last few months, restdents of .Cutch.ogne-have heard the p _1~.~ ~ the property owner" as a rationale for the consideration of The Heritage at Cut~Eogue. Today we are here to reiterate to the Town Planning Board that the rights of property owners adjacent to the proposed 47 acre development need to be accounted for in the same weighty manner. If allowed to proceed as originally designed, this development will significantly threaten the health and safety of my neighbors and I. My two major concerns are water and traffic. Permitting 139 individual cesspools on approximately 20 of the 47 Heritage acres to leach contaminants in such close proximity to our private wells is a threat to our health. Further hydrological studies need to be completed to determine precisely how the shallow aquifer which supplies our water will be impacted. How will the SCWA's Evergreen Pump Station be effected? How will a 55+ community of such high density effect our private wells? In his letter to Ms. Woodhouse on Dec. 12, 2006, SCWA's Steven Jones states that in Southold Town, "the water supply is limited and there is a large impact to shallow aquifers." In the same letter, Mr. Jones "stronelv umes that the Town of Southold impose conditions on this project" - which, by the way was originally proposed with Chromaglass sewage treatment rather than in&vidual cesspools - and "adopt methods to reduce the potential of degraded water from recharging the aquifer." In a July 22, 2007 article in The New York Times, Mr. Jones describes this precise scenario currently taking place in East Northport. Mr. Jones states that "a combination of fertilizer from farming and the use of cesspools in residential development has contributed to the problem' of water containing high nitrates, thus necessitating the SCWA to tap a well into the deeper and extremely fragile Lloyd Aquifer, roughly 845 feet deep - a controversial precedent that might one day "deplete and degrade this aquifer." Will there be ample and clean water if our neighborhood, like The Heritage, is to be connected to the SCWA public water supply? Though it has been offered to the roughly sixty homes in the Highland, Crown Land, Bridle Lane and Court area, many people - retirees on a fixed income and young families raising the 50 or more children here- can't afford the nearly $6,000.per home price lag. These people are perfectly content with their private wells. With the coming of The Heritage in their backyard, their property rights are being violated: signing up for public water is no longer an option; it is a necessity. Should these seniors have to choose between eating and installing public water? Should families have to forego basic necessities to hook up to public water? It is the developer's responsibility to bear the cost of connecting every house in the areas adjacent to The Heritage to public water. And even then, there is no guarantee that a high-density development like The Heritage will not degrade the public water supply, forcing water management agencies like SCWA to dig deeper into the already sensitive Lloyd Aquifer or use other extreme measures to bring us clean drinking water. On another note, Mr. Robert Farmer, Supervisor of the Bureau of Drinking Water with the Suffolk County Health Dept. states that sewage from the Heritage property will mn into Wickham Creek and Cutehogue Harbor. As you can see, this project's impact will extend far beyond the hamlet center of Cutehogue - even the shellfish need to be worried! Studies need to be done to determine how marine life in the Peconic Estuary and Town waters is threatened by this development. Mr. Farmer also indicates that "the Town of Southold is responsible for stormwater structures and should address this issue during their planning review process." If our drinking water doesn't kill us, perhaps the new traftic generated by The Heritage will. Active retirement doesn't mean sitting in your rocking chair waiting to die; for seniors like me, it means more trips around our beautiful North Fork to visit friends, doctors, farmstands, wineries, and local businesses. Today's seniors are in their ears short-hopping more than working people. The Heritage, therefore, will generate over 300 additional cars on our roadways between residents, their visitors, and maintenance staff, and most ears will make multiple trips daily. The Highland, Crown Land, Bridle Court and Lane neighborhood consists of about 60 homes and 50 children. Currently, there are no outlets to or from our neighborhood, making it an appealing and safe place for young and old to live. The people who live here are the ones who primarily use our roads. The Heritage proposal to open and connect Spur Rd. with School House Lane and Gfiffing Street will create a bypass and shortcut for traffic from Main Road through our development. An emergency access at Bridle Lane is also proposed. In addition to the increased volume of vehicles, these proposed routes around Cutchogue' s hamlet also pose a danger, especially to residents in our neighborhood. Our right to controlled access to our own neighborhood, which we cun~nfly have, is jeopardized by this proposal. We will now be subjected to a significant influx of cars, tracks, motorcycles, emergency vehicles and their occupants wbiming by 24/7 to get to and from Crown Land and Depot Lane directly, without using Main Road. This traffic proposal not only requires huge concessions from and lack of autonomy for neighborhood residents, but it also endangers our safety. In an area without sidewalks, how will we walk or jog safely?. How will the kids ride their bikes, skateboard or play street hockey without risking their lives? The construction phase of Tbe Heritage ranges from 3 to 5 years, according to the developer. Consider the years of heavy construction vehicles plodding down our once- quiet streets in a steady stream of noise and air pollution. Consider the cars and trucks carrying out-of-town workers using this new bypass when Main Road is congested, as it usually is during the months when construction will occur. Not only will this traffic be a nuisance, it will also be hazardous. A parochial school borders the proposed development. Pedestrian traffic as the school children cross Main Road daily to use the Parish Hall will be endangered by the increase in traffic that will result from The Heritage. The Cutchogue Fire House in its current location requires entry into the heart of the congested hamlet center fi'om New Suffolk Avenue. Given these traffic scenarios of congestion and gridlock, will emergency vehicles be able to respond quickly to fire, medical and other crises? Previous traffic studies performed by Nelson and Pope and reviewed by Dunn Engineering were incomplete, inconclusive, and just plain wrong! Claim.q that only "locals" would utilize the new bypass of Main Road if Spur Road is opened are ludicrous. If you were trying to drive through Cutchogue in last Saturday's traffic, you would have seen everyone using a shortcut to avoid Main Road if one existed. The Chairman of the Southold Transportation Commission reserved the right to call for an additional traffic study in a letter dated July 30, 2007. The Southold Town Board recently called for an independent traffic study, to be paid for by the developer. I request that you, the Planning Board, formally authorize the Town Board to initiate a new, independent traffic study. Let our roads, Spur and Bridle, be "the marls NOT taken." On these two issues - water and traffic - the residents of my neighborhood are being asked to make huge concessions in their rights as individual property owners so that Mr. Rimland can exercise his "right" to develop The Heritage. Sincerely, Barbara McAdam Stephen M. Jones Chief Executive Officer Ms. Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairperson Planning Board Office Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY Administrative Offices: 4060 Sunrise Highway, Oakdale, New York 11769-0901 (631) 563-0219 Fax (631) 563~0370 < :'~ :~ December 12, 2006 ~- ~,- The Heritage at Cutchogue, SCTM# 1000-102-i-~3--~''''''''~ ..... ' SEQRA Dear Ms. Woodhouse: I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the EAF application for the above referenced project. , The SCWA offers the following comments as it pertains to the proposed application. As you know, the SCWA's mission is to provide quality drinking water at an affordable price to all ofourresidents. Implementing environmentally friendlypesticide practices and conserving our water supply todayis integral in assuring that we have adequate quality water for generations to come. This particularlyholds tree for the Town ofSouthold wherb water supply is limited and there is a large impact to shallow aquifers. The SCWA strongly urges that the Town of Southold impose conditions on this project ~x requiring the use of low flow plumbing fixtures in accordance with the latest codes, permitting the irrigation of only 15% of the area of any single lot (automatic irrigation systems may pose pressure problems in this project area) and also adopting methods to reduce the potential of degraded water from recharging to the aquifer. Page Two December 12, 2006 These recommendations are consistent with the SCWA's Water Supply Plan for the Town of Southold and should be conditions memorialized in the form of Covenants and Restrictions recorded with the Suffolk County Clerk. The SCWA wilt not issue a letter o f water availability for this project until such time as the Town of Southold has reviewed and apl~oved this project in accordance with the Town ofSouthold's planning and development requirements and the SCWA's Water Supply Plan for the Town of Southold. Additional information on this application may be sent to Kimberly Kennedy at 4060 Sunrise Highway, Oakdale, NY 11769 Thank you. SMJ/kk If the Suffotk County W~ter thority has its way, a well in Eas~ Northport will soon tap into the Lloyd Aquifer, which lies 1,500 feet below the City of Long Beach The Suffolk water authority ap- pbed in 2003 for an exemption trader the existing Lloyd Aquifer statute to activate a test well at Middlevllie Road that wa~ built the previous year. The well, 845 feet deep, wouicl pump 300 galloas a minute, tapl~ng ~to. the. aqutter and bl~,e[d_ mS its resn water with Nerthport s supply, which ts very high in nitrates. A com- ~ village has al. raedy tried other means of lowering the nitratelevel. A 20-year moratorium has pre- vented noncoastal communities like East Northport from tapping inte~the aquiger. But after the application by the Suffolk water authority, Adminis- trative Sudge Maria Villa of the De- partment of Environmental Conser- vation called for the moratorium to be lifted because the Northpoix appli- cation showed "just cause and treme hardship.- Long Beach resi. dents and officials, however, are con- corned about possible overuse of the reservoi~ A letter containing ~00 sig. ~aturee was recently sent to Gov. Et- · or. Spitzer, asserting that the new well .won~d set a precedent that WOUld alinwa~y potlute~ water ~,~p- Ed Eaton, ~ Long Be~c~h cityman. ..ager, n~in~l!a~ the Lie~l Aq~er i~ me city s sOle set~rce(ff water. "~ar{ the-aquifer sustain ~ther well? is this the thin edge of the wedge? are asking a lot oi que~tiorls, bat we don't have ~he answers." Mr. Jones Said that the well would not run at full caPaCiiy_and that the Northport well was so far from Long Beach that it would not have an im- pact on Nassau County's portion of the aquifer. There are now 41 wells in Nassau County pumping water from the aquifer, Mr, Jones said, compared with 5in Suffolk. Maureee Wren, a spokeswoman for the State D.E.C., sa/d that nodate had been set for a final decision on the application, winch will be made by the agency's commissioner, Alex- ander Orarmls. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES COUNTY OFSUFFOLK STEVE LEVY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE Humayun J. Chaudhry, D.O., M.S. July 24, 2007 Ms. Barbara McAdam 800 Crown Land Lane Cutchogue NY 11935 Subject: Heritage at Cutchogue S.C.T.M. No.: 1000-102-001-033.003 H.D. Ref. No.: Ct0-06-0013 Dear. Ms. McAdam: We have received your letter dated July 17, 2007 expressing your concerns regarding private wells in the area of the proposed development, Heritage at Cutchogue, consisting of 139-PRC (Planned Retirement Community) units and other buildings on a 46.17-acre parcel using on site septic systems with leaching pools for the sewage disposal systems. The Cutchogue area is located in Hydrogeologic Zone IV which allows the equivalent of 300-g.p.d. (gallons per day) of sewage for each 20,000 square feet of developable area for new homes with public water. In general, the developable area is calculated at 75% of the total area unless a yield map is provided that would allocate a higher percentage of yield. In the case of Heritage at Cutchogue the 75% yield was used. Since 1988 the Suffolk County Department of Health Service's (SCDHS's) design sewage flow rate has been t 50 g.p.d: per unit .for PRC units. Therefore, the 139-PRC units plus other accessory buildings for this project fall within the allowable sewage density calculation for a 46.17-acre site. In developments where a large volume of sewage flow is proposed, such as Heritage at Cutchogue, a separate site review is performed by the SCDHS's Bureau of Drinking Water to evaluate the potential effects on both private and public wat~ supply wells in the areas downgradient from the proposed sewage to be discharged. The developer for this project is proposing to install approximately 10,000 feet of new water main for the Suffolk County Water Authority for this project for areas both inside and outside of the development. The sewage generated from this area will move southeasterly, which is the direction of groundwater flow, towards Wickham Creek and Cutchogue Harbor. Based upon the known direction of groundwater flow and the areas where private wells are located, a review will be undertaken by PHONE (631) 852-5810 e F~X (631) 852-5787 the Bureau of Drinking Water to identify areas with private wells that may have their water quality impacted from this project. This information will be presented to the project developer. Project approval is contingent upon public water being made available to private well owners that could potentially have their water quality impacted. Additionally, the "['own of Southold has issued a positive declaration pursuant to the SEQRA process; whereby, the sewage/water issue along with other criteria may be addressed. The Town o1' Southold, the lead agency, may als{) impose conditions on this development through this process. The Town of Southold is responsible for stormwater structures and should 'address this--[ issue during their planning building departments review process. The Town of Southold and the Suflbtk County Water Authority should work together on a public water supply priorities map to ensure water supply continues to be provided to areas deemed appropriate in town planning objectives. As this project moves along it may be appropriate to consider the streets with private wells mentioned in your letter as candidates for public water main extensions. If you have any questions please contact by office at telephone number (631 ) 852-5779. Sincerely yours, Robert J. Farmer, P.E. Associate Public Health Engineer Supervisor, Bureau of Drinking Water 800 Crown Land Lane Cutehogue, NY 11935 Aug. 8, 2007 Ms. Jeff Woodhouse, Chairperson Southold Town Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 RE: The Heritage/Independent Traffic Study Dear Ms. Woodhouse: Recently, the Southold Town Board discussed the impact on traffic that The Heritage at Cutchogue development might generate. During discussion, several members ~ that an independent traffic study should be initiated by Southold Town and paid for by the developer. It is my understanding that the Town Board needs a formal request by the Southold Town Plznning Board to ena~ such an initiative. Therefore, I am urging that the Planning Board formally request this independent traffic study of the Town Board. Thank you for your attention to this request. Sincerely, Barbara McAdam BARBARA DIACHUN 875 School House Road P.O. Box 296 Cutchogue, New York 11935 Supervisor Scott A. Russell Town of Southold P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Russell: I am writing to you in regard to--~-~--~-~Y~t~ge ac cu My family has resided on School~HoO. se~.Road~,2u~chogu,e_~¢,N~w~ York for over 40 years. School House Roa~ ~s a s~de road ~n a residential area designed for a small amount of traffic. ~chogue. This road is widely used by the neighborhood and many other people in the area, including children, to walk, jog and ride bicycles. There are children who use our road to go to the playing fields and the school nearby. Traffic increases a great deal during the daytime especially during the week because of the Post Office and as a way for trucks and cars to go from Depot Lane to the Main Road to avoid Cutchogue Village. The corner of School House Road and Griffing Street, where the access road for this project is under consideration, is an area with little room for two cars to go by each other. There is no shoulder on this road for people to use. As it exists now, caution has to be used as you go around this corner. Any large increase in traffic in this area would make it even more difficult and dangerous. A project like The Heritage at Cutchogue would greatly affect the quality of our neighborhood. Cutchogue has always been a town that has never been overly developed and has been able to keep its small town beauty. We ask you to take into consideration the impact this project would have on our neighborhood and town. Thank you for your consideration. ~cc. Southold Town Planning Board Very truly yours, Barbara Diachun 800 Crown Land Lane Cutchogue, NY 11935 July 16, 2007 Jeri Woodhouse, Chairperson Southold Town Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Ms. Woodhouse: I want to thank you and the members of the Planning Board and Planning Dept. for your indulgence in allowing me to speak at today's special meeting on The Heritage. I hope that my comments, which reflect the views of countless Southold residents, will help this process to unfold in the way that George Solomon described: "to balance the fights of the applicant with those of the current residents adjacent to The Heritage." Thank you for your patience. This process has been a tree learning experience for my neighbors and I. We will see you next Monday! S0uth01~ lo~n 2~.2 ] Sincerely, Barbara McAdam 800 Crown Land Lane Cutchogue, NY 11935 July 16, 2007 Jeff Woodhouse, Chairperson Southold Town Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Members of the Planning Board: My neighbors and I are here today to underscore the ways in which the proposed development of The Heritage at Cutchogue, the largest multi-unit housing development in Southold's history, will impact us as residents and property owners in Cutchogue. Health - · We do not have public water, we have private wells. How will 139 cesspools in such high density as 4 per acre affect the quality of our well water? · How will an over-55 community affect our water quality? Recent studies have indicated that some prescription medications - many of which are used by seniors - do not break down and enter the water supply in high potency. · Further hydrological studies are needed to answer these concerns. Traffic - An emergency access route into Highland Rd. through Bridle Lane will diminish the safety and lifestyle of this neighborhood with emergency vehicles and traffic which we do not currently experience. · The addition of over 320 vehicles making an unknown number of trips per day dumping through the center of Cutehogue's already busy hamlet on Main Road - Coupled with tourist season and local events, the hamlet center will become impassable. · Construction traffic - perhaps lasting for years - will be a ha~'ard and nuisance with increased noise, exhaust and number of vehicles in an already busy hamlet center. How will this traffic enter the construction site? · Parochial school borders the development. School buses and pedestrian traffic ( especially school children crossing Main Road to use accessory building several times daily without a crossing guard). Safety is jeopardized. · Cutchoguc Fire house - its location requires entry into the heart of the congested hamlet center from New Suffolk Ave. Given these traffic scenarios, will emergency vehicles be able to respond quickly to fire, medical and other crises? · Under normal circumstances, traffic is a problem, especially when trying to make left tums out of our neighborhoods. A development of this size will worsen the traffic issue for everyone - residents, visitors, tourists, drivers and pedestrians alike. · Adding a Waffle light at Depot Lane will back up traffic in the hamlet center even more than it is now. · Additional independent traffic studies pertinent to this specific area need to be done. Economic impact- · New high-density development in such close proximity to established neighborhoods lowers our property values - specifically Highland Rd., Schoolhouse Rd., Evergreen and Depot Lane. · Taxes - As an over-55 community, the tax rate is one-third the rote of other new single-home development. The theory is that seniors will not be sending children to local schools; therefore, they should receive a tax break. What about all of the over-55 homeowners in Southold who never sent children to school here? Aren't we also entitled to a tax break? · School budgets- Will these over-55 seniors who reside at The Heritage and do not pay school taxes support the annual school budget, defeat it, or even be allowed a vote? It is said that our towns are only as good as our schools. Both may be jeopardized. Rural Character - · Development of this type and scope does not fit the hamlet of Cutehogue.; "suburban sprawl" is contrary to the quaintness of the North Fork. · Quiet, enclosed neighborhoods are now subject to noise, emergency traffic and increased traffic in general. · Hamlet center will become a hazardous place for drivers and pedestrians alike, especially in the vicinity of the Post Office on Griffmg, · Increased traffic - 322 vehicles proposed for the residents and maintenance crew of The Heritage- will bring an end to "driving through" the hamlet center and result in gridlock, causing increased noise, exhaust, lengthened travel time, inconvenience and aggravation. · Southold Town needs to develop a unified Master Plan to balance future development with land preservation, tourism and the quality of life for current Southold Town residents. We envision the impact of this proposed development to be severe for a multitude of reasons that ultimately diminish our quality of life. We hope that you will consider these factors along with other detriments in future detemfinations on the fate of this project. ~b~ McAdam Semon, Bruno From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Semon, Bruno Friday, July 13, 2007 8:51 AM 'Kelly Burke Evers' Trezza, Anthony FW: Stakeholders meeting & Traffic stakeholders- Semon.doc stakeholders- ~emon.doc (25 KB..~ ,, ~.~ ~ FlellO l~elly, Thank you for the information, I will send this to the Planning Board, Mark Terry and Anthony Trezza. Please be advised that Anthony Trezza a Senior Planner is the contact on the Mattituck Stake Holders at the Planning Department. Anthony can be contacted at 631-765-1938 x 5021. Thanks Bruno ..... Original Message ..... From: Kelly Burke Evers [mailto:megtrev~hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 7:41 AM To: Semon, Bruno Subject: Stakeholders meeting & Traffic Semon, Bruno From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Kelly Burke Evers [megtrev@hotmail.com] Friday, July 13, 2007 7:41 AM Semon, Bruno Stakeholders meeting & Traffic stakeholders- Semon.doc stakeholders- ~emon.doc (25 KB.., Julyl3,2007 Bruno Semon Southold Town Hall 54375 State Rt. 25 Southold, New York 1197 Deal' ML Semon, I am writing this letter to you in response to the July 2, 2007 Stakeholders holders meeting with the planning board. One important issue discussed with the planning board was traffic in Cutchogue Town. At this meeting the Stakeholders shared their suggestions of how to address this issue. It was suggested by some that because the busy toxvn traffic and the dangers imposed by the Hampton Jitney buses, bus traffic and other town traffic should be rerouted down Griffing Road to Schoolhouse Road to Depot Lane and back to Mafia Road. Not only is this suggestion absurd, it is also extremely dangerous. Schoolhouse Road is a small quiet residential street. It does not have curbs, sidewalks, crosswalks, and traffic lights. These are the requirements to safely accommodate commercial or busy local traffic. The bus runs begin through Cutchogue at 5:00 a.m. and continue through 10:45 p.m., with a total on 19 stops through Cutchogue. The traffic from these buses would generate noise pollution and a severe safety hazard for all the streets involved. Reroutmg any traffic from Main Road to Schoolhouse Road would severely and negatively impact the quality lives of the residents of Schoolhouse Road. Schoolhouse Road was not designed to be an alternate to Main Road. If the traffic is too dangerous and busy for Main Road, let me assure you it is certainly too busy for a small, quiet, residenfial street such as Schoolhouse Road. A Street with only ten houses filled with children, senior citizens, public employees, hardworking taxpayers, and loving families. As a mother of four children I implore you to keep the families of Schoolhouse Road safe from the dangers of adding any more traffic to an increasingly busy neighborhood. Sincerely yours, Kelly Burke Evers 725 Schoolhouse Road Southold Town Planning Board Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chair Kenneth L. Edwards Martin H. Sidor George D. Solomon Joseph L. Townsend PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Charles & Jean Zahra PO Box 751 395 Schoolhouse Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 July 10, 2007 Re T_he Heritage at Cutchogue - SCTM# !000-102- !-33~3 Gentlemen: We are the adjoining property owners to the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue. We have conducted our business, a Recreational Vehicle Park, in the Hamlet of Cutchogue for some 30 plus years. One of the main reasons we have had a successful business all these years is that the residents of our Park love the peace and quiet of the country that our Town has to offer them. We have reviewed the site plan and have noticed that the property adjoining our business will be developed with a parking lot and maintenance buildings, with little regard to the lack of tree buffer, and thus taking away one of the most important aspects of our business. While we are not in opposition to the proposed project, we are requesting that you revisit the issue of the possibility of leaving the existing buffer of trees bordering our property and take into consideration the relocation of the maintenance garage. Very truly yours~ Charles & Jean Z~ihra RAPUANO 1140 Crown Land Lane Cutchogue, N.Y. 11935 Suly 5, 2007 Env,ronmeet~fl~Jenne~ ~ Mr. Mark Terry, Senior ' ~ ......... Ms. Amy Ford, Senior Planner ~ Planning Board Town of 5outhold P.O. Box 1179 Seuthold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mark and Amy, I apologize for the lateness of this t~66k~'i Barbara McAdam and myself appreciate the time and attention you gave us at the meeting with Town Supervisor, Scott Russell. The explanation of procedures and protocols gave us an understanding of just how things work through the Town and how lengthy some projects may be. Your knowledge is so apparent os well as your fair and impartial attitude. It is very comforting when we the residents know we have a huge battle to look forward to. Thanks you so very much for the ~ob you both are doing and thank you on behalf of the neighborhood for the meeting. Yery truly yours, ,Tulie Rapuano Barbara McAdam Mt. Bruno Semon Southold Town H~ 54375 State Rt. 25 Southold, New York 1197 I am writing this letter to you in regards to the proposed Heritage Condominiums and my strong opposition to th:is development. There are many reasons why this project should not be built in this neighborhood, but my biggest concerns are traffic and safety. I am a mother of four who lives on Schoolhouse Road in Cutchogue. The intended entrance to this development is located a few feet from my front door. This is the only entrance that all traffic will enter and leave through for all 139 condo un:its. With todays busy lifestyles most families, even 55 and older, have 2 cars and make many trips daily. ~xis would create a traffic nightmare for the residence of Schoolhouse Road. The Heritage project would jeopardize the safety of my family. I did not choose to buy a house on a busy and dangerous road, but this development would create this situation for my family and my neighbors. The residents of Schoolhouse Road are hardworking, taxpaying, honest people who take pride in their homes and do not deserve to have their quality of lives so grossly and negatively affected by this project. I recently attended an unofficial meeting for some of residents of the surrounding neighborhoods to inform them of procedure of the planning board. It was at this time that I was informed that a decision to close off other proposed entrances and exits to traffic in the surrounding neighborhoods for the safety of the children in those areas was made. I applaud the effort to keep the children of Cutchogue safe from excessive and dangerous traffic situations. However, in closing off other entrances, this development would now have an even greater safety risk to my four children. As a member of the Planning Board, you owe it to all the residents, both young and old, to protect them in the same manner. Although I strongly believe that this development should not be built in Cutch0~t~e,~ffie only.w~y to keep the residents of Schoolhouse Road safe from dangerous traffic situ~9.ns4s to"~10~i~e the entrance od to Depot Lane, a road more suited for this type of traffic 'or~fi~k~ '~S'~'~o~olhouse Roa.d. a_. dead-em:L-~ing all development traffic on to Griffin Ave which is zoned commercially. Sincerely yours,' ;', Kelly Burke Evers Semon, Bruno From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Kelly Burke Evers [megtrev@hotmail.com] Sunday, July 01, 2007 11:49 PM Semon, Bruno [NEWSENDER] - The Hertage - Message is from an unknown sender project heritage-planning board Semon.doc project ritage-planning boal 800 Crown Land Lane Cutchogue, NY 11935 June 18, 2007 Ms. Jeri Woodhouse, Chairperson Southold Town Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 RE: Heritage at Cutchogue Dear Ms. Woodhouse: Please read this letter into the minutes of the Planning Board's next meeting. The areas encompassing Highland Road, Bridle Lane, Bridle Court, Crown Land Lane and Evergreen Estates obtain potable water from private wells. There are other homes along Depot Lane and Schoolhouse Lane which, to the best of my knowledge, also have private wells. It is my understanding that the 139 unit Heritage project will be using individual cesspool septic systems instead of a packaged sewage system. The project would also entail septic systems for additional buildings such as a clubhouse and maintenance. In addition, some sort of leaching field for storm water would be necessary. I do not believe that the scale of this project and its high density- 139 units on 47 acres - will not endanger the private well water of the aforementioned areas. Although there is a plan for SCWA to bring public water into the area, up until now, participation has been optional. The current rate to hook up to SCWA is approximately $6,000 per house, which includes the SCWA cost as well as the price of running lines from the meter to the house. For this middle-income area, $6000 is a huge nut to crack, especially for young families and retirees. If the Heritage is approved, signing up for public water is no longer an option but a necessity, since private, shallow wells are sure to be contaminated by pollutants from the Heritage. Such approval would affect over 100 homes in the immediate area of this project. If the current plan to use individual cesspools prevails and the project goes forward, it should be the Heritage developer's obligation to pay the price of bringing SCWA water to every home in the affected areas. I feel that this is a rather threatening project because the Heritage property is surrounded by private wells. For the most part, other condominium or townhouse projects in Suffolk Coumy are built in areas where public water is already available and the contamination of the water supply is not an issue. Please consider these issues as you render your decision. Cutchogue residents should not experience an imposition that proves hazardous to their health and safety. Yours truly, Barbara McAdam Cc: Joseph Townsend George Solomon Kenneth Edwards Martin Sidor Mr. Anthony Trezza Planning Board Southold Town Hall P. O. Box 1179 Southold. NY 11971 - 0959 Dear Mr. Trezza: ~ ' 18 June 2007 JUN ] 2007 J : / i I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed 'Heritage at Cutchogue' development, particularly as they relate to the SEQRA review. I have obtained a copy of the site development plans through FOIL and there are several issues to which I would like to draw your attention concerning the properLy. First, there is an area of the property where standing water exists on a seasonal basis. Water (~,20' x 20') was evident here on 21 April 2007 and while standing surface water was not present on 16 June 2007 the ground was cleady moist. Said area lies somewhat to the North and East of the midpoint of the property at N 41° 00.869' W 72° 29.478'. This area of water is clearly used by wildlife as a watering hole: there are many deer and perhaps other animal tracks here. As a professional biologist (I am a Professor of Biology at Long Island University and have a Ph.D. in Ecology) I believe that this body of water and adjacent areas may potentially represent seasonal weUands. The fact that this body of water is NOT shown on the site development plans is a serious omission. Other features of the property of ecological interest include a fair amount of vertical relief, including what looks like a shallow 'valley' that runs much of the length of the property towards the Eastern (i.e. Depot Lane) side and what appear to be a variety of ecological habitats. The latter is reflected by the variety of vegetation including bayberry, wild grape, grassland plants, ferns, wildflowers, and many species of trees. As such, the potential certainly exists that this property represents ecologically sensitive habitat and/or contains plant and animal species of ecological significance. ! urge the Planning Board to make a thorough effort to examine the diversity of ecological habitats (including potential seasonal wetlands) as well as the resident species of plants and animals that exist on said property in order to determine if this area represents ecologically sensitive habitat or contains species of special significance. ! would like to formally request that this letter be read before the Planning Board and the Town Board at the next (i.e. at the 18 June 2007) public meeting and that my letter be included in the official record. Thank you for your prompt attention to these matters. Stephen T. Tettelbach, Ph.D. 1530 Crown Land Lane Cutchogue, NY 11935 631-734-2337 Or**.. 0~~ D~ D ~,s~v ONCE ZT'$ GONE. YOU CAI~I'T GET TT BACK ~ 0~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ FOR YOUR ZNFO~A~N the pPoc~s of Peviewi~ and ~ssibly approving a ~3~ unit development on 47 acP~ Iocat~ on ~iffi~ 5t~t in the Hamlet of C~chog~, ~ to the Cutch~ue Post Office. Environmental Ass~sment Form, second ~rt, w~ submitt~ to the Planni~ ~4t~ for review. ~ don't know what info is on the fo~m but ~ do know that we are talki~ about 47 acr~ that will be d~tPoy~. We ape r~u~ti~ that a botani~ get in the~e and report J~ the~e are a~ speci~ at risk because of the Heritage pro~ect. ~e im~ct of this development for the town of Cutchogue would be severe. ~e fir~ and mo~ significant concern is t~affic. Not only through the ~ts of Highland and Crown Land but the town it.ll. ~e overc~owdi~ of r~ds in winter is a r~i~p[~lem;but ~¥'1~-~ in spH~, summe~ a~ fall would be d~dlyl Wine~i~, farm even+S~6~ai f~i'~, F~tival, Vi ~e at the 6teen events, antique shoppi~, on and on and on. We have schoo~e, pub c libra~, post office - we m~t pr~s this issue to the Planni~ B~ ' Water q~li~ is another signi~nt issue. ~is isa da~ePoumn~,t~i~/ communi~ and ~is~ qu~tio~ of water tP~tment, filt~ion ~ste~,'- ~ ~ pP~criptive mediation, chemicals, p~t~c~d~ and septm conceP~. ~S of ~ne, Highland R~d and Bridle Court addP~sed the horrible ~m~et.~'a I~ffeP to the town A la~e scale development is cl~Hy out of character with C~ch~ue's hi~oric ~he~ co~ideP~tio~ are noise; incP~s~d ~po~ibilities on our ~ office, fire de~ment, police detriment; garbage, re~cli~, odor and app~nce. Planni~ m~ti~s~ eve~ week and ~ be attended by all. Once a month the Planni~ Board h~ a public m~ti~. ~is is a ~Hici~to~ m~ti~ so if the Heritage is on the agenda, we the p~ple can ~k qu~tions and ~ke comments. A~endance at these m~ti~s ~k~ statement by us to the board so if you can attend, any on~ at any time, pl~e do. ~. AND ~05T ~ORTA~, ~S ~O~U~A~. Write to the Planni~ B~Pd voici~ your Concer~. ~t them know how you f~l, the im~ct on your w~ of life, on safe~, the environment, wildlife, children and seniors. Remember, once it is gone we cannot get it back. We must fight for p~ese~ation with all we have. Mark Terry Southold Town Planning Department 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Terry: ~Ero~ Land Lane Cutqhogue, NY 11935 I think we all agree that the North Fork is a unique place to live, and Cutchogue is one of the jewels in its crown of appeal. Have we learned no lessons from the rest of Long Island about the urgency of preserving what little rural character we have left here? We are a tourist destination and we are tiny. We all know that our population doubles during the summer, particularly on weekends. Just try to drive anywhere near Main Road. Making a left turn onto Main Road is nearly impossible: the shoppers at the many local farm stands and wineries, travelers to Greenport as a destination, or a fair or festival on Cutchogue's Village Green make most roads impassable. So now the Town of Southold wants to exacerbate the problem by adding 139 units of condominiums smack in the center of Cutchogue! If we consider two cars per unit along with the vehicles that will be driven by staffto maintain the complex, an additional 300 ears will become part of the already existent gridlock on a daily basis. One "brainstorm" to funnel traffic away from Cutchogue's hamlet center at Main Road is to cut two access points from Bridle Court and Spur Road onto Highland Road, thus dumping a constant caravan of vehicles into an established residential area of 60 homes. This might seem wise from a planner's perspective on paper; for already existing neighborhoods this will be catastrophic. Let's look at the human factor. Fifty children of all ages live and play here. Imagine how that will change: a steady flow of cars, trucks, motorcycles and their occupants whizzing by all day long where once only residents of this neighborhood drove. Let's face it - everyone driving through this part of Cutchogue will be using the new "shortcut" that will take them all the way to Depot Lane heading eastward and onto Main Road at Crown Land Lane heading west. Residents of Griffing Street, Depot Lane and Schoolhouse Lane will also be directly impacted. And since shortcuts are meant to save time, how fast will these cars be going? Also consider the construction phase of this project: the years of heavy construction vehicles plodding down our slxeets in a steady stream of noise and air pollution. Health and safety spell quality of life! By itself, the traffic issue is a clear signal that this type of development is all wrong, not only for Cutchogue, but for the whole area we so cherish. None of us moved here in the hope that we would become another Miracle Mile, Sunrise or Nesconset Highway, Route 109 or Ronte 58 - all shining examples of suburban blight that results from lack of vision and a Master Plan. Let's not become like the good people of Orient - embroiled in a series of lawsuits and controversy because no one was planning over a decade ago for the ferry traffic fiasco. Our North Fork neighbors can instruct us well; let's use our heads as planners and good stewards of the land. Reject this condo project. Don't let Cntchogue suffer for Southold's lack of a Master Plan. Sincerely, ~arbam McAdam TO: PLANN'rNG BOARD Monday,~y 14, 2007 FROM: SUBZECT: MEMBERS Julia Ropuono 1140 Crown Land Lane Cutchogue THE HEI:U:TAGE - HAMLET OF CUTCHOGUE WHAT'5 GOOD? NOTHINGI .... ~ .,,-~ Are the PROPOSED condo's moving forward or does it just appear that way. Zt's so upsetting to see the destruction of land that is full of what? We are talking about 47 acres! Has anyone with knowledge like a botanist actually been in the field of trees (comment by Mr. Trezza, Suffolk Times, April ~.gth 2007) to do a report, to the powers that be, of our numerous concerns beside traffic! I am sure the neighborhood of Crown Land and Highland would rather look at trees, wildlife and even weeds than homes on quarter acre zoning. And this same neighborhood does not wont 5put Road and Bridle Court opened at o11! Emergency or otherwise. Mrs. Barbara McAdam brought this issue to the table via Letter to the Editor, Suffolk Times, ,Tanuory 18, 2007. The in-depth explanation of impact on our town is clear and detailed and should be read by o11. WATER - The residents of Crown Land Lone, Highland Road and Bridle Court addressed the water issue and outlined the horrible impact in a letter to Scott Russell in March 2007. Mrs. Lisa Tettelboch reported about the severity of the problem a second time in her letter to the Editor and published in the Suffolk Times April 26, 2007. This also should be read by oil. '~" DENSTTY - A c ent was mode at a private meeti here it is: This will be an over 55 community. Most of the people that will live here will winter some place else. Now, this is not a quote but the context is accurate. I om still laughing because who cares about winter? ]~t is summer that's the problem. I:urther, the winter furlough is maybe 3 - 4 months. $o here is the scenario: our chi{dren are home from school, our local weekenders ore living full swing, and there is not a rental to be had. We now hove more homes filled with residents (if they get sold - please look at the current market) that will cause the traffic to quadruple, further pollute our beaches, clog the sewers, add to our water quality issues and what about the additional chemicals and pesticides for lawn maintenance. Try to exit Crown Land Lone now! When there Js a festival or fair forget about leaving home. There are times now when ]~ cannot get to Riverhead is less than an hour. Heaven forbid we need to access a hospital - better coil 911. Money is not everything - to us anyway. ]~t is more important to maintain a quality of life that is fading. Our children, our seniors, our pets, wildlife, and vegetation - oil contribute to our life on this planet. Tf we destroy the little we hove left we will eventually destroy ourselves. ELAINE & NORMAN S. SYRKIN 660 SCHOOLHOUSE ROAD P.O. BOX 391 CUTCHOGUE, NY, 11935 Mr. Anthony P. Trezza ~-~ Senior Planner, Town of Southold ,'~,\, } Southold Town Hall Annex · ~ ,--~ .,, P.O. Box 1179 '~ Southold, NY 11971-0959 ~' Dear Mr. Trezza, My husband and I are senior citizens and articled with the consequences of a 150 unit development adjacent to our small comm~drdty on Schoolhouse Road. We are unaware of the present traffic plan and would like to know what effect this would have on our quiet block. Our concern, along with our neighbors, is that we would now be a major thoroughfare from either Depot Lane or Route 25. The family across the street has four children, including twin boys whom are under 4 years old. I plan to attend the Planning Board meeting on Monday, May 7th in hopes that there would not be major encroachment on our two block community I must add that when there is an accident in town on Route 25, we are used as a major thoroughfare until the accident clears. This has happened many times and the traffic is horrendous. Please consider this in your traffic planning. Sincerely, ~/Y January 28, 2008 Supervisor Scott A. Russell Town of Southold PO Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 2007 Dear Supervisor Russell: In recent weeks, it has been brought to our attention that a parcel of land adjacent to our neighborhood is currently under consideration for development ("The Heritage at Cutchogue"). According to our information, the Developer wishes to gain approval for the placement of a 139-unit development consisting of a mixture of"affordable" and "senior" (55+) condominium-style housing units on this 47-acre parcel, a private venture for the sole purpose of development-for-profit. It is also our understanding that this parcel falls under the guidelines of quarter-acre residential zoning, with egress points connecting to our quiet, family-oriented and child-dense (nearly 50 children reside here) neighborhood. As you can well imagine, the prospect of developing this parcel according to the above guidelines has become a cause of sudden and great concern for the residents of our neighborhood, most notably in terms of impact not only to our community, but also with regard to the impact upon the character of the ' Hamlet of Cntchogue as well. While we are aware that we, by law, have no specific right to demand that this development not take place, as it is within the legal right of the parcel's owner and developer to make use of the land as permitted, we are nevertheless contacting you in the hopes that our concerns will be addressed, and remedial actions explored to the satisfaction of both parties in these, the early-stages of this proposed development. Many of our concerns appear to be in-line with the proposed development's adherence to the provisions of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), which imposes a procedure for considering environmental impacts, including those the public urges is considered. According to our research, if the decision-making body fails to address the impacts it has been notified about in writing, then the procedure has been violated and can be challenged in court. According to SEQRA, environmental impacts which must be considered by the decision-making body include "the physical conditions which will be affected by a proposed action, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise, objects of historic or aesthetic significance, existing t~atterns of population concentration, distribution, or growth, and existing community or neighborhood character." ECL §8-0105 [6]. All of those areas are considered 'environmental impacts', and the aforementioned .definition encompasses three distinct areas: (1) physical impacts, (2) impacts on population patterns and (3) ~mpacts on community character. SEQRA also requires a review of impacts related to the proposed activity, even if they are likely to occur only after the proposed activity is completed, and even if they are indirect. These include cumulative impacts, that is, impacts that add to those already caused by other related activities. Also included in the environmental review are long-term impacts that will occur if one development is likely to lead to another. In that case, the combined impacts of all related developments must be reviewed. See Part 617.7(c). It is these areas that we would like to call to you attention to, in brief, for consideration. In addition, given our time constraints and our desire to move quickly in addressing oar concerns, please consider this a preliminary document that may be modified later. Overview: The Highland Road/Crown Land Lane neighborhood is a quiet, family-oriented community with no thru-traffic accessed only by its residents and, on occasion, by maintenance or delivery-type vehicles. With nearly 50 children under the age of eighteen residing here, the street is ofien populated by these children at play, as well as by parents walking to town with their children in strollers. As a rule, we ate careful about the way in which we drive here, and in many cases purchased property here specifically because of the neighborhood's safety and family appeal. Page 2 of 9 Traffic: According to our information, the proposed development plans to access the Highland/Crown Land area from both Spur Road and Bridle Lane, with potential egresses at the midway point and end of the eastern side of Highland Road. As a neighborhood, we feel that unrestricted access to a population-dense development from what is currently a quiet residential street would have a significant, and disastrous, impact upon the character of the community, especially in terms of child-safety. Additionally as there are no sidewalks in our neighborhood, we have no choice but to use out streets for pedestrian traffic, pet walking and recreation for both adults and children, The direct and open vehicular linking of our neighborhood to a small, residentially dense area would increase the traffic on oar street tremendously, in terms of not only the vehicles of the residents themselves, but also just as importantly, the high number of maintenance and support vehicles that would service such a development on an ongoing and year-round basis. Moreover, it is not unreasonable to foresee such a link quickly serving as a secondary conduit which would be used, in increasing numbers over time, by residents and non-residents alike in order to circumvent the village area during busy times of the year, much in the way roads north of Route 58 in Riverhead are now used to get around the busier main intersections. In other words, the traffic impact should be considered not only in terms of the addition of 139 additional residences, but in a larger sense carrying with it a larger exponential impact. In short, we feel that such a proposed open linkage would compromise both the safety of our children and the aesthetic character of both oar neighborhood and the Hamlet of Cutchogue as a whole. We understand that emergency access points for such a dense residential area may well be a necessity and, taking a page from the solution implemented at Laurel Links, would be open to considering access via "crash barriers," so that no one's safety is at risk during an emergency. This potential solution in large part would preserve the character and safety ofonr neighborhood, as it exists today, and would have the added benefit of channeling traffic toward the retail and commercial areas of Cutchogne via the proposed main gatehouse on Griffin Street, which would be of benefit to our local shopkeepers. Further, we feel that if necessary, an additional emergency egress could be developed with an outlet onto Depot Lane, logically a better solution as it is a North/South road connecting the North Fork's two main arteries, and is already heavily trafficked. Again, we would be open to any additional solutions that you might propose. Water Quality Issues: As this area was formerly agricultural in nature, many of the residents of the Highland/Crown Land neighborhood have made the investment in private water-treatment and filtration systems in order to protect oar families fi.om the various chemicals and pesticides once used on these lands. The proposed development raises concerns in this area as well. One of the most slriking discoveries we have made during the course ofonr initial research, is that prescriptive medications, especially - but not limited to - lipid-based treatments (such as Lipitor), are not removed from the groundwater by any current filtration methods, and remain a health-risk for a long period. With the proposed development, being restricted to senior (55+) individuals; it is inevitable that the concentration oftbese toxins in our groundwater will rise considerably, via either innocent disposal or excretion. Having spoken with experts, including Dr. Bronawell of Stony Brook University, concerning groundwater toxicity issues, we have learned that there is an increased risk of nitrate toxicity with the placement of high-density development, a danger magnified by the property in questions past agricultural usage. This type of toxicity is known to be especially dangerous to pregnant women and young children, which our neighborhood has in considerable numbers. In addition, given the density oftbe proposed development, there is concern regarding the ability oftbe natural water cycle to penetrate the ground effectively in order to recharge and dilute accumulated toxins within the aquifer. We still do not have public water, and some of our residents have chosen not to participate in the opportunity to gain access to the proposed public water lines. Again, for the safety of our families, we feel that this is a point requiring considerable further research. Regarding chemicals and pesticides necessary to maintain the appearance and grounds of the proposed development, we would like to know if an Integrated Pest Management Plan (like those used by golf coarsas and other private gated communities) has been proposed, is considered or approved. We Page 3 of 9 realize that this is not a New York State requirement, but that it is strongly recommended by both the DEC and EPA. Please advise us if this has been considered. There am septic concerns as well, and we would like to be made aware of the proposed placement of septic systems, especially in terms of their proximity to the residential wells at the eastern edge of the Highland homeowner's properties. We do know that there are laws in place that define a specific safe distance, depending on well depth and placement, and once again would appreciate more information on terms of septic placement and its impact on our community. Density: While more of an aesthetic issue, the issue of a high-density residential area placed squarely in the midst of a quaint, historic community is one which should at least be made mention of. Again, while we understand that we have no legal recourse in terms of demanding that fewer than 13 9 units be approved, we do ask that you consider the network of impacts that such a sudden, high-density development would have in terms of the overall guidelines delineated in the SEQRA requirements. Moreover, we ask whether the Town feels in good conscience whether this development, in its current form, serves the greater interest of the North Fork community. Citing the Town of $outhold Hamlet Study, we feel that this development in many ways incongruent with the study's findings. Please bear in mind the following excerpts from that study as you consider the impact of the proposed development: · "Cutchogue's Hamlet Center...retains a distinct, small-scale intimate character." · "Cutchogue's historic character is also a vital aspect of the area's 'sense of place' and should be reinforced." · "Larger scale commercial development is clearly inconsistent with the Hamlet Center's character. .Large scale, in this context, not only refers to the square footage of a given facility, but also to the mtensity of use, the volume of traffic generated, the nature of the intended market... {and} the extent of site improvements, like off-street parking lots or sewage disposal systems, etc." · "Preserve the small scale nature of the Hamlet Center as the focus of community life." · "Cutchogue's commercial activity must be characteristic of, and take place within a small scale context that is in keeping with the Hamlet's traditional setting." Other Concerns, Issues and Requests: The following are a few other salient points that have arisen over the course of our neighborhood meetings which we would like to bring to your attention for consideration: · It is our understanding that the proposed development is to take place in stages. Given the increased noise and traffic associated with construction projects of this magnitude, we would like to know if an 'end-date' has been established within the parameters of the project's timeframe. · Given the nature of real estate development for investment purposes, it is possible that the developer will not be financially successful in his efforts to build and sell all of these properties in a timely manner, thus leading to the possibility of bankruptcy, the cessation of further development, etc. Given this possible scenario, would it be possible to have the fa'st wave of units built at the northernmost and/or easternmost edge of the parcel, thus minimizing impact to the Highland Road & Crown Land Lane neighborhood in the event of failure? · While a buffer zone or green-space has been proposed, we would appreciate serious consideration of the placement ora landscaped berm between the westernmost area of the development and our neighborhood. This would benefit both parties, as the development residents would not be subjected to the noise of childran at play, and would provide an aesthetic benefit that may slightly diminish the detrimental impact the proposed development will have on property values in the Highland/Crown Land neighborhood. · Additionally, we would like to increase the proposed setback of the development substantially, as Page 4 of 9 it appears on the plans that we have seen to place residential structures very near to the property lines of Highland Road homeowners. · We would like to know whether the plans incorporate any deviations fi.om the senior (55+) residency requirements, specifically whether there are built-in stipulations allowing for a percentage of sub-senior residents now or at any time in the future? · It is oar understanding that a traffic study was completed in connection with the proposed development. It is also oar understanding that this study concentrated on main roads, and took neither Highland Road nor Crown Land Lane into account. We would appreciate information of when the study took place, what criteria were used, and what conclusion drawn. Additionally, if a specific environmental impact study has been undertaken, we would appreciate information on those findings as well. Again, we would like to thank you for taking our thoughts and concerns under consideration. We appreciate the opportunity to open a dialogue in the hopes of finding amicable solutions to these issues - a considerably favorable alternative to the resolution of this matter through administrative relief. As this is a community effort, we have attached a signature sheet to this document. Sincerely, Th~ Concerned Residents of Highland Road & Crown Land Lane, Cutchogue, New York (Signatures Attached) CC: Members of Southold Town Board Members of Southold Town Planning Board Concerned Residents of lfighland Road Crown Land Lane, Cutchogue, NY January 28, 2007 Print Name Street Address Signature Concerned Residents of Highland Road Crown Land Lane, Cutchogue, NY January 28, 2007 Print Name Street Address Signature ~ ,, ?~. ~ -~1 '~- - -' ~ '- ~,~:';,-~",.,,"b' - Concerned Residents of Highland Road Crown Land Lane, Cutchogue, NY January28,2007 Print Name Street Address Signature Concerned Residents of Highland Road Crown Land Lane, Cutchogne, NY January 28, 2007 Print Name Street Address Signature Concerned Residents of Highland Road Crown Land Lane, Cutchogue, NY January 28, 2007 Print Name Street Address Signature / ×~ -,/